Council Tax hikes.

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by Sasaferrato, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    It is likely that virtually every Council in England is going to raise Council Tax rates by 5.99%, the 2.99% maximum allowed without a referendum, and a further 3% to fund social care.

    From the look of it, for a Band D property, the average increase is going to be £100.00 or so a year.

    How do the English members view this? Do you view it as an essential increase in Council funds, or as an abrogation by Central Government, in that the extra funding should come from the Treasury, not the Council Tax payers?

    Obviously, being Scottish, I have no dog in this race. Our Council, West Lothian, has chosen not to increase the Council Tax for Bands A - D, but has increased the charge for Bands E - H, by about 7%. The 2018 -2019 figures aren't out yet, unless there is no change at all for the current year.

    When I worked, I did income and expenditure calculations day in day out, and was absolutely astonished at the level of water charges in England, £50.00+ a month wasn't uncommon. For a Band B house here, it is about £15.00 a month.
    Badgers likes this.
  2. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    Where I live the tory council resisted raising council tax for many years. Instead they chose the decimate vital services to the vulnerable to make up the shortfall in their budget as the government took an axe to it. I live in one of the richest boroughs of the richest city in the UK, people here can well afford a few quid more and I'm happy to pay it. Support those who live in the borough but find it hard to pay for Council tax but raise it for those who live in extraordinary wealth and wouldn't notice a raise in tax.

    For context my 1 bed flat is band D which is just short of £1600 per year. Sticking an extra £100 on that a year would be just an extra £4 each per month me and my partner would have to find. That doesn't even buy a pint round here.
  3. ruffneck23

    ruffneck23 Well-Known Member

    yep and in Surrey, where a few of us are from, the most wealthy county ( according to the radio this morning ), has has got the biggest shortfall ,its gone up every year since forever, I think I pay £1750 at the moment for a tiny 2 bed house ( well the second bedroom is a tiny box room ) and this is set to increase, I just don't know where the money goes.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    Badgers likes this.
  4. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    The banding is still based on 1991 property prices with the highest band simply "Over £320,000".

    I think that's nuts and should be reviewed.

    There should be a new band for properties over £1m so we can expropriate funds from the super rich to pay for the vital services needed by the rest of us.
    coley, Nylock, Almor and 18 others like this.
  5. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    The argument against is there are lots of old people with no money living in houses that are now worth that much. Im sure Hackney has many. Taxing on property value doesnt make that much sense to me - shouldnt it always be means tested?
    coley, sealion, yield and 4 others like this.
  6. littleseb

    littleseb littleseb

    Yep. I used to work for a support Service round the King's Road, and I was seriously surprised how many elderly people from an afro-caribbean background lived in relative poverty and dire circumstances in very large houses they bought relatively cheaply in the 6ts, worth millions nowadays.
    yield, cupid_stunt and ska invita like this.
  7. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    I'm sure this is the reason why nobody has been brave enough to review it...

    Means testing for people with over £1m in assets is a thorny issue isn't it? Apparently Starbucks in the UK has never made a profit?
    Sue and ska invita like this.
  8. Leafster

    Leafster From the FRow

    Another Surrey resident here. I think it's a mix of reduced funding from central government and financial mismanagement at the county level. I don't think it's fair to shift so much of the funding from central to local level,

    I live in a two-bed house and without the single person discount the council tax would be nearly £200 per month.
  9. donkyboy

    donkyboy Crazy cat man

    lambeth. paying 76 a month. expect an increase. they reduced rent last year but put up council tax.
  10. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    yeah i think its why...there was a slate review date under late new labour iirc, but this argument stopped it, is how i remember it playing out.

    Im a fan of means testing in general and in could have quite sophisticated categories (especially at the top end of the rich). I guess its time consuming from a bureaucratic point and peoples circumstances can change.
    sealion likes this.
  11. 8ball

    8ball Considerably more oppressed than yow

    The Government chose to massively reduce central funding.

    This "hike" goes nowhere near redressing the balance.
    NoXion, crossthebreeze and mauvais like this.
  12. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    Our Council is a mix of Conservative, Labour and SNP. The Conservatives and Labour now outnumber the SNP, of course, Labour and the Conservatives can't form a formal coalition,:rolleyes: so they just happen to vote the same way to defeat the SNP. :D
  13. littleseb

    littleseb littleseb

    In Finland a lot of stuff is means tested, apparently it goes as far as speeding fines, parking tickets, etc...
    coley and ska invita like this.
  14. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    That isn't a problem. Look at the person's income, and reduce the Council Tax proportionally.
    coley likes this.
  15. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    Thats called means testing
  16. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    When I worked for Roche, every conference we were shown the loss that Roche had made in the UK. Given the number of very expensive drugs they sell, particularly in oncology, you wonder why. Then you discover that tenoxicam powder, manufactured in Switzerland and bought by Roche UK, is being bought by Roche UK at 20 times the actual cost. A nice way to transfer your profits. I dare say Roche wasn't the only company behaving in such a manner.
    tim likes this.
  17. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

  18. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    I'm just over £100.00 a month, but that includes water and sewerage charges.

    We had a Council Tax freeze for damn near a decade, and this year, this has been lifted. As I said, our Council has chosen not to increase the charge, but they are not shutting down facilities either. They must be superb money managers. The gym we go to is Council owned, one of nine that they run, a choice of three swimming pools too.
  19. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    I'm undecided on this. An asset is an asset. In some ways they would have the means to live a much more comfortable life then those who are being expected to shell out because they have an income, however limited. In some ways its a choice to have money tied up in an asset.

    Straight up means testing would be to do with earnings and because of the disparity between generations younger people would inevitably end up paying more than older folk even though the young will never own a house like that or get close to owning an asset like that. Tbh my thoughts on this are not fully formed yet but intrinsically I don't like the idea of 'asset rich, income poor' because there is an obvious solution to that. I'm more concerned about 'asset poor, income poor'.
    Celyn, alex_, redsquirrel and 5 others like this.
  20. Fez909

    Fez909 toilet expert

    So who should pay the most tax:

    1) Young couple who have a £600k mortgage, earning £80k between them
    2) Old man living in a £1.5m house living off his savings
  21. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    I dont know, ask the Finns!

    Probably 1. You shouldn't have to sell your home to pay for taxes
    Sasaferrato likes this.
  22. Fez909

    Fez909 toilet expert

    Surely taxing wealth is the way to a more equal society? #1 above are clearly not doing badly, but #2 is sat on £1.5m in fixed assets, and has enough liquid assets to live off without working.

    That's the very definition of wealth isn't it?
  23. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    you shouldn't have to sell your home to pay for taxes...but frankly if i was sat on a million+ home living in poverty i wouldnt hang about.

    There were some more subtle potential clauses suggested as to how to get around this...i forget the details now

    ETA this all came up again with the issue of paying for care in old age recently...Mays Death Tax IIRC
  24. cupid_stunt

    cupid_stunt Dyslexic King Cnut the Great.

    West Sussex County Council is increasing it by 3.95% (inc. Social Care Supplement), Worthing Borough Council's share is going up by 2.96%, and Sussex police has asked for their share to go up by 7.8%, so combined around £60 extra per year, taking it to about £1510 pa.

    Judging by posts above it seems like a bargain for a large 2-double bedroom bungalow, with garden & garage, which I am surprised is only Band C, it would be around £200 more if it was in Band D.

    Worthing Borough Council has saved a fortune over recent years by combining services with neighbouring Adur District Council, reducing management roles & sharing a Chief Executive to help protect front-line services.
  25. Fez909

    Fez909 toilet expert

    It depends. What are taxes for? What's the moral reason for paying them?

    A fella who is sat on £1.5m+ of assets has clearly enjoyed the benefits of the society around him, which is paid for with taxes. Why shouldn't he give a little back? Why should old people sit on wealth, to be passed down to their wealthy kids when they die (probably avoiding IT there, too).
    redsquirrel, salem and kabbes like this.
  26. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    We already have income tax and an outgoings tax (VAT, fuel duty, stamp duties etc). I see no inherent problem with the concept of a wealth tax. How they should be balanced is a difficult question, but if you have £1m in assets then you have £1m in assets.

    I don’t know about this “forced to sell” thing being a problem either, necessarily. There are angles to that too.
    muscovyduck, sealion and Fez909 like this.
  27. sim667

    sim667 Licking windows on the 303 bus.

    I'm starting to feel the squeeze personally, I've not had a pay rise since I started this job, and I'm starting to see my standard of living go down, my savings slowly getting eaten away, and now I'm always in my overdraft by about £300 by the end of the month, so to me, its not particularly welcome news, but it seems unnecessary if the government would just fucking fund stuff properly, which annoys me more than a council tax hike.
    William of Walworth likes this.
  28. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    thats one way of looking at it...another is forced gentrification, displacement of people from places and communities theyve lived their whole lives, because all of a sudden their home has jumped from the lowest to the highest level of taxation
  29. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    If we are to have a wealth tax, mind, I think it is rather crude to base it just on the house somebody lives in. There's a big difference in the wealth status between two people living in the same value of house but where one is funded by debt and the other is owned outright. And what about wealth not tied up in the house you live in?

    I would have thought that it would be possible to establish net wealth categories and identify which categories an individual lies in -- e.g. less than £100k, £100k to £1m, £1m to £10m, £10m+. The category could encompass pre-defined assets, such as all property (not just what you're living in), bonds, equities, cash and so forth and you could be allowed to net off debt from this. A duty could then be levied based on your wealth category.
    Smoking kills and Leafster like this.
  30. Fez909

    Fez909 toilet expert

    Gentrification is only possible because of wealth inequality, though. It's the very thing that makes gentrification possible. And it happens right now, without any of this wealth tax stuff we're talking about. Tackling wealth inequality would reduce gentrification as a side effect.
  31. jusali

    jusali Happy daze.....

    Just bail out the banks and up taxes innit?
    All this discussion is bollocks, it's a trickle up economy and the Tories are feeding the rich with cuts to the poor.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice