Council tax rises get go-ahead
Discussion
The Government have, as I am sure most people are aware, given the green light to Council's to raise their Council tax by a maximum of 2%. Presume that this will be from April 2016. Government decree that the increase must only be used in connection with Social Services.
Good/bad/indifferent?
Good/bad/indifferent?
mondeoman said:
Someone has to pay for all the public sector pensions, emergency health care for sore fingers and headaches, 12 bedroom mansions and 90" plasmas for the less well off.
Whatever gives you this idea ^^^^^^^^^, our local council is brilliant with low taxes and good services, guess we struck lucky maybe.My understanding (not read detail yet is) they can already raise up to 1.99% without needing approval from a local referendum (used for any purpose)
But an additional 2% can now be added by Councils responsible for social care, although it must be used for this purpose.
So fire, police and district authorities can't add it, but London Councils, County councils and Mets can. This will be from April 2016.
Council tax increases have been low in recent years, whereas demand (and therefore cost) of social care has been inceasing.
The 2% is a sticking plaster really, and not a very good one, as a lot of Northern Councils have quite small "tax bases" - which in simple terms is the number of "front doors" they can put a bill through multiplied by the banding and discounts applied to those domestic properties. So a 1% increase in council tax won't yield nearly as much as an authority with a large tax base can - i.e. the South - or, a much larger % increase is needed to get the same money.
Thoughts: well, I think the thread about whether a Swiss clinic was a viable option in to keep to keep hold of Mum's life savings / house already threw up an interesting range of views on social care, which don't really need repeating.
But social care costs money, and the assumption has to be that as more complex, expensive treatments become normal, and people in the UK are living longer, then either:
- you use the wealth at your disposal to meet the non medical costs of your care, or
- the country (so everyone) pays for you to have a more basic level of care if you don't have the wealth yourself (or your Son has sucessfully hidden it)
- the country somehow becomes more profitable, so it has more wealth to spend on its elderly
I think Council tax can cope for a bit longer, but it will be Northern England where the pressure is felt the hardest first.
Ian
But an additional 2% can now be added by Councils responsible for social care, although it must be used for this purpose.
So fire, police and district authorities can't add it, but London Councils, County councils and Mets can. This will be from April 2016.
Council tax increases have been low in recent years, whereas demand (and therefore cost) of social care has been inceasing.
The 2% is a sticking plaster really, and not a very good one, as a lot of Northern Councils have quite small "tax bases" - which in simple terms is the number of "front doors" they can put a bill through multiplied by the banding and discounts applied to those domestic properties. So a 1% increase in council tax won't yield nearly as much as an authority with a large tax base can - i.e. the South - or, a much larger % increase is needed to get the same money.
Thoughts: well, I think the thread about whether a Swiss clinic was a viable option in to keep to keep hold of Mum's life savings / house already threw up an interesting range of views on social care, which don't really need repeating.
But social care costs money, and the assumption has to be that as more complex, expensive treatments become normal, and people in the UK are living longer, then either:
- you use the wealth at your disposal to meet the non medical costs of your care, or
- the country (so everyone) pays for you to have a more basic level of care if you don't have the wealth yourself (or your Son has sucessfully hidden it)
- the country somehow becomes more profitable, so it has more wealth to spend on its elderly
I think Council tax can cope for a bit longer, but it will be Northern England where the pressure is felt the hardest first.
Ian
[quote=crankedup]
Whatever gives you this idea ^^^^^^^^^, our local council is brilliant with low taxes and good services, guess we struck lucky maybe.
[/quoteThat's as maybe, and I'm not averse to taxes raising if finances dictate, but there is the (very) thorny issue of council executive pay - which also impacts into the pensions issue- that is in need of reform. It is almost uncontrolled right now.
Whatever gives you this idea ^^^^^^^^^, our local council is brilliant with low taxes and good services, guess we struck lucky maybe.
[/quoteThat's as maybe, and I'm not averse to taxes raising if finances dictate, but there is the (very) thorny issue of council executive pay - which also impacts into the pensions issue- that is in need of reform. It is almost uncontrolled right now.
mondeoman said:
Someone has to pay for all the public sector pensions, emergency health care for sore fingers and headaches, 12 bedroom mansions and 90" plasmas for the less well off.
The 2% could be used to meet employer pension contributions (including an amount towards a historic deficit) of social workers, but not for the payment of pension benefits to retirees. I'm sure it's obvious the main focus is on meeting care costs for the elderly.Emergency healthcare - i.e. medical cost would be chargeable to the NHS, which of course is funded from national taxation.
I would imagine there are very few 12 bed houses owned by councils now - in fact proposals are afoot for all "high value" housing stock to be sold off next time it becomes vacant. The 2% increase for social care could not be used for the purchase of such properties.
Nor could it be used for 90" plasma screens.
I hope this goes some way to improving your knowledge around Council spending - it is not particularly difficult: often common sense can take you a long way, were it to be evident.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
mondeoman said:
Someone has to pay for all the public sector pensions, emergency health care for sore fingers and headaches, 12 bedroom mansions and 90" plasmas for the less well off.
The 2% could be used to meet employer pension contributions (including an amount towards a historic deficit) of social workers, but not for the payment of pension benefits to retirees. I'm sure it's obvious the main focus is on meeting care costs for the elderly.Emergency healthcare - i.e. medical cost would be chargeable to the NHS, which of course is funded from national taxation.
I would imagine there are very few 12 bed houses owned by councils now - in fact proposals are afoot for all "high value" housing stock to be sold off next time it becomes vacant. The 2% increase for social care could not be used for the purchase of such properties.
Nor could it be used for 90" plasma screens.
I hope this goes some way to improving your knowledge around Council spending - it is not particularly difficult: often common sense can take you a long way, were it to be evident.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
mondeoman said:
Someone has to pay for all the public sector pensions, emergency health care for sore fingers and headaches, 12 bedroom mansions and 90" plasmas for the less well off.
The 2% could be used to meet employer pension contributions (including an amount towards a historic deficit) of social workers, but not for the payment of pension benefits to retirees. I'm sure it's obvious the main focus is on meeting care costs for the elderly.Emergency healthcare - i.e. medical cost would be chargeable to the NHS, which of course is funded from national taxation.
I would imagine there are very few 12 bed houses owned by councils now - in fact proposals are afoot for all "high value" housing stock to be sold off next time it becomes vacant. The 2% increase for social care could not be used for the purchase of such properties.
Nor could it be used for 90" plasma screens.
I hope this goes some way to improving your knowledge around Council spending - it is not particularly difficult: often common sense can take you a long way, were it to be evident.
Ian
Common sense and intelligence are not necessarily related
crankedup said:
mondeoman said:
Someone has to pay for all the public sector pensions, emergency health care for sore fingers and headaches, 12 bedroom mansions and 90" plasmas for the less well off.
Whatever gives you this idea ^^^^^^^^^, our local council is brilliant with low taxes and good services, guess we struck lucky maybe.REALIST123 said:
Ian Geary said:
mondeoman said:
Someone has to pay for all the public sector pensions, emergency health care for sore fingers and headaches, 12 bedroom mansions and 90" plasmas for the less well off.
The 2% could be used to meet employer pension contributions (including an amount towards a historic deficit) of social workers, but not for the payment of pension benefits to retirees. I'm sure it's obvious the main focus is on meeting care costs for the elderly.Emergency healthcare - i.e. medical cost would be chargeable to the NHS, which of course is funded from national taxation.
I would imagine there are very few 12 bed houses owned by councils now - in fact proposals are afoot for all "high value" housing stock to be sold off next time it becomes vacant. The 2% increase for social care could not be used for the purchase of such properties.
Nor could it be used for 90" plasma screens.
I hope this goes some way to improving your knowledge around Council spending - it is not particularly difficult: often common sense can take you a long way, were it to be evident.
Ian
Same here.
Bring back the Poll Tax I say.
Hooli said:
REALIST123 said:
Ian Geary said:
mondeoman said:
Someone has to pay for all the public sector pensions, emergency health care for sore fingers and headaches, 12 bedroom mansions and 90" plasmas for the less well off.
The 2% could be used to meet employer pension contributions (including an amount towards a historic deficit) of social workers, but not for the payment of pension benefits to retirees. I'm sure it's obvious the main focus is on meeting care costs for the elderly.Emergency healthcare - i.e. medical cost would be chargeable to the NHS, which of course is funded from national taxation.
I would imagine there are very few 12 bed houses owned by councils now - in fact proposals are afoot for all "high value" housing stock to be sold off next time it becomes vacant. The 2% increase for social care could not be used for the purchase of such properties.
Nor could it be used for 90" plasma screens.
I hope this goes some way to improving your knowledge around Council spending - it is not particularly difficult: often common sense can take you a long way, were it to be evident.
Ian
Same here.
Bring back the Poll Tax I say.
Digga said:
crankedup said:
Whatever gives you this idea ^^^^^^^^^, our local council is brilliant with low taxes and good services, guess we struck lucky maybe.
[/quoteThat's as maybe, and I'm not averse to taxes raising if finances dictate, but there is the (very) thorny issue of council executive pay - which also impacts into the pensions issue- that is in need of reform. It is almost uncontrolled right now.
Happy that I am able to reply with positive comment. Suffolk County Council dispensed with the services of its C.E.O. around two years or so ago. C.E.O. didn't gel with the requirements of meeting its Elected Members requirements regarding structural issues of Management apparently. The new C.E.O. has been employed on a salary of some 70% (or thereabouts) of the previous incumbent. As for our local Council, they have merged with Forest Heath and both Council's now benefit from the arrangement in terms of service provision with lower costs.[/quoteThat's as maybe, and I'm not averse to taxes raising if finances dictate, but there is the (very) thorny issue of council executive pay - which also impacts into the pensions issue- that is in need of reform. It is almost uncontrolled right now.
On a County and local level I am content but cannot comment regarding C.E.O. Council remuneration for other parts of the Country. What I can say is others may need to follow Suffolks lead perhaps.
Dogwatch said:
I reckon a lot of people haven't cottoned on to the 'additional' aspect yet and have confused it with the 2% referendum limit referred to above. I did initially.
Agreed, last year the Suffolk Police requested an additional % increase by way of local referendum. Positive result for them and a few quid a year goes onto the bill (hope you like the pun). Reckon they will only get away with this 'special needs' a few times though! As for care of the elderly, who wouldn't pay an extra few quid I wonder, but then see reports of scandal's in care homes contracted out into the private sector, not good.We are fortunate in Our patch in having a great local Council, not everything is perfect but they are very very good at what they deliver for our tax.
Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 13th December 09:31
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff