Would you vote in favour of raising taxes?
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
What are councils spending all the money on. Council tax increases have been outstripping inflation since the late 1990s?
Why could councils manage in the late 80s and 90s - yet despite almost two decades of above inflation rises, they are suddenly "cash strapped" because the increases have been brought closer to inflation.
Have councils become too accustomed to the 'magic money tree' bearing fruit?
Most local authority income is from central government. This has been slashed.Why could councils manage in the late 80s and 90s - yet despite almost two decades of above inflation rises, they are suddenly "cash strapped" because the increases have been brought closer to inflation.
Have councils become too accustomed to the 'magic money tree' bearing fruit?
herewego said:
Most local authority income is from central government. This has been slashed.
Assuming the %change noted in the charts includes all sources of budget, so what? It looks like the govt were right to slash it. Though assessment of why the rises are needed when general index rises are nowhere near ought to be a priority.
Murph7355 said:
herewego said:
Most local authority income is from central government. This has been slashed.
Assuming the %change noted in the charts includes all sources of budget, so what? It looks like the govt were right to slash it. Though assessment of why the rises are needed when general index rises are nowhere near ought to be a priority.
Rovinghawk said:
Robertj21a said:
So, not before time, they've had to look somewhat harder at what they spend the money on, why they employ so many staff, why so many are fairly unproductive, why some weren't sacked etc etc.
No- they've just decided to charge more tax instead.The ageing population issue and consequent impact on social care has been known about for years.
The Dilnot review attempted to deal with it, but all it did was raise expectations and ignore funding.
However, this has zero chance of being agreed by Surrey residents, so should be seen as a political move to load pressure on Whitehall to remove their head from the sand regarding proper joining up of health and social care, which are sides of the same coin.
Don't forget, this isn't a left wing council just trying to stir up mid-term blues: councillors won't have made this decision lightly.
Though having said that, I suspect the tories will continue to hold power in surrey until the last of the baby boomers have died, and probably all their children as well.
Ian
Murph7355 said:
Countdown said:
One possible option that would minimise the impact on local taxpayers would be if the Council was to put a charge on the person's home which crystallises once they've died. This would mean they carry on living in their own home, the Council funds the cost of care, and recoups it when the house is sold.
Is something similar not already done? Ie if you have over X amount in assets then you don't get service/need to contribute? Moonhawk said:
What are councils spending all the money on. Council tax increases have been outstripping inflation since the late 1990s?
Why could councils manage in the late 80s and 90s - yet despite almost two decades of above inflation rises, they are suddenly "cash strapped" because the increases have been brought closer to inflation.
Have councils become too accustomed to the 'magic money tree' bearing fruit?
markcoznottz said:
I can't find it but there was a PDF of government spending 1992, my god it was tiny, even inflation adjusted, yet the hospitals were open, you could see a gp within an hour, and the police came when you rang....go figure
Waiting lists were massive at the beginning of the 90's. The Conservatives had the brilliant idea of creating an internal market within the NHS (Purchaser/Provider, GP Fundholder). Hospitals had to create teams of people sending bills left right and centre. No doubt SHAs and GPFH had to employ extra purchase ledger staff to pay the invoices. It was bonkers and hugely inefficient. Waiting Lists weren't really cracked until Labour came to power in 1997 (and they only managed it by throwing huge sums of money at it).You get what you pay for.
Countdown said:
Waiting lists were massive at the beginning of the 90's. The Conservatives had the brilliant idea of creating an internal market within the NHS (Purchaser/Provider, GP Fundholder). Hospitals had to create teams of people sending bills left right and centre. No doubt SHAs and GPFH had to employ extra purchase ledger staff to pay the invoices. It was bonkers and hugely inefficient. Waiting Lists weren't really cracked until Labour came to power in 1997 (and they only managed it by throwing huge sums of money at it).
You get what you pay for.
Indeed - we've been paying for it for the last 10 years and we will still be paying for it for in another 10 years...You get what you pay for.
Countdown said:
Waiting lists were massive at the beginning of the 90's. The Conservatives had the brilliant idea of creating an internal market within the NHS (Purchaser/Provider, GP Fundholder). Hospitals had to create teams of people sending bills left right and centre. No doubt SHAs and GPFH had to employ extra purchase ledger staff to pay the invoices. It was bonkers and hugely inefficient. Waiting Lists weren't really cracked until Labour came to power in 1997 (and they only managed it by throwing huge sums of money at it).
You get what you pay for.
You get what you pay for.
Actually, we don't get even close to what we pay for. Not even close.
markcoznottz said:
Never enough for marxists though is it, even though you've paid as much if not more tax than the other guy, if he has pissed his savings against a pub wall, and lives in council housing, he gets everything paid for.
I'm torn on that one as I fully empathise with your argument...but then people sat on houses worth 100s of thousands and then needing state care and passing tha home on to kids instead of paying for themselves doesn't feel sensible.Maybe it comes down to the safety net rather than blanket argument. State provided care should be more basic than Tesco Value. If you then want more, pay for it.
Murph7355 said:
markcoznottz said:
Never enough for marxists though is it, even though you've paid as much if not more tax than the other guy, if he has pissed his savings against a pub wall, and lives in council housing, he gets everything paid for.
I'm torn on that one as I fully empathise with your argument...but then people sat on houses worth 100s of thousands and then needing state care and passing tha home on to kids instead of paying for themselves doesn't feel sensible.Maybe it comes down to the safety net rather than blanket argument. State provided care should be more basic than Tesco Value. If you then want more, pay for it.
markcoznottz said:
They have already payed for that care though, but as you say it should be basic, and if you want enhanced care then pay for it, like an upgrade. The size of someone's house is not the states business.
It costs roughly £20k per annum per person. How much tax do you think the average person pays during their lifetime ?REALIST123 said:
Countdown said:
Waiting lists were massive at the beginning of the 90's. The Conservatives had the brilliant idea of creating an internal market within the NHS (Purchaser/Provider, GP Fundholder). Hospitals had to create teams of people sending bills left right and centre. No doubt SHAs and GPFH had to employ extra purchase ledger staff to pay the invoices. It was bonkers and hugely inefficient. Waiting Lists weren't really cracked until Labour came to power in 1997 (and they only managed it by throwing huge sums of money at it).
You get what you pay for.
You get what you pay for.
Actually, we don't get even close to what we pay for. Not even close.
Countdown said:
markcoznottz said:
They have already payed for that care though, but as you say it should be basic, and if you want enhanced care then pay for it, like an upgrade. The size of someone's house is not the states business.
It costs roughly £20k per annum per person. How much tax do you think the average person pays during their lifetime ?I wonder if 20k is the bare minimum it could cost.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff