MSE News: Average council tax bill in England...

Danday

venison wrote: »

I suspect and have even read stuff to support the suspicion that by 2021/22 the rate support grant will have been abolished (thats the amount the govt gives to councils) and these "higher" increases will be the norm for the next 3 years and beyond.

It is a long time coming. Local authorities are there to provide local services. The people of the locality should be paying what is needed to provide those services.

Getting handouts from Westminster achieves nothing other than keep the actual costs down artificially for the councils. Why should the national government fund local services. Would you expect the Council taxpayers to fund national road building, HS2, pay for the next aircraft carrier or even build the next nuclear power station?
If people living in council area want a premium service then they should be paying for it.

In my area in Surrey, the streets are kept clean, roadside hedges are maintained regularly, even the roundabouts are planted a couple of times a year. You notice it after coming from other places - how well kept the area is resulting in the care shown by the residents of their own gardens. Nowhere do you see lines of wheelie bins, overgrown front lawns etc.
All of this comes at a cost of course and the residents are quite happy to pay over the odds for it.

[Deleted User]

Witchfinder_General wrote: »

6% rise for us this year. NHS is a black hole that will never be satisfied. Scrap it.

So what would you replace the NHS with? One example is that just one of my tablets cost me nothing for a months supply, in America the exact same tablet cost people $400 (yes thats right) a month.
That tablet stops me from becoming more ill than I would be without it, in America they just get more sick if they can't afford it or their insurance has stopped paying for it.
A free at point of use health service is the envy of the world it makes us what we are, I cannot see an acceptable alternative.
Most people who advocate scrapping the NHS are those that don't yet need it, BUT their day will come !:mad:

Ames

venison wrote: »

So what would you replace the NHS with? One example is that just one of my tablets cost me nothing for a months supply, in America the exact same tablet cost people $400 (yes thats right) a month.
That tablet stops me from becoming more ill than I would be without it, in America they just get more sick if they can't afford it or their insurance has stopped paying for it.
A free at point of use health service is the envy of the world it makes us what we are, I cannot see an acceptable alternative.
Most people who advocate scrapping the NHS are those that don't yet need it, BUT their day will come !:mad:

One of my treatments costs the NHS about £33,000 a year just for the medication. I've just googled how much it costs in the states, and it's even more eye watering - for those who can get it. There were people saying that their insurance won't cover it.

It was slightly better for other European countries, but still expensive.

evenasus

glider3560 wrote: »

Also, I'd add a surcharge for households with more than 2 adults (i.e. houseshares).

A four bedroom Band D property could be housing a family with three children with only one income from the parents, whereas it could also be housing four (or more) adults with four salaries.

It's been tried already. Remember the Community Charge (dubbed Poll Tax) We know what happened to that when some people didn't like it.

Our council tax is now £247.00 A month.

CIS

Poll Tax/Community Charge went badly wrong - in principal it was the right idea, levy a charge on the individual but in reality it was far too difficult to manage (and a few people may have openly voiced their displeasure). Council Tax isn't an ideal system but any means but it is far better a system in reality to run than Poll Tax. It clearly needs tweaking as a system but I'd much prefer it to bringing back Poll Tax.

I don't quite understand why people support removal of central grants - most of the arguments for it appear to be along the lines of 'let people pay their own way' however all that is achieved is that those who have the fortune to be in well off areas say 'my council still works fine' whilst those in poorer areas struggle to stay afloat. Relying on local funding only is a financial disaster for a large proportion of councils.

Danday

CIS wrote: »

Poll Tax/Community Charge went badly wrong - in principal it was the right idea, levy a charge on the individual but in reality it was far too difficult to manage (and a few people may have openly voiced their displeasure). Council Tax isn't an ideal system but any means but it is far better a system in reality to run than Poll Tax. It clearly needs tweaking as a system but I'd much prefer it to bringing back Poll Tax.

I don't quite understand why people support removal of central grants - most of the arguments for it appear to be along the lines of 'let people pay their own way' however all that is achieved is that those who have the fortune to be in well off areas say 'my council still works fine' whilst those in poorer areas struggle to stay afloat. Relying on local funding only is a financial disaster for a large proportion of councils.

With central funding it is either every council gets it or none at all. If it was to be paying the councils that housed the poorer communities how would they calculate that grant? What about councils that have an area of deprivation as well as an area of extreme wealth? Would you calculate street by street? Then you have some councils that waste money whilst others are very frugal and have large reserves - should they be penalised?

In a town close to where I live which was previously a village up until a few years ago has identified land that it owns that would be suitable for redevelopment. On a trial basis it is working closely with a developer who are told that 25% of the homes (eight in total) must be low cost/rental for the residents only. If this works then it will continue on a larger scale. This land is brownfield and lies in the centre of the old village. Just with this trial the council will receive cash of just under half a million for it's reserves and have two new 'council' properties That particular council uses it's assets to generate a substantial income every year.

seven-day-weekend

venison wrote: »

So what would you replace the NHS with? One example is that just one of my tablets cost me nothing for a months supply, in America the exact same tablet cost people $400 (yes thats right) a month.
That tablet stops me from becoming more ill than I would be without it, in America they just get more sick if they can't afford it or their insurance has stopped paying for it.
A free at point of use health service is the envy of the world it makes us what we are, I cannot see an acceptable alternative.
Most people who advocate scrapping the NHS are those that don't yet need it, BUT their day will come !:mad:

So why doesn't everyone copy it?

I am glad we have it and in no way want to scrap it, but it is a very inefficient and expensive service and needs to be completely overhauled in an attempt to to be more efficient and cost-effective.

CIS

Danday wrote: »

With central funding it is either every council gets it or none at all. If it was to be paying the councils that housed the poorer communities how would they calculate that grant? What about councils that have an area of deprivation as well as an area of extreme wealth? Would you calculate street by street? Then you have some councils that waste money whilst others are very frugal and have large reserves - should they be penalised?

In a town close to where I live which was previously a village up until a few years ago has identified land that it owns that would be suitable for redevelopment. On a trial basis it is working closely with a developer who are told that 25% of the homes (eight in total) must be low cost/rental for the residents only. If this works then it will continue on a larger scale. This land is brownfield and lies in the centre of the old village. Just with this trial the council will receive cash of just under half a million for it's reserves and have two new 'council' properties That particular council uses it's assets to generate a substantial income every year.

The grants (as there are various ones) have different conditions but the major part was also based on depravation so those poorer areas got the help and the richer ones got less - under the current cuts the poorer areas have seen funding slashed far greater then the richer areas so those who needed the monies have lost out significantly more in proportion.

Problem with leaving it to asset generation is that the poorer council's don't have those assets in the first place to generate the funds.

xylophone

very few people with no large gowns to boost the number of people paying.

With deep pockets?:)

Doc_N

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

So why doesn't everyone copy it?

I am glad we have it and in no way want to scrap it, but it is a very inefficient and expensive service and needs to be completely overhauled in an attempt to to be more efficient and cost-effective.

International comparisons suggest that's not actually the case.