Council tax rises get go-ahead
Discussion
JagLover said:
Negative Creep said:
I would imagine that was because they didn't have to worry about silly little things like insurance, worker safety or ensuring people weren't starving in the streets
There's been a system of poor relief since Tudor times.In Victorian times sadly for the feckless they didn't get a free house but anyone who was destitute would be housed and fed in a workhouse.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I'm sure me subsidising you does seem right to you.
What’s really going make your head explode is that a significant percentage, probably half, of your council tax contributions go towards pensions (ok... much smaller percentage of the entire liability). The remainder along with the government contributions pay for the services, of which is taken from other taxes you pay. Although you could look on the bright side and say that the majority of council money is from working adults, not based on house size or occupancy, which seems to be the system you desire. woowahwoo said:
Negative Creep said:
Ah yes, back when they had a 50% infant mortality rate, no workers rights or job security, children working in factories or openly prostituting themselves in the streets, epidemic crime rates, being jailed for minor thefts or being a homosexual, mentally ill people throw in asylums and left to die, no free healthcare.....truly whimsical days of yore.
Yes, just ignore they built the majority of the housing stock we live in to this day, established most of the infrastructure and institutions which lead directly to the improvements in knowledge, public health, and prosperity that we all enjoy now. Instead, just view it crudely by the accrued knowledge of the present time, the standards of today and the worst problems of its time, as though all of the Victorian era was an exactly like the worst bits of Dickens' novels.CoolHands said:
"Social care covers the services run by councils, although often provided by external companies,"
True to form for the tories! Straight into the hands of private companies providing a s
t service. Looking after their mates.
tsk. Why let trying to understand an issue get in the way of a chance to spout the same old worn out phrases.True to form for the tories! Straight into the hands of private companies providing a s
t service. Looking after their mates.The movement of social care provision from Council employees to private companies has been underway of years - well before the Tories, the Coalition and back into New Labour time.
Council control is a patchwork of tory / labour as well as regional flavours, and there's dozens of authorities who provide social care. Are you suggesting there is a Tory in each council who is a mate with every care home provider?
And if they are "mates", why are social care providers pulling out of the market in droves? whilst protesting Council's aren't paying a fair price? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37756433
Answer: because your analysis extends to simply smearing your pre-set view of the "tories" on any situation that comes along, regardless of context or facts.
Still if that gets you through the day, then fine.
In the grown up world, the real issue is that the costs of adult social care (i.e. people's expectations of what they should get multiplied by the volume of need across the country) far exceed the ability of the Council funding system to afford.
This was the case before "austerity" was re-discovered. But the ageing population (increasing in both quantity and severity of need) and surprise in 2008 to find there wasn't actually any money left has meant the current system is being stretched to its limits, and is gradually making itself known nationally.
I would agree the quality of care is dropping, and the shift from a publically run service to a fragmentation of privately operated contractors is part of it.
This itself is a symptom of the lack of funding that has forced Councils to shunt the cost onto companies with lower costs of employment and, frankly, higher productivity than public sector workers offered.
Savings have also been made by reducing the length of visits (i.e. 30 mins to wash someone down to 15 mins) as well as simply reducing the threshold at which someone is entitled to public subsidy for non-medical need.
This itself is a symptom that funding has not kept up with demand.
I recall during New Labour's hey-day, Councils were bombarded with templates tracking savings "google Gershon Efficiency Targets" and we merrily completed schedules to Prescott towers about how much we were cutting, all wrapped up as a neat little efficiencies. A reported £21bn was saved between 2004-2007. At least the tories call a cut a cut, and don't invent a whole industry pretending it is something else.
So, is a rise in council tax the solution? If not, what is?
The 2% rise in 2015-16 raised only £353m nationally. It's estimated the costs of the living wage will be £600m ish, and the current need is about £1.3bn (which will of course continue to grow). So, a rise would have to be at least 8% - 10% to get close (plus the 1.99% councils can already increase by)
The problem is: whilst these figures are all averages, some councils can't raise all that much from council tax, as they don't have a particularly big "base" (i.e. number of properties).
And politically, local taxes are very visible. The Conservatives learnt that lesson with Thatcher (google the mass civil disobedience in Scotland who got the community charge first)
Ultimately, it's just a manifestation of every other problem that is chalked up to the "government" or the "tories": the country just doesn't create enough wealth to meet people's expectations from a first world country, and/or politically, we're not prepared to fund those level of service through taxes.
There is also waste to be cut out by banging NHS / Council heads together about elderly care, and it's worth noting half of the better care fund new monies have simply been robbed from another council funding stream, so is not "new" money as such.
But in my view, the government are elected by taxpayers, and the government are just delivering policies they think are the most socially acceptable. If the public all wrote to their MP, went to MP surgeries or collared them on the doorstep and said "Oi, I think the lack of social care funding is simply unjust. Make sure you tax me more when you next get into power", then I'd be more ready to listen to complaints about the lack of services.
But I have yet to hear of any tax rise (labour or tory) that people have not moaned about, and so will maintain my view that the government are merely carrying out the wishes of the electorate which is not to tax them, and therefore supporting an implicit limit on the services that can be provided.
Funnily, I noticed on the BBC news article that Labour's shadow Social Care minister Barbara Keeley made the following observation:
"Asking taxpayers and councils to pick up the bill for their [the tories] failure is no substitute for a proper plan"
Riiight, and who, I wonder is expected to pick up the bill?
Given that Councils (and indeed the government) can only spend taxpayers money, I can only conclude Barbara is expecting the elderly themselves to pick up the bill?
Or maybe she means the tories have to personally pay? Or maybe the bankers?, or perhaps a mansion tax will sort it all out. Who knows.
Let's hope someone explains to the labour shadow bench about public spending actually being funded by taxpayers before they are elected to power, although luckily, I think we have a bit of time.
I thought the current government (ie Conservatives, rather than the flavour of) had made a big deal of putting more control locally. Therefore why is it a surprise?
With far higher outgoings than income, IMO it makes some sense. Let people decide locally what splits they want and what they are prepared to fund. The central govt takes less heat (in theory) and people can stand or fall on what they choose.
Problems will arise, however, when certain areas are carrying more "expensive" demographics and/or a lot of them. A vote goes through for higher taxes and those who are paying them are likely to move. A vote doesn't go through to provide those services and people may suffer.
Either way, that has to happen IMO. We need to wake up to the fact that we get less income than our expenditure. "Austerity" has nowhere near kicked in yet, ever. We need to accept* that everyone cannot have everything for free. Life's unfair.
(* yes there is waste in the system. There always will be to an extent. Piling more and more services into the mix definitely wont help that though).
With far higher outgoings than income, IMO it makes some sense. Let people decide locally what splits they want and what they are prepared to fund. The central govt takes less heat (in theory) and people can stand or fall on what they choose.
Problems will arise, however, when certain areas are carrying more "expensive" demographics and/or a lot of them. A vote goes through for higher taxes and those who are paying them are likely to move. A vote doesn't go through to provide those services and people may suffer.
Either way, that has to happen IMO. We need to wake up to the fact that we get less income than our expenditure. "Austerity" has nowhere near kicked in yet, ever. We need to accept* that everyone cannot have everything for free. Life's unfair.
(* yes there is waste in the system. There always will be to an extent. Piling more and more services into the mix definitely wont help that though).
Ian Geary said:
The problem is: whilst these figures are all averages, some councils can't raise all that much from council tax, as they don't have a particularly big "base" (i.e. number of properties).
If they have fewer people to tax then surely they'll have fewer people needing social care?The UK electorate wanted more devolution - well here is some of it. What's he big deal ? If you live in an area with high social care bad luck on this occasion conversely you might be a winner on other devolution plans.
What tax would you like central govt to increase instead?lower the 20% starting point to pay for this to prove we are all in their together?
What tax would you like central govt to increase instead?lower the 20% starting point to pay for this to prove we are all in their together?
Welshbeef said:
The UK electorate wanted more devolution - well here is some of it. What's he big deal ? If you live in an area with high social care bad luck on this occasion conversely you might be a winner on other devolution plans.
What tax would you like central govt to increase instead?lower the 20% starting point to pay for this to prove we are all in their together?
I can't recall being asked if I wanted local devolution, perhaps you can provide a link. I do recall some Northern voting on the matter some years back, and the electorate voted it down.What tax would you like central govt to increase instead?lower the 20% starting point to pay for this to prove we are all in their together?
So far as the care of elderly is concerned, people should accept responsibility and care for their own families. Social responsibility like in France perhaps. Those elderly who are alone and short of funds are the people that should be looked after by Society in general, unless we want to abandon care in the community.
The Nation could withdraw from foreign aid and spend that money on matters of importance at home.
crankedup said:
I can't recall being asked if I wanted local devolution, perhaps you can provide a link. I do recall some Northern voting on the matter some years back, and the electorate voted it down.
So far as the care of elderly is concerned, people should accept responsibility and care for their own families. Social responsibility like in France perhaps. Those elderly who are alone and short of funds are the people that should be looked after by Society in general, unless we want to abandon care in the community.
The Nation could withdraw from foreign aid and spend that money on matters of importance at home.
No link required it was spoken about at length in the election debates. So far as the care of elderly is concerned, people should accept responsibility and care for their own families. Social responsibility like in France perhaps. Those elderly who are alone and short of funds are the people that should be looked after by Society in general, unless we want to abandon care in the community.
The Nation could withdraw from foreign aid and spend that money on matters of importance at home.
I don't understand the bit about people should accept that they need to care for their own families? Is this a piss take are you wanting the middle classes again to be hammered with more taxes and those who are potless get it all for free. Sounds like a vote winner to me
Welshbeef said:
No link required it was spoken about at length in the election debates.
I don't understand the bit about people should accept that they need to care for their own families? Is this a piss take are you wanting the middle classes again to be hammered with more taxes and those who are potless get it all for free. Sounds like a vote winner to me
Well I certainly didn't get to hear very much at all regarding devolution during the election debates, but hey ho it's dead in the water for Suffolk at least.I don't understand the bit about people should accept that they need to care for their own families? Is this a piss take are you wanting the middle classes again to be hammered with more taxes and those who are potless get it all for free. Sounds like a vote winner to me
Why shouldn't families look after their own? Social responsibility seems hard for too many people to grasp it seems. On the other hand are families that hard nosed and indifferent to shove Mum/Dad into a care home to see off their last days? Within a society that cares, and the UK purports to that discription, why is it not reasonable to look after those elderly who cannot sustain their own daily living and have no family to help?
What about foreign aid cash being diverted into our own Social care funds, are you in favour of that perhaps?
CoolHands said:
"Social care covers the services run by councils, although often provided by external companies,"
True to form for the tories! Straight into the hands of private companies providing a st service. Looking after their mates.
Indeed that is the situation, and a shameful one at that.True to form for the tories! Straight into the hands of private companies providing a s
t service. Looking after their mates.crankedup said:
CoolHands said:
"Social care covers the services run by councils, although often provided by external companies,"
True to form for the tories! Straight into the hands of private companies providing a st service. Looking after their mates.
Indeed that is the situation, and a shameful one at that.True to form for the tories! Straight into the hands of private companies providing a s
t service. Looking after their mates.Don't know where you guys are located but where I am the services provided by contractors, like the bins, are the better ones.
REALIST123 said:
Don't know where you guys are located but where I am the services provided by contractors, like the bins, are the better ones.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff