Now then...lower benefits for the Northerners ??

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

Putting the conservatives possible motivations aside, I think the policy itself is a very rational one. I'm from the North and have plenty of family and friends who live in Manchester, Cheshire, York, Thirsk, Newcastle and it is cheaper to live there and that's not just because of house prices.

If we are going to spend 'x' on benefits then either we are using benefits to encourage people to move to cheaper areas (by keeping the level the same for all) or we pay a different level based on the local cost of living.

Is it worth the complexity of doing this? Is such a system workable? How do you measure living cost by area? Are all valid questions but if they can be answered then I'm all for it.

What sort of things are cheaper?

Carlos77

coastline wrote: »

heres a list of the council tax bands...regional basis...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6638/2110513.pdf

With living costs cheaper up here in the north east, can someone please explain why my band D council tax is higher here, than in any other area of the country?

DevilsAdvocate1

tom9980 wrote: »

Partner is a teacher in primary she already does 60 hours a week in term time and average 50 per week over the whole year and they want to add 20 hours a week to the school week not including all the extra planning etc required? And if she doesnt have to do that work who are you going to pay to do it? how much will that cost the tax payer?

And when would children get the chance to be children? I was really surprised when my children started school by how tired they were. For them to come home just to have tea and go to bed is not a life for a child. Its bad enough when you are a grown up.

And if this is just for teenagers - they are old enough not to be in childcare anyway. So no help to working parents.

This is not the life I want for my children. I changed the way I worked to fit around the school day and I know many other parents manage it to. I had my children to bring them up, not to put them into school for long hours each day where I will hardly see them other than weekends.

GlynD

N1AK wrote: »

I hate to break it to you but the cost of building a road doesn't change because no one uses it.

If what you said was true then they would receive less in government spending than they pay in tax, as that isn't the case what you say is manifestly not true. Any other fictional arguments you'd like to discuss?

You trying to assert that there are just as many roads, streets, airports and railway stations in Newcastle-upon-Tyne as there are in London?

Keep it civil btw. I'm not jumping down your throat - don't you be getting on my case. :cool:

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

Can you give some examples when I've ventured north I haven't notice much difference.

Fuel (Petrol/Diesel) averages 1-2 pence cheaper. Standard cinema tickets, bowling etc are about £1 a film/game cheaper. Beer is considerably cheaper in pubs (normally over £0.50 cheaper per drink).

It's not like going to eastern Europe or anything but the difference is noticeable enough. Most of my more recent observations are from visiting Derbyshire and Manchester. I'm normally at one or other every 2-3 weeks.

If I had to guess I'd say living in Sale (pretty well off Manc suburb) would save you £3-5 a week vs the South East. I couldn't guess vs an ok London suburb as I've never lived there.

GlynD

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Like this

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tfl-investment-programme-introduction.pdf

or Cross Rail

or The Olympics

or proposed Third Runway

or proposed Heathrow high speed Gatwick link

Thanks Grizz - exactly what I'm saying. :cool:

N1AK

GlynD wrote: »

You trying to assert that there are just as many roads and streets in Newcastle-upon-Tyne as there are in London?

Keep it civil btw. I'm not jumping down your throat - don't you be getting on my case. :cool:

I would estimate that Newcastle has effectively the same infrastructure requirements per capita as London with the exception of London having considerably higher underground and rail infrastructure.

But that hardly matters as my point wasn't that more is spent on Northerners than Southerners but that net tax income in the South is lower than government spending in the South and that net tax income from the North is lower than expenditure in the North. I have no issue with that and I don't have any desire to see it change; Other than it would be nice to see even more better paid jobs in my favourite city: Manchester and country: Yorkshire.

GlynD

N1AK wrote: »

I would estimate that Newcastle has effectively the same infrastructure requirements per capita as London with the exception of London having considerably higher underground and rail infrastructure.

But that hardly matters as my point wasn't that more is spent on Northerners than Southerners but that net tax income in the South is lower than government spending in the South and that net tax income from the North is lower than expenditure in the North. I have no issue with that and I don't have any desire to see it change; Other than it would be nice to see even more better paid jobs in my favourite city: Manchester and country: Yorkshire.

My point is that it's all pro rata.

More people down south leads to more tax being paid down south which pays for a bigger infrastructure.

Less people up north so there are less people to pay for a smaller infrastructure.

It's as simple as that.

SailorSam

Not everything is cheaper in the north, compare the council rates in Kensington & Chelsea and where i live in Knowsley.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Cronton
996.66
1162.77
1328.88
1494.99
1827.21
2159.43
2491.65
2989.98
Halewood
1013.91
1182.89
1351.88
1520.86
1858.83
2196.79
2534.77
3041.72
Knowsley
1044.23
1218.26
1392.31
1566.34
1914.42
2262.49
2610.57
3132.68
Prescot
1024.25
1194.96
1365.67
1536.38
1877.80
2219.21
2560.63
3072.76
Tarbock
980.37
1143.77
1307.17
1470.56
1797.35
2124.14
2450.93
2941.12
Whiston
1020.23
1190.27
1360.31
1530.35
1870.43
2210.50
2550.58
3060.70
Other
976.04
1138.71
1301.39
1464.06
1789.41
2114.75
2440.10
2928.12

BAND A BAND B BAND C BAND D BAND E BAND F BAND G BAND H £726£847£968 £1,089£1,331£1,573 £1,816£2,179

N1AK

GlynD wrote: »

My point is that it's all pro rata.

More people down south leads to more tax being paid down south which pays for a bigger infrastructure.

Less people up north so there are less people to pay for a smaller infrastructure.

It's as simple as that.

There's a lot more reasons for it than that but yes the different density of the population also makes a considerable difference. The North has more benefit claimants (as a ratio) and considerably lower average incomes (thus lower tax per capita).

Again it hardly matters, all it really shows is the huge extent to which very high paid London jobs skew the figures. Someone sat earning an ok wage in Essex might choose to whine about the North taking all the Southern money but he wouldn't be any more responsible for the Southern subsidy than most people in the North.