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.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
p1esk said:
otolith said:
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.
Yes, "ability to pay" is the important bit.It was the unwilling to pay mob that killed it off last time.
Apart from that side issue, how the heck could such a system be administrated within anything like a reasonable cost. Save yourselves, it can't be done. The policy is dead and buried, just where it belongs.
This year we are paying an extra 1.958% council tax to be dedicated for the local Suffolk police budget increase.
Also this year our Town Council precept is to increase by 'less then £10 year' the Town Council aim to work with the Police in the provision of PCSCs who will be locally accountable.
In addition we are paying an additional 2% to be dedicated to the budget of Social care in the community.
All of these increases brought about due to the year on year financial support from central Government. Now we understand that local devolution will mean another tier of Local Government, East Anglia devolution which has its own thread.
I recall when we moved into our first marital home (1972) the council rates were a almost insignificant bill !!
Also this year our Town Council precept is to increase by 'less then £10 year' the Town Council aim to work with the Police in the provision of PCSCs who will be locally accountable.
In addition we are paying an additional 2% to be dedicated to the budget of Social care in the community.
All of these increases brought about due to the year on year financial support from central Government. Now we understand that local devolution will mean another tier of Local Government, East Anglia devolution which has its own thread.
I recall when we moved into our first marital home (1972) the council rates were a almost insignificant bill !!
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.
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 s
t 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.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.
REALIST123 said:
Now you've touched on a subject with some relevance to me as my MIL is suffering with late stage vascular dementia and my wife and her sister are looking for good care for her.
Our experience of both private sector and public sector service has been pretty poor. From NHS/SS treatment, to local authority and private care in the home and in a care home the available care has been pretty disappointing, not to say useless in some respects. It seems the public sector are desperate to palm her off to the private sector and they just want their money. Having said that she currently has a private nurse visiting daily who seems very good. If costly.....
It's made worse by the fact that the old girl has to pay for all and any care having her own little bungalow and a few quid saved up over the years. So despite her and her late husband both paying NI for decades, now she needs something it's not there.
This time last year my MIL was seriously ill, had been for some months but now required palitive care. We visited two care homes that were qualified to provide care, the first was atrocious, being dirty, old fashioned, inpersonal. I could go on about it, suffice to say I wouldn't have left. dog there. The second care home was a BUPA home, the contrast could not have been greater between it and the first home. Fantastic, they even painted my MIL private room in a pastel shade which she had always loved. All this comes at a price of around 4K month, as others have mentioned decent care costs and if that care is on a long term basis, enough said.
Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 14th December 10:35
ATG said:
Ian Geary has already given an excellent reply to CoolHands' post and I'd recommend reading it if you haven't done so already.
You're right that society is best served by people looking after their own family members where possible. Millions of people in the UK already do this for their relatives, and a huge number of people also help support the elderly and infirm through voluntary organisations. It is not so obvious that there is a great untapped resource of tax-free care sitting out there in society.
There's no simple, single solution for the problems of providing long-term care for the elderly, but here are a couple of things I'd try to address if I was Benign Dictator of the Day. (1) Bed blocking caused by the NHS and local authority not having shared responsibility and/or funding for patients. (2) A perception that it is unfair to "deprive" people of their inheritance by requiring their elderly relatives to pay for their own care out of their assets.
While elderly patients are a financial burden to the local authority it's natural that the LA will try to leave them under NHS care for as long as possible. It makes perfect sense for them to do so from their own perspective, while equally obviously it is horrendously inefficient for the country as a whole. Keeping the patient in an NHS bed costs something like ten times more than it would cost the LA to provide the required care and support. Given there is a natural organisational boundary between the type of care provided by the an NHS hospital and a local authority that you probably don't want to blur, it strikes me that you'd want money to follow the patient so that they aren't a financial burden to the local authority. If the LA takes on care for an elderly patient, that should trigger the LA to receive additional funding. Perhaps the idea of having GPs as purchasers of care for their patients could be extended to manage the transfer of patients from NHS beds back into the community?
And the thorny subject of means-tested care and inheritance tax. I find it hard to see how we can justify allowing someone to squirrel away assets for their descendants while simultaneously burdening the state with the cost of their care. Spending your own assets to look after yourself at the end of your life seems to me to be an entirely reasonable thing to do. I think you can probably dream up a scheme to do this in a humane way to avoid forcing people to sell their home, for example. You'd need to do something like take a charge against the family home that allows the elderly patient and any dependent relatives to remain in the home until they've all snuffed it, at which point the building gets sold and the local authority gets their cut. It ought to be pretty cheap for the LA to finance the gap between services being used and deferred, means-tested payment being received. Of course this will encourage people to do things like trying to give away assets, or downsizing to try to reduce the potential claw-back, but I imagine that can be mitigated with something like the 7-year rule used for gifts in IHT liability calculation, possibly with tapering.
Interesting read, as you rightly say no easy solutions are available and what is available can be open to abuse or cheating.You're right that society is best served by people looking after their own family members where possible. Millions of people in the UK already do this for their relatives, and a huge number of people also help support the elderly and infirm through voluntary organisations. It is not so obvious that there is a great untapped resource of tax-free care sitting out there in society.
There's no simple, single solution for the problems of providing long-term care for the elderly, but here are a couple of things I'd try to address if I was Benign Dictator of the Day. (1) Bed blocking caused by the NHS and local authority not having shared responsibility and/or funding for patients. (2) A perception that it is unfair to "deprive" people of their inheritance by requiring their elderly relatives to pay for their own care out of their assets.
While elderly patients are a financial burden to the local authority it's natural that the LA will try to leave them under NHS care for as long as possible. It makes perfect sense for them to do so from their own perspective, while equally obviously it is horrendously inefficient for the country as a whole. Keeping the patient in an NHS bed costs something like ten times more than it would cost the LA to provide the required care and support. Given there is a natural organisational boundary between the type of care provided by the an NHS hospital and a local authority that you probably don't want to blur, it strikes me that you'd want money to follow the patient so that they aren't a financial burden to the local authority. If the LA takes on care for an elderly patient, that should trigger the LA to receive additional funding. Perhaps the idea of having GPs as purchasers of care for their patients could be extended to manage the transfer of patients from NHS beds back into the community?
And the thorny subject of means-tested care and inheritance tax. I find it hard to see how we can justify allowing someone to squirrel away assets for their descendants while simultaneously burdening the state with the cost of their care. Spending your own assets to look after yourself at the end of your life seems to me to be an entirely reasonable thing to do. I think you can probably dream up a scheme to do this in a humane way to avoid forcing people to sell their home, for example. You'd need to do something like take a charge against the family home that allows the elderly patient and any dependent relatives to remain in the home until they've all snuffed it, at which point the building gets sold and the local authority gets their cut. It ought to be pretty cheap for the LA to finance the gap between services being used and deferred, means-tested payment being received. Of course this will encourage people to do things like trying to give away assets, or downsizing to try to reduce the potential claw-back, but I imagine that can be mitigated with something like the 7-year rule used for gifts in IHT liability calculation, possibly with tapering.
personally I do not believe the private sector should be involved in elderly care at any level. This is not a business which should be related to making profit from, I would like to see local councils take the responsibility for full provision, maybe that way I would be less inclined to object to an increase in Council tax purely ring fenced for elderly care.
spaximus said:
My Dad is in a care home in Doncaster and so far the care is great. Staffed by local people who speak good English and actually care. In others there is a mix of low paid low moral staff.
How did we get to the point where care for our old people is in crisis? To my mind it all began when people were moaning about the costs of council run old peoples homes costing X out of rates. So when council cuts were needed the old were a soft target as no one cared as they were not old.
Homes were closed and the staff made redundant and private companies sprang up to take the slack. It worked and money was being made but it saved the councils millions. But as there were more cuts the councils pay less. For example Doncaster pay all homes a flat fee of £425 per person, if they fund it, half what there true home fee is, so they look to people who have the ability to pay to make up the profit.
This is easier in Doncaster as a care home is cheap compared with what one would be in Bristol or London to buy and run.
We also have a growing old population, medical intervention means 80 is not really that old but the body is shot for many meaning they cannot cope alone and this problem will get worse.
Now it is a thorny subject but the even worse problem that us building is many people see now that there is no point in working hard, buying a home and having assets as if they need care it is taken by the state to pay for care. If they had spent every penny they are cared for free. I know of two people in their 40's who have cashed in their pension for this very reason. Stupidly in my opinion but they are not alone in this feeling of being punished for prudence.
I for one would pay extra to give dignity to all older people, I will hopefully be one myself, but it is hard for many to accept a civil society should look after their old people and if that costs the equivalent of a costa coffee a week extra is that too much to ask?
There are too many selfish people who think of now and nothing or nobody else. Spend some time in a care home watching old people and you will see why this must get more money.
The argument is that a fraction of the Aid money that has been stolen given by the UK would transform the care provided, but there are no celebrities doing a record for these, no trendy facebook campaigns no one who has power speaking up for old people.
Absolutely agree, sadly it appears that until people are affected personally and therefore have real World experience of this situation these people see the care industry as another 'bloody nuisances cost'. Society needs to get back to basics imo.How did we get to the point where care for our old people is in crisis? To my mind it all began when people were moaning about the costs of council run old peoples homes costing X out of rates. So when council cuts were needed the old were a soft target as no one cared as they were not old.
Homes were closed and the staff made redundant and private companies sprang up to take the slack. It worked and money was being made but it saved the councils millions. But as there were more cuts the councils pay less. For example Doncaster pay all homes a flat fee of £425 per person, if they fund it, half what there true home fee is, so they look to people who have the ability to pay to make up the profit.
This is easier in Doncaster as a care home is cheap compared with what one would be in Bristol or London to buy and run.
We also have a growing old population, medical intervention means 80 is not really that old but the body is shot for many meaning they cannot cope alone and this problem will get worse.
Now it is a thorny subject but the even worse problem that us building is many people see now that there is no point in working hard, buying a home and having assets as if they need care it is taken by the state to pay for care. If they had spent every penny they are cared for free. I know of two people in their 40's who have cashed in their pension for this very reason. Stupidly in my opinion but they are not alone in this feeling of being punished for prudence.
I for one would pay extra to give dignity to all older people, I will hopefully be one myself, but it is hard for many to accept a civil society should look after their old people and if that costs the equivalent of a costa coffee a week extra is that too much to ask?
There are too many selfish people who think of now and nothing or nobody else. Spend some time in a care home watching old people and you will see why this must get more money.
The argument is that a fraction of the Aid money that has been stolen given by the UK would transform the care provided, but there are no celebrities doing a record for these, no trendy facebook campaigns no one who has power speaking up for old people.
sugerbear said:
crankedup said:
Westminster manage to hold down the Council tax at £645 household average. How the heck do they manage to do that?
Yes it’s good management apparently?
And yet the rest of England are about £1k a year higher.
By exporting as many poor people out of the borough as possible.Yes it’s good management apparently?
And yet the rest of England are about £1k a year higher.
By allowing richer people to move into the areas previously populated with the above.
I believe they have always been quite well treated by governments.
Still it would be interesting to move the council team to say, Swindon and see how they get on.
All he financial pressure on local Councils comes from central Government cutting the subsidies year after year. Local tax payers are left to pick up the shortfall. That’s fine imo for luxuries such as beautiful public parks, pavements and roads in good fettle, weekly sweep of the road gutters. However, it’s now down to essential services like, food inspectors, hygiene and public toilets and so on, this should be paid from the central Government taxes imo.
Still the Country is skint so I expect worse is to come yet.
Negative Creep said:
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.markcoznottz said:
Jinx said:
markcoznottz said:
Well you can definitely see what's coming. Road pricing, monthly bin collections, charging for all council services, seen as not core services. Maybe charging for gp appointments, but that's a hot potato. It still won't be enough.
Bin collection is the core council service - the only one I notice anyway 
As always it’s a closed box thought pattern at work in Council offices.
Welshbeef said:
My local council from Apr 2018 will only be in receipt of £2m central grant - it was £60m in Apr2010... as suchit feels pretty good now that we know there is no subsidy from less well off areas coming in here and likewise we pay for ourselves no cash going elsewhere.
Green bin is £50 a year for 2 bins - why it’s separate god knows but it’s not even a £1 a week so given getting to and from the dump would cost more in fuel and hassle by a long way it’s fine.
What I don’t get is spending on daft little projects which have not once helped with congestion instead been a nightmare to live through the build
How is the Social welfare going, that’s the big money extraction?Green bin is £50 a year for 2 bins - why it’s separate god knows but it’s not even a £1 a week so given getting to and from the dump would cost more in fuel and hassle by a long way it’s fine.
What I don’t get is spending on daft little projects which have not once helped with congestion instead been a nightmare to live through the build
BlackLabel said:
A voluntary tax to fund ‘work placements for young people, beds for rough sleepers and extra visitors for lonely elderly people in the area’.
Would anyone here sign up?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/communities/n...
As thier residents enjoy what amounts to the most generous central Government handout resulting in the lowest Council tax charge for thier residents! Maybe they can afford to be generous with thier time and money.Would anyone here sign up?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/communities/n...
Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 11th February 21:36
ClaphamGT3 said:
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.
From memory, the highest paid LA chief exec in the U.K. Is Paul Martin of LB Wandsworth on £240k per annum. There are a tiny handful of U.K. chief Execs earning over £200k and even quite a lot of large urban Mets have Chiefs earning south of £150k. Tier 2 officers typically earn in the £75-150k bracket. These are people running major, complex organisations, employing thousands of people and accountable budgets nudging £1bn per annum. They are required to run critical services and under a personal, statutory obligation to protect the most vulnerable people in society.[/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.
I am no socialist - indeed I'm a passionate believer in small Govt - but I am amazed that they find people to do it for the money
Full sickness benefits
They are not responsible to anybody except Council Members, who are generally thickheads.
Many Councils will be the small backwaters of low pressure and low cost of living.
Why should they earn more then the PM.
Most will not be of Councils with thousands of people, they are running an organisation that largely outsources.
My opinion is that thier salaries look small owing to the overblown pay structures in London.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff