Ouch - more cuts ...

[french frank]

Isn't the issue not the size of the pot but how that pot is allocated?

I would have said it was precisely about the size of the pot available for public services in general. Local councils are only one of many public services suffering from inadequate funding. If one were thinking of any specific service, one might be able to think of specific 'efficiencies' but many are self-evidently already cut to the bone. Why is SCC now finding it difficult to fund the Performing Arts Library, which has had its funds supplemented by private sources already?

Why is it 'Keep Out' when it comes to residents of neighbouring authorities using the nearest recycling centre to where they live?

[Serial_Apologist]

I would have said it was precisely about the size of the pot available for public services in general. Local councils are only one of many public services suffering from inadequate funding. If one were thinking of any specific service, one might be able to think of specific 'efficiencies' but many are self-evidently already cut to the bone. Why is SCC now finding it difficult to fund the Performing Arts Library, which has had its funds supplemented by private sources already?

Why is it 'Keep Out' when it comes to residents of neighbouring authorities using the nearest recycling centre to where they live?

Exactly. When Havering applied such restrictions back in the 1990s it resulted in large-scale flytipping including toxic substances and asbestos being inflicted on the countryside within a few miles beyond the Havering BC, mostly affecting a 3 or so mile zone just beyond the Greater London/Essex boundary, at great cost to the latter's county council, with resulting disputes and threats of court action, and local farmers. I don't know if these issues have ever been sorted out. - what seems certain is they can only get worse.

[Sir Velo]

I would have said it was precisely about the size of the pot available for public services in general. Local councils are only one of many public services suffering from inadequate funding. If one were thinking of any specific service, one might be able to think of specific 'efficiencies' but many are self-evidently already cut to the bone. Why is SCC now finding it difficult to fund the Performing Arts Library, which has had its funds supplemented by private sources already?

Why is it 'Keep Out' when it comes to residents of neighbouring authorities using the nearest recycling centre to where they live?

Likewise just saying "we're a rich country, we can afford it" is far too simplistic I'm afraid!

We either agree that we need to pay more in council tax to fund all these services or if that is unacceptable we need to understand that there are going to be cuts. The pot is not bottomless as it currently stands!

[Sir Velo]

Why is it 'Keep Out' when it comes to residents of neighbouring authorities using the nearest recycling centre to where they live?

I would have thought that was fairly obvious! If you've paid hard earned cash on council tax for a service why would you want to subsidise others to benefit from a service to which they don't contribute? Unless you institute some form of cross charging then such measures are needed to prevent abuse.

Remember, council tax varies according to where you live. If you don't put in some measures of this sort, the less scrupulous councils will cut their own recycling services knowing that they are provided by neighbouring councils!

[french frank]

I would have thought that was fairly obvious! If you've paid hard earned cash on council tax for a service why would you want to subsidise others to benefit from a service to which they don't contribute? Unless you institute some form of cross charging then such measures are needed to prevent abuse.

The point is that ALL residents should have relatively easy access to recycling facilities, and only hard-up councils (see my previous) would guard their facilities so rigidly.

If a private individual hires a skip to empty rubbish after a building job, clearly they wouldn't want all the local dumping their rubbish in it so that there was no room when they came to use it. But we are talking about public services.

[french frank]

The problem is not as a result of insufficient revenue from council tax: it's the ever-tightening screw which central government puts on its own contributions to local authorities. Surely you didn't think local services were funded entirely out of council tax? Personally, I would put up council tax and income tax for those best able to pay more. If no one can afford to pay more, then we aren't a rich country.

Likewise just saying "we're a rich country, we can afford it" is far too simplistic I'm afraid!

We either agree that we need to pay more in council tax to fund all these services or if that is unacceptable we need to understand that there are going to be cuts. The pot is not bottomless as it currently stands!

[ahinton]

The problem is not as a result of insufficient revenue from council tax: it's the ever-tightening screw which central government puts on its own contributions to local authorities. Surely you didn't think local services were funded entirely out of council tax? Personally, I would put up council tax and income tax for those best able to pay more. If no one can afford to pay more, then we aren't a rich country.

But the problems with this are that (a) there are already higher rates of income tax for those whose taxable incomes exceed £100K and £150K and (b) if similar rate structures are applied to council tax as apply to income tax, the cost of designing, implementing and generally administering them would fall on those very councils who make such amendments (should they do so) and would have accordingly to be charged to all council taxpayers.

[french frank]

But the problems with this are that (a) there are already higher rates of income tax for those whose taxable incomes exceed £100K and £150K

I do take the point that not much revenue is gained by taxing the richest more because there aren't enough of the richest to provide a big enough pot for the entire country. But there are all those tax loopholes which benefit the mega-rich to be closed. And even the medium rich could fork out a bit more. And the marginally rich. As I said, if a country does not have the wealth to run decent public services, it isn't a rich country. But we are assured we are a rich country, in which case … All it needs is a bit of redistribution of wealth

and (b) if similar rate structures are applied to council tax as apply to income tax, the cost of designing, implementing and generally administering them would fall on those very councils who make such amendments (should they do so) and would have accordingly to be charged to all council taxpayers.

You've lost me there ahinton with your 'similar rate structures' Save the switch from council tax to local income tax for more propitious times. Councils simply raise the amount collected - as they already do, most years, anyway - for each tax band, progressively more from the higher bands.

[teamsaint]

I do take the point that not much revenue is gained by taxing the richest more because there aren't enough of the richest to provide a big enough pot for the entire country. But there are all those tax loopholes which benefit the mega-rich to be closed. And even the medium rich could fork out a bit more. And the marginally rich. As I said, if a country does not have the wealth to run decent public services, it isn't a rich country. But we are assured we are a rich country, in which case … All it needs is a bit of redistribution of wealth



You've lost me there ahinton with your 'similar rate structures' Save the switch from council tax to local income tax for more propitious times. Councils simply raise the amount collected - as they already do, most years, anyway - for each tax band, progressively more from the higher bands.

Well I pretty much agree with you, ( quietly, in case the mods are watching and deem this P and CA), but the rich are relentlessly trying to persuade us that they pay a huge proportion of the nation's tax, by focusing on income tax.

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-top-1-earners-pay-28-tax-burden/

But as the article suggests but doesn't clarify ( although TBF it doesn't set out to) the proportion of all tax paid by particular groups, or the increase in income and wealth over time of the richest groups, which is pretty significant in determining any " fairness", is much less clear.

Anyway, FWIW, I think the threshold for higher rate tax should be raised much nearer £50 k, and/ or perhaps better to introduce a 30% band. Easy enough in this computer age. Varied bands were a nightmare to calculate back in the paper and calculator days.
And a highest rate 50% on anything over £150k would be fair IMO. It seems to me iniquitous that lowish paid graduates effectively pay around 40% deductions ( before pensions are even thought about), whilst the highest rate for what used to be known as unearned income is 45%.

[ahinton]

I do take the point that not much revenue is gained by taxing the richest more because there aren't enough of the richest to provide a big enough pot for the entire country. But there are all those tax loopholes which benefit the mega-rich to be closed. And even the medium rich could fork out a bit more. And the marginally rich. As I said, if a country does not have the wealth to run decent public services, it isn't a rich country. But we are assured we are a rich country, in which case … All it needs is a bit of redistribution of wealth



You've lost me there ahinton with your 'similar rate structures' Save the switch from council tax to local income tax for more propitious times. Councils simply raise the amount collected - as they already do, most years, anyway - for each tax band, progressively more from the higher bands.

All that I meant by "similar rate structures" was the idea of having several rates of council tax according to income that's subject to income tax, just like there are several rates of income tax; right now, there just one flat rate of council tax for each property band (A - H) which varies only from one local authority area to another and is dependent upon the taxed property rather than the taxable income of its occupants.

[Dave2002]

.... and then they're surprised when there's flytipping everywhere - which it would have costed them (ie us) less to have collected in the old way, legitimately.

I don't know that too many people are surprised at the fly tipping in Surrey, which is getting close to £1m per annum to clear up. The cuts in services which parts of SCC are trying to make are over £2m - but there doesn't seem to be too much joined up thinking. There are plenty of rich people in Surrey, and quite a number of reasonably well off people - yet because of caps on councils my understanding is that there is a nonsense that people who could quite reasonably pay a bit more (that includes me - though I'm not offering to pay £thousands extra - but £1-200 pa would not be impossible) are not being asked to do so, and thus services are cut and/or allowed to run down.