Is the freezing of Council Tax levels a good thing when cutting Services?

[mj.scuba]

Can anyone say why Council Tax should be allowed to increase if the services being provided are being reduced?

 

Obviously Titanic would rather pay more tax for less services.

[Titanic99]

I think you may be missing Titanic's point.

 

Those paying the least are indeed subsidised by those who pay more, but I suspect he feels that the levels of subsidy should be increased dramatically.

 

Those who currently pay the least shouldn't pay at all; those who receive benefits which pay their council tax should see those benefits increased - so they make a net profit out of council tax - and the rest of the population should pay the lot.

 

Bring back the Peoples' Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire.

 

Now, now this has been a sensible discussion so don't bring it down to the level of other threads on here.

 

You are entitled to think the well-off should be made a bit better off at the cost of the less well-off, I happen to think the opposite but I don't want to deny you your right to an opinion.

[Rupert_Baehr]

The services provided by the council are funded in part by council tax and in part by money from central government.

 

If the council reduce expenditure on services by £x million a year but Central government reduces its grant by twice that amount, the council will have to increase council taxes to make up the £x million shortfall while still reducing the services provided. (As I'm sure you're well aware )

 

Perhaps it's up to the local voters to fire the council and elect a new one?

 

I can see the headlines now: The voters of Sheffield are revolting!

[JFKvsNixon]

Can anyone say why Council Tax should be allowed to increase if the services being provided are being reduced?

 

The answer to this question is obvious from the first post.

 

Titanic thinks that council tax should be increased whilst services are reduced, so he can make political capital out of it.

[Titanic99]

:

 

How will a freeze benefit those who pay the most more than those who pay less or nothing, when those paying the least or nothing benefit the most for the services and are subsidised for same by those paying the most?

 

 

How can it possibly not be the case when you have a local taxation policy that is based on the value of properties and the higher the value then the more you pay.

 

Person A pays £3000

 

5% inflation increase = £150 per year

 

Person B pays nothing

 

nil increase

 

Same example with levels frozen means they are both exactly the same.

 

So how are the better off, not benefitting more from frozen Council Tax levels than the poor?

[Titanic99]

You are suggesting a tax freeze and less services: in my book, that's simply less value (services) for (tax) money for all concerned.

 

 

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, this is the new Government that are freezing Council Tax levels whilst reducing services at the same time.

 

I am asking is this the right thing to do and arguing that it is not.

[cgksheff]

Run behind the bus and save a pound or run behind a taxi and save a tenner?

[Titanic99]

Can anyone say why Council Tax should be allowed to increase if the services being provided are being reduced?

 

Council Tax forms around 22%? of Local Government funding, I suspect it will be confirmed tomorrow that funding is reduced whilst cutting services.

 

This way it looks like Councils (mostly controlled by Libs/Tories) look like they've been doing the right thing, so that when the Council Elections come along there won't be a total wipeout for them.

 

It is clever, let's hope people don't get fooled by it.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Now, now this has been a sensible discussion so don't bring it down to the level of other threads on here.

 

You are entitled to think the well-off should be made a bit better off at the cost of the less well-off, I happen to think the opposite but I don't want to deny you your right to an opinion.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am, however, sufficiently pragmatic to accept that when cuts are made they are likely to affect everybody, not just the well-off.

 

You seem to think that because an individual lives in his own house, then that person is 'well off'. What about the single pensioner (a widow or a widower) living alone in what was the family home? Is that person wealthy? Can that person afford to pay a significant increase in council tax?

 

Consider two families living in 3-bed semi-detached houses next door to one another.

 

The house on the left is occupied by a widow.

The house on the right is occupied by a couple with two children.

 

A chippy van pulls up outside. The widow goes out and buys a portion of Haddock and Chips.

 

One of her neighbours goes out and buys 2 portions of Haddock and Chips and 2 Beefburgers and chips.

 

The widow is required to pay as much for her single portion of fish and chips as the other family did for food to feed the lot of them.

 

That's fair, isn't it?

 

It's how the council tax system works.

 

I also remember the early 1970s, when the Council tried to increase subsidies and loaded the costs onto the rates. There was a significant efflux of ratepayers, a fall in owner-occupation and a drop in tax receipts as a result.

[Mecky]

It smacks of desperation