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

[Titanic99]

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.

 

As i've said before I think the Government are being clever about this.

 

Services will be cut whilst Council Tax levels are frozen, to voters this will look as if it is not the fault of the Council and mean a few Councils remain in Libdem/Tory control.

[JFKvsNixon]

As i've said before I think the Government are being clever about this.

 

Services will be cut whilst Council Tax levels are frozen, to voters this will look as if it is not the fault of the Council and mean a few Councils remain in Libdem/Tory control.

 

So who's fault do you believe it to be?

[Titanic99]

So who's fault do you believe it to be?

 

To which aspect of the discussion?

 

Should there be cuts?

Should Central Government funding be reduced?

Should Local taxation be reduced?

Who should decide the above?

[JFKvsNixon]

To which aspect of the discussion?

 

Should there be cuts?

Should Central Government funding be reduced?

Should Local taxation be reduced?

Who should decide the above?

 

To the aspect of the the post that I was quoting.

 

As i've said before I think the Government are being clever about this.

 

Services will be cut whilst Council Tax levels are frozen, to voters this will look as if it is not the fault of the Council and mean a few Councils remain in Libdem/Tory control.

 

So who do you think is actually at fault for the cuts?

[L00b]

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. <example>

 

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

In your example, Person A still pays £3000 (when they should be paying £150 extra), Person B still pays nothing (when they should be paying £3150).

 

Person B still uses Council services proportionally more than Person A (save as to services common to all: bins, Council property maintenance, etc.)

 

Persons A and B both face inflationary pressures in their daily lives.

 

So, considering the magnitude of the gap (in your example), I am still singularly failing to grasp how this freeze benefits the rich more than the poor.

 

By any sense or definition of the term 'equitable' (look it up )

 

Interesting that, in your earlier replies, you omitted to quote/reply to:

You'd have a point if the tax was going down, not kept level. Otherwise, what you suggest is that "the rich" are somehow getting richer by paying the same amount of tax? How does that work?

If the 'inflation' variable in your example was supposed to address that, I will refer you back to the above point, that inflation affects all in equal measure (and that it can impact house value negatively, however). Except the poor (by your example, the Council and taxpayers stomach it all: the effective rate of inflation for Person A is not just 5%, but more).

 

Now, I'm certainly not advocating a return to 19th Century industrial revolution, workhouses and the like (and no, not even of putting taxpayer-subsidised 'poors' onto collecting litter and cleaning roads to make up for the Council service shortcomings ), but you have to have some measure of what constitutes fairness, and that extends up to a point: your argument, Titanic99, is so far past it that it looks as if it might enter orbit any time now

[Titanic99]

In your example, Person A still pays £3000 (when they should be paying £150 extra), Person B still pays nothing (when they should be paying £3150).

 

Person B still uses Council services proportionally more than Person A (save as to services common to all: bins, Council property maintenance, etc.)

 

Persons A and B both face inflationary pressures in their daily lives.

 

So, considering the magnitude of the gap (in your example), I am still singularly failing to grasp how this freeze benefits the rich more than the poor.

 

By any sense or definition of the term 'equitable' (look it up )

 

 

If the cost of running a service is to be increased in line with inflation at a percentage rate and a decision is taken not to increase this cost, then how does it not benefit the person who pays the higher percentage figure.

 

If you have a thousand pounds to run OAP homes and this is made up of Council Tax payers paying the following:

 

A- £100

B- £200

C- £300

D- £400

 

Then the following year inflation takes this up to £1050 (5%)

 

But the people running the home decide to get that funding elsewhere or reduce the costs, then who is the main beneficiaries of the decision to get teh funding elsewhere and who is the main losers if cuts are made.

[Titanic99]

To the aspect of the the post that I was quoting.

 

 

 

So who do you think is actually at fault for the cuts?

 

The person/people who have taken the decision to make the cuts.

[L00b]

If the cost of running a service is to be increased in line with inflation at a percentage rate and a decision is taken not to increase this cost, then how does it not benefit the person who pays the higher percentage figure.

That's where your inflation-based construct falls down.

 

The freeze cancels its effect out, which amounts to either less service, or (and this is much more likely) less revenue for the service provider(s) (which still provide the service).

 

If you have a thousand pounds to run OAP homes <...>

Regardless of how this is made up, that's your budget and that's it. Manage it. Find better or alternative suppliers.

 

We (as a business) operate on professional fees, which have always gone up year on year (standard across our area of practice), if at least to take inflation into account. But not in 2009. And not this year, either. Many (most) firms in our line of work have slashed hourly rates and fees, to maintain activity levels. The service is still the same, has to be, if not to maintain our reputation, then lest we fancy testing how good our professional indemnity insurance really is.

 

But the people running the home decide to get that funding elsewhere or reduce the costs, then who is the main beneficiaries of the decision to get teh funding elsewhere and who is the main losers if cuts are made.

Noone benefits, and the main losers are ultimately those who provide the same service for less.

[Titanic99]

Noone benefits, and the main losers are ultimately those who provide the same service for less.

 

I'd be interested to know what definition of benefits you are using.

 

If two people are directly affected by the decision not to increase a form of taxation by a percentage amount, and one of whom is not affected as they don't pay tax and the other is affected by this decision as they pay a lot, then I would argue that the person who won't be paying any increase is benefitting from this decision significantly more than the other person unaffected.

 

Regarding the main losers from a policy to reduce a public service, I would argue that the main losers would be the recipients of the service.

[L00b]

I'd be interested to know what definition of benefits you are using.

The basic, common-sense, apolitical one: deriving a gain of any sort.

If two people are directly affected by the decision not to increase a form of taxation by a percentage amount, and one of whom is not affected as they don't pay tax and the other is affected by this decision as they pay a lot, then I would argue that the person who won't be paying any increase is benefitting from this decision significantly more than the other person unaffected.

We disagree about the magnitude of the effect. I do not accept your argument, which appears grounded in Zola-esque militantism, devoid of any practical consideration. Particularly when the person who doesn't pay tax benefits "significantly more" from the services, cut down or otherwise, than the other person who pays for them. If anything, it redresses the balance of equity somewhat

Regarding the main losers from a policy to reduce a public service, I would argue that the main losers would be the recipients of the service.

That's because you are maintaining a (heavily biased) political approach to the point/thread, rather than a logical/common-sense approach. Talking the talk/criticising is easy, walking the walk/doing is the hard part

 

Service, by and large and in cut-down form or otherwise, will still be provided. OAPs will still be fed and homed. Someone has to provide the service. You call it "public services": in many if not most instances these days, that's outsourced to private service contractors (so competition can kick in, and result in lower costs - see e.g. supply2.gov.uk). Market economy being what it is, there is always a competing firm ready and willing to undercut for getting the tender. At its extreme, however, it's like everything: you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

 

So, when I say that "no-one benefits", that's exactly what it means, and what I see in private sector day in/day out: people scrimp here and save there and go for the cheapest option, and in the end it always ends up costing them more to put it right if/when they have no choice but to do so.

 

So, in context, service recipients lose out (sub-par service), reputable providers lose out (no business, the talent leaves), less reputable providers lose out (bad reputation accrue, no repeat business = costs of sales goes up), Council loses out (discontent locals, more outlay than budgeted to put things rights), etc.