George Osborne extends council tax freeze

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It won't harm those councils that are in the most deprived areas especially as they received only a fraction of their income from council tax anyway, being mostly reliant on central government grants, or if you prefer tax payers elsewhere, for their local spending.

But those are the councils who are probably most hit by the government cuts.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But those are the councils who are probably most hit by the government cuts.

I agree you only had to look at where and % cuts each council got most depraved areas got absolute pounding by the so called where in it together.

It was sham the same with freezing council taxes not allowing natural inflation increase.

Yes there no doubt inderect council taxation will be more. Thats fines litter bugs and some fines been absolute comical like baby drops banana.

Parking fines again some have been wrong been successfully appealed.

Charges for parking up many now charging disabled drivers.

If they can find away to tax every person indirectly they will to cover shortfall. Problem with this thinking is the targets given to wardens it should not be money profit setup but merely enforcing legislation.

Its process which needs nipping in the bud before out of hand therefore instigate hybrid allow councils to move breath so services not effected.

Fair playing field in its hammering of councils independent Audits to see if councils waste funding. Reduce hierachy including COUNCILLORS who many do it for MONEY not the cummunity. Strict rules on pay to top bosses.

Power to people to sack Councillors and say in its direction.

More localised funding GOVERNMENT dont know whats best for your town you know whats best.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by mertle

I agree you only had to look at where and % cuts each council got most depraved areas got absolute pounding by the so called where in it together.

It was sham the same with freezing council taxes not allowing natural inflation increase.

Yes there no doubt inderect council taxation will be more. Thats fines litter bugs and some fines been absolute comical like baby drops banana.

Parking fines again some have been wrong been successfully appealed.

Charges for parking up many now charging disabled drivers.

If they can find away to tax every person indirectly they will to cover shortfall. Problem with this thinking is the targets given to wardens it should not be money profit setup but merely enforcing legislation.

Its process which needs nipping in the bud before out of hand therefore instigate hybrid allow councils to move breath so services not effected.

Fair playing field in its hammering of councils independent Audits to see if councils waste funding. Reduce hierachy including COUNCILLORS who many do it for MONEY not the cummunity. Strict rules on pay to top bosses.

Power to people to sack Councillors and say in its direction.

More localised funding GOVERNMENT dont know whats best for your town you know whats best.

And what is really disgusting is the wages taken by the heads of some county councils.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But those are the councils who are probably most hit by the government cuts.

Who saw substantial funding increases thanks to the Labour administration reallocating block grants and council tax increases. Certainly doesn't seem to be hurting one of the most deprived areas in the country given they had the money to do this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11984977
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12242831

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Who saw substantial funding increases thanks to the Labour administration reallocating block grants and council tax increases. Certainly doesn't seem to be hurting one of the most deprived areas in the country given they had the money to do this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11984977
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12242831

They received a substantial funding increase because they are deprived areas. This usually means high unemployment, and low income, meaning less income from taxes.

Less income from which taxes?

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Less income from which taxes?

Council tax, which is why they need more from central government.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Council tax, which is why they need more from central government.

Erm, you said

high unemployment, and low income, meaning less income from taxes

You do realise that the money for council tax benefits* comes from the DWP (Central Government), not local councils, don't you?

*the local council reduces the amount you pay, and claims that back from the DWP

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Erm, you said

You do realise that the money for council tax benefits* comes from the DWP (Central Government), not local councils, don't you?

*the local council reduces the amount you pay, and claims that back from the DWP

Without going into too much detail, and to put it in a breif and simple way. The more deprived the area, the less money in the local economy from both businesses and private individuals. A less prosperous local economy means mor financial burden on the local authority.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

They received a substantial funding increase because they are deprived areas. This usually means high unemployment, and low income, meaning less income from taxes.

I've just compared Tower Hamlets and Newham with my own Borough in London, this money doesn't seem to be going on front line services.

Tower Hamlets for example has a 25% higher population yet spends 3 times as much and only £160,000,000 of this £800,000,000 is accounted for by transfer payments.

I suspect these councils are inefficient as hell to be honest thanks to having all this extra money in block grants. From silly things like that Tower Hamlets and Newham both insist on weekly and fortnightly respectively doses of tax payer funded council propaganda while Richmond only gives it quarterly and covers it through advertising through to multi-million pound offices, grants to Islamist organisations and ever expanding chief executives' pay.

I picked on Tower Hamlets and Newham though I'm sure it applies in many different areas.

In short some councils need to wind their neck in and focus on providing core services rather than having central government tax payers pay for them to put a newspaper through every resident's door saying how great they are once every week or two. Doesn't it seem odd to you that councils like Richmond and Wokingham, with tiny or non-existent central government grants, are more efficient than councils that get huge grants?

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Without going into too much detail, and to put it in a breif and simple way. The more deprived the area, the less money in the local economy from both businesses and private individuals. A less prosperous local economy means mor financial burden on the local authority.

I agree - but without going into too much detail, and to put it in a brief and simple way; that's not what you said....

This usually means high unemployment, and low income, meaning less income from taxes

Less income from which taxes?

Council tax, which is why they need more from central government.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Without going into too much detail, and to put it in a breif and simple way. The more deprived the area, the less money in the local economy from both businesses and private individuals. A less prosperous local economy means mor financial burden on the local authority.

Business tax from ALL businesses is distributed throughout the country not in the council where the business is located. Wealthy areas subsidise poorer areas. Deprived areas also get more individual per person NHS funding.

In the general scheme of things you would expect Oxfordshire to be a fairly wealthy council, yet the local roads are some of the worst maintained in the country.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree - but without going into too much detail, and to put it in a brief and simple way; that's not what you said....

Why do you always have to argue? I didn't say it word for word, but I shouldn't have to spell it out should I.

You made a incorrect statement about less income from taxes - I felt it appropriate to point that out.

You may call it arguing - I call it being factual.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Angua

Business tax from ALL businesses is distributed throughout the country not in the council where the business is located. Wealthy areas subsidise poorer areas. Deprived areas also get more individual per person NHS funding.

In the general scheme of things you would expect Oxfordshire to be a fairly wealthy council, yet the local roads are some of the worst maintained in the country.

The nhs quote is hard to believe.

Every gp I have seen in a inner city area has been shocking to wealthier areas outside of cities.

Also check these figures.

My sisters area under blaby council and outside of city area her gp surgery has 8 doctors, the area it covers has 6% less people than my gp surgery which has jut 2 GP's.

My parents area a little seaside town which is half empty half the year has 7 gp's in the surgery and even its own hospital. If I go to that hospital which I have done I wait 5 mins in a&e, in leics royal infirmary its over 2 hours.