[Kizzy]

[QUOTE=Candy Cane;9745524]

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza

your point on the budget thread was that you were not happy with the personal allowance being hiked, the allowance that helps the lowest paid the most...you were hand wringing over where the money would come from to support the services, now you have your answer


Personally i don't mind paying 3 per cent extra for social care as long as that is where it is directed, it is better than raising NI contributions in my opinion where the money just gets wasted on more managers and meetings. That 3 percent extra is what I have a problem with as services will remain the same or be cut..

Can you ever not just comment without the face palming and hand wringing mockery cherie?...
It's getting really boring.

It is seen as an answer but in my opinion it's a crap answer, I would prefer it to come from income tax as I stated in the budget thread.

How would CT have a very specific useful purpose but a raise in NI or income tax be 'wasted'?

The way I prefer sounds similar to Scotlands system according to TS and he sounds happy enough with it so what's your issue?

[Cherie]

[QUOTE=Christmas treeza;9746516]

Originally Posted by Candy Cane

Can you ever not just comment without the face palming and hand wringing mockery cherie?...
It's getting really boring.

It is seen as an answer but in my opinion it's a crap answer, I would prefer it to come from income tax as I stated in the budget thread.

How would CT have a very specific useful purpose but a raise in NI or income tax be 'wasted'?

The way I prefer sounds similar to Scotlands system according to TS and he sounds happy enough with it so what's your issue?

My issue is tax is tax? At least 3 per cent of council tax is earmarked specifically for social care, as social care provision is managed individually by local councils, what is your issue with that? a 1 per cent rise in income tax might not be earmarked specifically and not given to local councils, so at least this way they are certain to have more funds which has to be a good thing yes?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Candy Cane

My issue is tax is tax? At least 3 per cent of council tax is earmarked specifically for social care, as social care provision is managed individually by local councils, what is your issue with that? a 1 per cent rise in income tax might not be earmarked specifically and not given to local councils, so at least this way they are certain to have more funds which has to be a good thing yes?

I think it's assuming a lot to think that a Tory lead government mandated CT increase will lead to an overall increase in council funding... It will almost certainly go hand on hand with a cut in government funding to local councils. I'd say it's very, very optimistic to think that local councils will come out of this better funded.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

I think it's assuming a lot to think that a Tory lead government mandated CT increase will lead to an overall increase in council funding... It will almost certainly go hand on hand with a cut in government funding to local councils. I'd say it's very, very optimistic to think that local councils will come out of this better funded.

its not purely about funding though, it about being progressively more efficient while still providing adequate services. That shouldn't be a one off event every time they are told to, it should be constantly under review as we are paying for it.

I guess that where I am lucky, being in a conservative led council, they don't tend to waste the money

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

its not purely about funding though, it about being progressively more efficient while still providing adequate services. That shouldn't be a one off event every time they are told to, it should be constantly under review as we are paying for it.

I guess that where I am lucky, being in a conservative led council, they don't tend to waste the money

I think you might find that being a conservative led council they are not bearing the brunt of the austerity cuts like some Labour led councils are. Have a look about for yourself at the disparity in cuts to councils from central govt and you'll see there is a huge gulf.

What is it you suspect Labour led councils are wasting money on?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

I think it's assuming a lot to think that a Tory lead government mandated CT increase will lead to an overall increase in council funding... It will almost certainly go hand on hand with a cut in government funding to local councils. I'd say it's very, very optimistic to think that local councils will come out of this better funded.

if households are paying 3 per cent towards social care in their Council Tax there is a level of accountability for families who have elderly relatives don't you think?, rather than it going into a black hole of income tax

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Candy Cane

if households are paying 3 per cent towards social care in their Council Tax there is a level of accountability for families who have elderly relatives don't you think?, rather than it going into a black hole of income tax

I'm not necessarily against the idea of raising local taxes to be spent locally - when it comes down to it I tend to believe in "the smaller the better" government systems (e.g. this is why I believe that a Scottish government governing 5 million people is FAR better than a UK wide government trying to govern 60 million).

I'm also totally in favour of increased local budgets across the board and I feel like everyone should be willing to pay towards that. I know no one "likes" taxes but, basically, I think everyone would be much happier in general if they got to live in nice, clean, well maintained towns with plenty of local facilities... instead of run-down austerity ****holes. That's worth paying extra local tax for .

However... because of the way council tax works... IMO flat %age increases to council tax disproportionately affect low and low-middle incomes and that's something that needs to be addressed. As is more accountability for how that money is actually spent.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

I'm not necessarily against the idea of raising local taxes to be spent locally - when it comes down to it I tend to believe in "the smaller the better" government systems (e.g. this is why I believe that a Scottish government governing 5 million people is FAR better than a UK wide government trying to govern 60 million).

I'm also totally in favour of increased local budgets across the board and I feel like everyone should be willing to pay towards that. I know no one "likes" taxes but, basically, I think everyone would be much happier in general if they got to live in nice, clean, well maintained towns with plenty of local facilities... instead of run-down austerity ****holes. That's worth paying extra local tax for .

However... because of the way council tax works... IMO flat %age increases to council tax disproportionately affect low and low-middle incomes and that's something that needs to be addressed. As is more accountability for how that money is actually spent.

As previously said there are reductions for waivers for low income families, anyone on a middle income gets nothing as usual, that said 10.00 a month is probably not going to break the bank for most middle earners

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Candy Cane

As previously said there are reductions for waivers for low income families, anyone on a middle income gets nothing as usual, that said 10.00 a month is probably not going to break the bank for most middle earners

There are for very low / no income but full CT liability kicks in at (what I would consider to be) fairly low income for a family and CT is one of the "biggest monthly bills" for most people at £100+ a month already. I know the only thing I pay out as much on is Gas and Electric (but our electricity use is considered "very high"... probably all my arguing on TiBB ) and my mountain of unsecured debt that comes in at about £300/month in interest but we won't talk about that ...

But yes... no £10 a month isn't a lot on it's own, but all of the little things add up. £10 more here, £10 more there, £30 a month more in fuel costs, etc etc. It's easy to say "it's just one more thing" but ten "one more things" quickly add up.

Again though, I am all for more money for local councils, our towns and streets are appalling to look at. I live in a high-average-earnings village within a low-average-earnings county and that makes the contrast quite stark; the council spend a lot on my village of less than 1500 people because they don't want the high earners to move away. Trees and bushes are always well clipped back, the roads have been resurfaced TWICE without roads in other nearby towns being done once, they maintain the appearance of any buildings that are empty on the main street, etc... but drive 5 minutes away and the state of the roads / overgrown areas at the sides of roads / dirty and broken signposting... buildings sitting empty that have fallen into such disrepair that they look like they've been bombed out... rubbish in the street, the list is endless. Councils need a MAJOR cash increase and they need to use it to make Britain less bloody depressing to look at and live in... compared to many European countries, most of our smaller towns are frankly embarrassing.

BUT - again - I think the way that is funded could and should be more creative than simply slapping a flat increase on Council Tax... for the reasons listed above.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Candy Cane

if households are paying 3 per cent towards social care in their Council Tax there is a level of accountability for families who have elderly relatives don't you think?, rather than it going into a black hole of income tax

Or... you could look at it another way, by putting the onus on CT pensioners as well as those with no families to support are paying too aren't they?
Whereas if income tax was raised it would only be working age people required to pay, effectively this rise is unduly unfair on the elderly as they have paid in all their lives and are now being squeezed in retirement.

Why does it have to be a black hole? if 3% of CT can be earmarked why not 1% of income tax?

[Kizzy]

[QUOTE=Candy Cane;9746529]

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza

My issue is tax is tax? At least 3 per cent of council tax is earmarked specifically for social care, as social care provision is managed individually by local councils, what is your issue with that? a 1 per cent rise in income tax might not be earmarked specifically and not given to local councils, so at least this way they are certain to have more funds which has to be a good thing yes?

No idea what you mean here, My issue is robbing peter to pay paul, what good is it lifting some out of paying tax whilst slapping almost 6% on those in boroughs already struggling with austerity?

There was a recent poll where it was found that people were happy to pay more tax if it was for the benefit of the NHS or social care, that to me would be a good thing.