Council tax rises get go-ahead

Author
Discussion

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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?

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

TankRizzo

7,247 posts

192 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
I think we were well overdue a rise. Still doesn't make it value for money in any way.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

Ian Geary

4,462 posts

191 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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





Digga

40,206 posts

282 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
[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.

Dogwatch

6,222 posts

221 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

Ian Geary

4,462 posts

191 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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




XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
If the money goes to social services this is a good thing. That might be a big 'if' though.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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 could take our council a long way, were it to be evident.........

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
Surely what we need is widespread rebanding of properties as opposed to just blanket tax rises across the board. Or something to reflect the number of people staying at a property (yes I know that didn't go down very well last time it was tried laugh).

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
It's not that surprising really.

We have to pay for the increase in the minimum wage for all the care workers.

Expect more increases in the future.

Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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.
Wouldn't say ours was brilliant biggrin but it's reasonable given the amount of services they provide and how quickly they respond to issues or queries.

Richyboy

3,739 posts

216 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
They can't even afford to put the street lights on and fix the roads here, hopefully these rises won't go in pockets lol.

Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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
Common sense could take our council a long way, were it to be evident.........
laugh

Same here.

Bring back the Poll Tax I say.

cirian75

4,245 posts

232 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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
Common sense could take our council a long way, were it to be evident.........
laugh

Same here.

Bring back the Poll Tax I say.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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.
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.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
A community charge which took account of ability to pay would be a lot fairer and simpler than our current system of discounts and benefits.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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 punbiggrin). 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