Surrey County Council - Social Care - Referendum

Lord Tyrion said:
Compare somewhere like Westminster or leafy Surrey with central Liverpool or Sheffield. Those northern cities will have higher unemployment so fewer people pay council tax. Chances are the social issues are greater meaning you need more social workers and similar staff. Expand that over different issues and parts of council responsibilities. Less people paying money so they need to pay more per head. More costs for those councils so even higher bills. A perfect storm so the phrase goes.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's worked out as per who pays, it's split per residents, ability to pay isn't a factor.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Has to be a problem though. Fewer people eligible to pay plus larger amounts needed. Are you sure that is not taken into account? Very surprised if not.
Click to expand...
Council decide how much they can raise through council tax, then break it down, eg
M-i-L gets same bill as me, I pay it all, she gets rebates through system being a pensioner, Council recover rebates through system.
If I don't pay I can be taken to court, so those entitled to rebates etc are less of a problem.
 
Tashyboy said:
well that's it then am moving to London village coz it's cheaper to have me bin emptied. Emptying bins has nowt to do with the cost of looking after the elderly which we should all pay for in equal amounts. Especially if you are paying less to have your bin emptied.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest it was. I was responding to Robin's query about relative costs and simply used it as an example as to why all might not be as obvious as it seems economically. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point.

As far as adult social care, people out of town tend to live more active & independent lives and consequently tend to need less social care, or need that social care later in life than those who live in towns and are less active. Additionally the greater concentration of people in the areas in and around London lead to much greater demand for social services. Having worked for Surrey for nearly 5 years, seen the cuts at first hand, personally experienced issues with adult social care and currently watching my wife suffer from the issues caused by public service cuts or lack of funding I'm got some idea that the issues are a little more complicated than it might appear to someone elsewhere, but I'm sure you'll be able to twist this in a similarly sarcastic manner to your last post.
 
Tashyboy said:
well that's it then am moving to London village coz it's cheaper to have me bin emptied. Emptying bins has nowt to do with the cost of looking after the elderly which we should all pay for in equal amounts. Especially if you are paying less to have your bin emptied.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? Or listen to my point about paying through other means such as car charges? Or did that not suit your digs?
 
People don't trust politicians or local councils to use the money raised by this extra tax for the purpose of social care .
Its like the election they say one thing then when in power do something else.
This lack of trust is not good as we won't give money to people we don't trust.

Just look at the tax motorists pay and look at the state of the roads in my opinion the social care tax will be misused in this way.

central government should fund this through general taxation.
if that's one or two pence in the pound so be it.
 
clubchamp98 said:
People don't trust politicians or local councils to use the money raised by this extra tax for the purpose of social care .
Its like the election they say one thing then when in power do something else.
This lack of trust is not good as we won't give money to people we don't trust.

Just look at the tax motorists pay and look at the state of the roads in my opinion the social care tax will be misused in this way.

central government should fund this through general taxation.
if that's one or two pence in the pound so be it.
Click to expand...

The state of the roads has got little to do with the councils but an awful lot to do with the utility companies & the quality of their reinstatements………...
 
Blue in Munich said:
I didn't suggest it was. I was responding to Robin's query about relative costs and simply used it as an example as to why all might not be as obvious as it seems economically. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point.

As far as adult social care, people out of town tend to live more active & independent lives and consequently tend to need less social care, or need that social care later in life than those who live in towns and are less active. Additionally the greater concentration of people in the areas in and around London lead to much greater demand for social services. Having worked for Surrey for nearly 5 years, seen the cuts at first hand, personally experienced issues with adult social care and currently watching my wife suffer from the issues caused by public service cuts or lack of funding I'm got some idea that the issues are a little more complicated than it might appear to someone elsewhere, but I'm sure you'll be able to twist this in a similarly sarcastic manner to your last post.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to twist, your arguement is based upon people that own million pound houses should not pay the same or more than people who live in 200k houses. Partly Because they have to pay more for there car parking. Maybe it's just me but if you have a million pound house you can afford to pay for it, but just don't want to.
My grief is that The Torys tried slipping a nice fat sweetner to Surry council to keep them quiet. That money was my money, your money, Joe Publics money. So why is my money going towards Surrey council to pay for services. If everyone, including the more affluent paid there fair share then maybe the % council tax increase across the board may not be as great. At the moment a 5 % increase on a 200k house is greater then the 5 % increase on million pound house, and no one is going to convince me that is acceptable.
Re social care, They may well be differant in London and Surrey, but all councils except four are putting up taxes because they are struggling to meet costs. Differant problems in differant councils still mean a funding shortage.
 
Tashyboy said:
There is nothing to twist, your arguement is based upon people that own million pound houses should not pay the same or more than people who live in 200k houses. Partly Because they have to pay more for there car parking. Maybe it's just me but if you have a million pound house you can afford to pay for it, but just don't want to.
My grief is that The Torys tried slipping a nice fat sweetner to Surry council to keep them quiet. That money was my money, your money, Joe Publics money. So why is my money going towards Surrey council to pay for services. If everyone, including the more affluent paid there fair share then maybe the % council tax increase across the board may not be as great. At the moment a 5 % increase on a 200k house is greater then the 5 % increase on million pound house, and no one is going to convince me that is acceptable.
Re social care, They may well be differant in London and Surrey, but all councils except four are putting up taxes because they are struggling to meet costs. Differant problems in differant councils still mean a funding shortage.
Click to expand...

Why don't you try actually reading the post; it's not an opinion, it's not an argument, it was an explanation as to why services elsewhere may be as expensive to provide as they are down here when you might expect them to be cheaper. I didn't say it was right or wrong, just how the economics of it stack up.

And I didn't bring the car parking charges into it, someone else did, although that it something that greatly affects it. As someone who used to live in Wandsworth, I'm aware of how proud they were of their boast that at the time they were the cheapest borough; I'm also well aware of how they went about making up what would otherwise be the shortfall.

Perhaps you could point out in my posts where I've said I agree with any of the current arrangements? Or that people with more money should pay less? Or where exactly I've said that people shouldn't pay their fair share?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response to those questions because I haven't said it. If you are going to respond to my posts & quote them, have to common decency to comment on what's in them, rather than misquoting or twisting them to try and justify your own prejudices. Had the referendum gone ahead I would have voted in favour of the 15% rise. And the reason for that is that the council have finally taken over the funding for a relative in a care home after our funds all but ran out. So don't dare presume to lecture me on paying my fair share.
 
clubchamp98 said:
sorry but councils ARE responsible for the roads.
Click to expand...

The defects which people complain about are in the vast majority of cases caused by poor reinstatement by utility companies, not by council resurfacing, therefore the comment as I made it stands.

I don't dispute that councils are responsible for most roads, but the STATE of the roads is caused by the interference with those roads.
 
Blue in Munich said:
The defects which people complain about are in the vast majority of cases caused by poor reinstatement by utility companies, not by council resurfacing, therefore the comment as I made it stands.

I don't dispute that councils are responsible for most roads, but the STATE of the roads is caused by the interference with those roads.
Click to expand...


Just increase the road tax
 
Road tax just goes into the general pot. Far more is brought in by cars then is spent on roads etc. In political terms car drivers are the Germans of the economy, paying in way more than they get out.
 
bobmac said:
If I drive my car on the road, I have to pay a tax, road tax.
I believe they call it something else now but it will always be road tax to me
Click to expand...

How about if you drive a car with low emissions and don't pay any Vehicle Excise Duty? It all goes to a central pot, ergo there is no such thing as road tax. (as a side note, the more people who understand this may stop berating cyclists for not paying a non-existent tax!)
 
Well the good folks of Surrey are going to be spending a lot (re)paying for their social care after they pass on - whilst all those folks in rented accommodation; or living in a house worth less than £100k, or of low wealth will get theirs all paid for by the government.

An excellent piece of wealth distribution policy from The Supreme Leader that any Socialist would be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SwingsitlikeHogan
Reform of Tax Credit - Lords
2 3
Replies
46
Views
7K
ColchesterFC
C
Tashyboy
The Tories and the EU.
Replies
0
Views
643
Tashyboy
Tashyboy
Oddsocks
Surrey golf tour - 3 rounds down.
Replies
19
Views
2K
Oddsocks
Oddsocks
haplesshacker
Council services cuts.
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Sponge1980
Sponge1980
Herbie
What a judge........
Replies
5
Views
1K
vig
V
Top