Would you vote in favour of raising taxes?

[wiggy001]

Countdown said:

It costs roughly £20k per annum per person. How much tax do you think the average person pays during their lifetime ?

Excuse the Express link, but three quarters of a million pounds apparently.

[Countdown]

wiggy001 said:

Excuse the Express link, but three quarters of a million pounds apparently.

That's per "household" rather than "per person". So let's call it £400k per individual, divide by 75 years =£5333 per annum.

Then take out what they've "cost" in terms of health, education, police, roads,....

The reason why we have an annual deficit of £xx billion is because the Govt spends £xx bn more on people than it takes "from" people. A completely random guess - it's probably the 10% of people at the top who subsidise the rest. And they're not the ones who will be living in Local authority care homes

[markcoznottz]

Murph7355 said:

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 ?

Exactly.

I wonder if 20k is the bare minimum it could cost.

Yes point taken. Due to the way the uk is funded we seem to reward failure though. People with good health who have done the absolute bare minimum there whole life deserve fk all quite frankly, they can whistle. Liberals are good at speaking for other people's money but never as good at making/spending their own.

[98elise]

markcoznottz said:

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.

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.

You already only get basic care. If your care home costs more than the basic cost, then you will have to pay one way or another. until recently we had both parents in law in care homes, and both required "Top Up" payments.

[XCP]

MDMetal said:

Fastdruid said:

[1] Which as we all know smells of wee and of which has been said: A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.

But only because public transport is so rubbish, I went to Toulouse a month ago, got out the airport and stepped on the tram, I didn't see myself as a failure and neither did anyone else I encountered on the tram, nobody on the tube considers themselves a failure. In situations where public transport does better than private there is no stigma the trick is to find situations where it's feasible to transform the public transport into that option. Waiting an hour in the cold and the rain for a freezing bus that costs more than anyone sensible would guess is not the answer...

Whoever wrote the line quoted has obviously never used the Bath Park and Ride.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

REALIST123 said:

Actually, we don't get even close to what we pay for. Not even close.

Do you think you would pay less or more if you used the private sector?

Seeing that I generally paid a lot more in NI than I did for Private Health care, I think it could well be lower. There's no way of telling of course because, contrary to common perception, very few actually use private medical services; if the numbers grew there is no reason why it wouldn't be competitive.

Anyway, to get back on the more general topic I see that my LA has decided, after great consideration to redraft its 'Street Naming Policy' with the aim of no longer allowing names to have the word 'The' in them. After 'commissioning a report', they have concluded that extending the street name with 'the' could cause misunderstanding and slower response times. (Response to what, it doesn't say).

In another useful spend of taxpayers money, the CC has organised a 'team' to contact people with private water supplies, to arrange 'risk assessments' under 2016 EU regulations. I like many in this area, have a bore which is filtered and cleaned. These supplies have been that way for decades with no issues. I don't know anyone who doesn't understand why one would have a private water supply and how to manage them.

[markcoznottz]

98elise said:

markcoznottz said:

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.

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.

You already only get basic care. If your care home costs more than the basic cost, then you will have to pay one way or another. until recently we had both parents in law in care homes, and both required "Top Up" payments.

But would there be people sat alongside your PIL's , (say same age similar ailments/ physical condition etc), who ended up in the same home with no top up payments i.e. No means to pay at all?

[audidoody]

I'd be receptive to paying more tax - as soon as the Government confirms it will stop giving away £5 million to Ethiopian pop groups and giving many more millions to countries with their own space programmes.

[croyde]

TLandCruiser said:

15% is a huge increase and I would be against it mostly because how inefficient and how much money the council waste.

I have just spent a year living in Surrey after moving from Wandsworth.

The big shock was that my council tax increased by 4 times and they only collect the rubbish every fortnight.

The tax is so much it has actually got me thinking of moving back to London to save money.

So if they are charging so much more than other councils, what are they doing with the money?

Apparently some of the council got 60% pay rises not long ago.

I'll be voting NO.

[p1stonhead]

croyde said:

TLandCruiser said:

15% is a huge increase and I would be against it mostly because how inefficient and how much money the council waste.

I have just spent a year living in Surrey after moving from Wandsworth.

The big shock was that my council tax increased by 4 times and they only collect the rubbish every fortnight.

The tax is so much it has actually got me thinking of moving back to London to save money.

So if they are charging so much more than other councils, what are they doing with the money?

Apparently some of the council got 60% pay rises not long ago.

I'll be voting NO.

Rage inducing councillor on the radio this morning said 'the people of Surrey will have a choice to vote for an increase, or effectively, the cutting of services'.

Yeah put it onto the people so its their fault when services get worse you money wasting wker!

Ill be voting NO.

[croyde]

audidoody said:

I'd be receptive to paying more tax - as soon as the Government confirms it will stop giving away £5 million to Ethiopian pop groups and giving many more millions to countries with their own space programmes.

I'd happily pay more income tax if I knew it would help the old and needy in our country and help me when I need it. Like Sweden.

But it does appear that our money is constantly squandered on useless projects and other countries.

[WindyCommon]

I thought I would look at what Surrey CC spends annually, at how much of this is represented by pension contributions and at where their pension scheme deficit stands.

What does Surrey County Council spend in a year? Answer £1.7bn


Source: Surrey CC



How much of this is spent on pensions? Answer £37m (member contributions total £140m pa)


Source: Surrey Pension Fund Annual Report 2015

Both of these figures have been consistent for the last 3 years.



What is the pension scheme deficit? Answer: £980m at 31 March 2013 is the latest I can find (I'm sure sidicks will answer questions on the basis of preparation...)


Source: Surrey Pension Fund Annual Report 2015

[Murph7355]

markcoznottz said:

Yes point taken. Due to the way the uk is funded we seem to reward failure though. People with good health who have done the absolute bare minimum there whole life deserve fk all quite frankly, they can whistle. Liberals are good at speaking for other people's money but never as good at making/spending their own.

I totally agree with you.

But tbh this sort of thing happens throughout the age range of the feckless, and it's the biggest issue with the awfully titled "JAMs" as I see it (they see people being given things for "free" when they are struggling).

My grandad (who was very, very blue collar) used to be irritated that council houses had garages/parking spaces, TV aerials and decent gardens apparently (he died when I was little). I can see the point. The safety net became a comfort blanket a very long time ago it seems, and who in their right mind would give up their comfort blanket.

My fear is that there are so many people with them now (the blame for which lies squarely with New Labour IMO) that we are past critical mass and recovering sensibly will not be possible.

[markcoznottz]

Got to love the wording in the above report, 'there is still a better than 65% chance that the fund will return to full funding over 20 years'. Edit: We are in the st on this one, but we got the work experience guy to make something up, besides which we will all be retired by then on a good pension.

[Moonhawk]

herewego said:

Most local authority income is from central government. This has been slashed.

Does that necessarily invalidate my point though?

Looking at the chart below (if it's true) - the overall amount of money available to local authorities via central government grants, local rates and council tax rose from around 62% to 106% between 1993 and 2010 (that represents a 71% increase overall) - yet inflation over the same period was around 16%



Have councils simply come to expect above inflation increases in budget and have they become complacent about getting maximum efficiency? Has the money invested in them over this time been effectively wasted - leading to issues now the belt tightening has started?

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 20th January 13:27

[anonymous-user]

WindyCommon said:

I thought I would look at what Surrey CC spends annually, at how much of this is represented by pension contributions and at where their pension scheme deficit stands.

What does Surrey County Council spend in a year? Answer £1.7bn


Source: Surrey CC



How much of this is spent on pensions? Answer £37m (member contributions total £140m pa)


Source: Surrey Pension Fund Annual Report 2015

Both of these figures have been consistent for the last 3 years.



What is the pension scheme deficit? Answer: £980m at 31 March 2013 is the latest I can find (I'm sure sidicks will answer questions on the basis of preparation...)


Source: Surrey Pension Fund Annual Report 2015

I'd like to see how they spend so much on social care and health, assuming that includes the elderly. My MIL suffers from dementia and will be in car soon. She'll get no support and will have to fund the care herself. Her 2b bungalow will be sold to cover that.

[herewego]

Moonhawk said:

herewego said:

Most local authority income is from central government. This has been slashed.

Does that necessarily invalidate my point though?

Looking at the chart below (if it's true) - the overall amount of money available to local authorities via central government grants, local rates and council tax rose from around 62% to 106% between 1993 and 2010 (that represents a 71% increase overall) - yet inflation over the same period was around 16%



Have councils simply come to expect above inflation increases in budget and have they become complacent about getting maximum efficiency? Has the money invested in them over this time been effectively wasted - leading to issues now the belt tightening has started?

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 20th January 13:27

I don't think your 16% inflation over a 17 year period is correct.

[WindyCommon]

herewego said:

Moonhawk said:

herewego said:

Most local authority income is from central government. This has been slashed.

Does that necessarily invalidate my point though?

Looking at the chart below (if it's true) - the overall amount of money available to local authorities via central government grants, local rates and council tax rose from around 62% to 106% between 1993 and 2010 (that represents a 71% increase overall) - yet inflation over the same period was around 16%



Have councils simply come to expect above inflation increases in budget and have they become complacent about getting maximum efficiency? Has the money invested in them over this time been effectively wasted - leading to issues now the belt tightening has started?

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 20th January 13:27

I don't think your 16% inflation over a 17 year period is correct.

The 16% inflation figure is nonsense, but it is also entirely irrelevant as the chart presented is expressed in "2010-11 prices". It tells us that funding increased by 71% in real terms (i.e. inflation plus 71%) during the period 93/94 to 10/11.

[Moonhawk]

herewego said:

I don't think your 16% inflation over a 17 year period is correct.

I got the figure off the bank of England inflation calculator

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/res...

Put in 1993 and 2010 - and it says your £10 in 1993 would be the equivalent of £15.89 in 2010.

But as the poster above says - it's irrelevant anyway as the chart is corrected for 2010 prices and therefore shows real world increase (a fact I missed when I posted it).

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 20th January 14:41

[herewego]

Moonhawk said:

herewego said:

I don't think your 16% inflation over a 17 year period is correct.

I got the figure off the bank of England inflation calculator

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/res...

Put in 1993 and 2010 - and it says your £10 in 1993 would be the equivalent of £15.89 in 2010.

How does that relate to 16%?