Forum Topic

How the cut in Council tax gets paid for

I replied to the original thread "Another 3% Cut in Tax but who pays ?" but for some reason it didn't bump the thread to the top, so I've created a new thread.From the Shepherd's Bush site :"Some of the borough's most vulnerable pensioners are seeing the effects of the Conservative-run council's  council tax cuts.Hammersmith and Fulham's Meals on Wheels service is to rise by 15 per cent, from £3.30 per meal to £3.80 per meal."That's 50p more per meal.  I wonder if Aaron Lewis (who posted the original thread) and everyone else who supported the tax cut is still feeling good about the fact that they're saving 50p per week in Council Tax ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 5927d21 Comments

Maybe it’s time people asked the council why when they say they will sell assets for the highest price possible to raise money that they are being held to ransom (well it seems that way) by a well known and litigious man who has a very dubious business past and wants to buy The castle on Broomhouse Lane . The property has been held off the market for months now and this man doesn’t even have the cash to buy it or anything to his name to secure a mortgage on in order to buy it , he is trying to get others to raise it for him little do they know his actual plans for it should he get it !!! Not only the council are being conned.Surely it would be in the interest of the community for the property to be still being used for the youth of the borough instead of sitting empty whilst this man carries on bamboozling people with legal speak that is not worth the paper it isn’t written on.Oh and as much as he may claim it he is not a Professor as he titles himself  that is another fantasy of his, the council really need to be taken to task on this fiasco and it shocks me they are being taken in buy this man.

James Rafferty ● 5562d

As far as I can see H&F has managed to trim headcount at the authority substantially, deliver a consistent series of tax cuts and not had too noticeable effect on front-line services. The surprising thing is that H&F was rated 'Excellent' before they took over but quite clearly there was a large amount of fat to trim. Ealing on the other hand was a less well run Council before the current administration took over and just by cutting the previous administration's vanity projects they could dramatically improve the borough's fiscal situation.Hopefully one or the other provides the model for the next government at a national level.

Andy Jones ● 5580d

The point does remain the same.  People are paying more for meals on wheels and other services for the most vulnerable in the borough have been cut so that you can save enough money on your council tax to buy a Mars Bar.  Enjoy it.

Andrew Broadbent ● 5638d

The point remains the same. For people on low incomes but not on benefits who get no relief on Council Tax these cuts are important and welcome.

Ellen Kearney ● 5654d

"Saving £4 million by reducing our reliance on agency staff" - was that by bringing the staffing in-house, i.e. directly employing them, or by cutting the services so there was no need for the agnecy staff, or by putting the entire service out to contract so the staff involved (or others) were employed by the contractor? "Saving £4 million~" always sounds good, but read between the lines.Mention was made of the pensions increase as a justification for meals on wheels increases above inflation. The point about the Government increases in pensions is to give pensioners an increase in real terms, not so that it gets immediately gobbled by increased chrges.Meals on wheels are to enable a meal to reach people unable to leave their homes. There was a time when these were delivered hot, and when the home help service was free. I would not want to be a disabled housebound resident of any local authority now, in a climate where every resident thinks only of the equation between what they pay and what they get back, as if there should be an equilibrium for everyone. Fact is, the cost of social services is high and benefits a smallish minority of each local authority's residents. When the shit hits the fan, everyone hollers and looks for scapegoats. Until then they bellyache about what they pay and damn the consequences.You get the council and councillors you vote for. If the turnout was 60-70% or more, you would get a different result!

Dan Filson ● 5838d

Very interesting post from Stephen Cowan.Whatever the actual numbers say the experience of residents under Labour was that tax went up and up and under the Tories it is going down. The amount that Council Tax takes up of the income of people on low and moderate incomes had clearly gone to far. For most people the only cut or rise in charge that they are aware of is the loss of the garden waste services.  However I wouldn't like to think that the much needed financial boost of a lower Council Tax is being achieved at the expense of the vulnerable members of our community. I have no idea of the actual impact of increased home care or play scheme charges but the lack of response from the Council suggests that they are not good.

Ellen Kearney ● 5841d

Dear AllThe point about Labour putting Council Tax up by £700 is thoroughly dishonest and not in the slightest bit true.H&F Council’s official papers for 22nd February 2006 show that the last Labour Administration had introduced real terms cuts in council tax and hoped to find further reductions. The Council’s own 2006 papers show that the Council Tax cuts were planned to continue up until 2009 at least.You can follow this link below to go to the official Council papers. The info is on web page 14 (hard copy page 198). There you will see that tax would have increased by 1.5% which is around £13 per year:http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/CA20062202_tcm21-51589.pdf I also write about it here:http://thecowanreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-gullible-do-h-conservatives-think.htmlI thought I may be able to add some more facts which will allow people to make their own minds up about what’s happening in this borough. The Conservatives have put Meals on Wheels up by £547 – a result of pensioners being given inflation busting rises each and every year since the Tories won control of the Council on 4th May 2006. I wrote to David Cameron to ask him if he supported this approach. He didn’t reply which I guess means he does. If you email me at; stephen.cowan@lbhf.gov.uk; Ill send a copy of my Cameron letter to you.However, the Tories have also:• Cut £905k from the Vulnerable Children’s budget and then refused to guarantee it wouldn’t be to the detriment of the children in the borough’s care• Introduced a brand new £12.41 hourly home care charge for the elderly, sick and disabled• Creamed off £740,000.00 of government money meant to go to local schools and added a further £300k in admin cost arguing that our schools balances are rich enough• Cancelled the garden waste service with £100 fines being discussed for putting out garden refuse with your litter• Put children’s out-of-hours play services charges up by 121%• Put parking charges up by 12.5% and parking fines up by 50%• For the last three years the Tories only spent £750k out of £189million Council budget on policing despite promising that this would be their number one priority. They did marginally increase the budget this year after a campaign from residents, local businesses and the Opposition forced them to do it but are still left in a position where the Opposition would invest more on policing and community safety if elected to form the Administration next year.The Tories spend around £2.7million to give band D residents an annual Council Tax reduction of about £20 a year (putting what they spend on policing into some perspective). They spend vast amounts of money on PR, publishing their PRAVDA style newspaper and even paying for advertising on tubes and ad vans.  They also waste millions of pounds on a host of other ventures too and have given themselves 14% and 18% salary raises in their first two years.Its also worth noting that £12million of the £20million that the Tories say they used to pay off debt was actually paid off by the last Administration - not the Tories.I’m not against everything the Tories are doing but I am against their attacks on the vulnerable children budget, the vast extra cost for pensioners, the sick and our disabled fellow residents; their under-investment in crime fighting; as well as other things such as offering sites across the borough (which includes current resident’s homes) to property speculators - and actually flying to Cannes on the French Riviera at our expense to do so.Hope this helpsWith best wishesCllr. Stephen CowanLeader of the OppositionThe London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Stephen Cowan ● 5873d

Thanks for your reply, but it doesn't address my point that you said you'd fund the tax cut by means other than cutting services and subsidies.If I recall correctly, band D residents (which the Council used in their illustrations) save about £27 per year which is roughly 50p a week.  If the tax cut isn't 50p a week, what is it ? 5p ? £1 ? £5 ?  Your point about residents being £700 better off as a result of Labout not getting elected is moot, don't you think ?You said the Council Tax would go down without the need for cuts in services or subsidies.  This doesn't seem to sit well with the fact that MoW went up by 50p a meal.My argument has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with honesty.

Andrew Broadbent ● 5881d

A good question - I don't think you will get an answer though.

Ellen Kearney ● 5884d

How much has been saved by increasing the cost of meals on wheels and how does this compare to the cost of sending Councillors to the South of France to go to a property conference?

Karen Cooper ● 5887d

Mr Broadbent, you are clearly very entrenched in your political views and wish to attack the Conservative Council with no regard to the facts.The truth is that we have cut Council Tax by waging war on waste, introducing competition to council services and by cutting the £160 million debt that we inherited from the previous Labour administration.Examples of how we have saved money include:- Saving £4 million by reducing our reliance on agency staff.- Market testing £90 million of council services which will deliver up to £5 million in savings while improving service quality.- Reducing the historic debt by £20 million, saving council tax payers £1.7 million a year in interest.- Promoting smarter working, where cutting accommodation costs is saving £1.1 million.- Cutting communications costs by £300,000 to the lowest levels in London.Furthermore this is not a "50p" a week cut as you assert.  Since Council Tax was introduced in 1993, the previous Labour Council increased Council Tax by an average of 7.7% per year.  Had Labour won the election in 2006 and carried on increasing Council Tax at this rate, residents would be over £700 worse off.  Therefore, residents are actually £700 better off under the Conservatives, not 50p.  Remember, Labour even stood on a manifesto commitment to carry on increasing Council Tax in the 2006 elections.For full details, I recommend reading the Leader of the Council's budget speech from February, which can be found at: http://hfconservatives.typepad.com/residents_first/2009/02/hf-conservative-council-passes-third-successive-3-council-tax-cut.html Cllr Greg SmithCabinet Member for Crime & Street SceneHammersmith & Fulham Council

Greg Smith ● 5890d

I agree that less of the burden of this regressive tax should fall on those less able to pay.  I'm lucky enough to be able to say that I don't see the need for me to get the equivalent of 50p a week back in my pocket.The point I'm trying to make (not very well, obviously ;-) is that the Council said that they wouldn't be cutting services or subsidies to facilitate the tax cut - they'd be able to fund it from cutting waste.It seems that they changed their minds......funny how Councillors are replying to other threads on this board but not this one, don't you think ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 5891d

Andrew, you are seeing this totally from your own perspective and making a false comparison. The people who are really hurt by successive Council Tax rises are the 'hard-working families'. This may have become a cliche but they do actually exist. Council Tax already takes a disproportionate part of their disposable income. It has risen massively over the last decade and the 'it's only a Mars bar a week' has been used to justify the rise every time. My guess is that it already takes up about 15% of the money I have left after other taxes and NI contributions and housing costs. As a tax it has risen to far and with most people in the borough seeing reduced income many more are in a position where the proportion of income they pay in tax is too high. Further reductions are needed. I would agree that upping meals on wheels prices is not the way to reduce tax and that there must remain a lot of fat to trim elsewhere in the Council budget but consistently increasing the tax burden hurts a lot more people on lower incomes than the meals on wheels price increase.

Ellen Kearney ● 5894d

I don't know, as I don't know how much you get on benefits these days.The Council said they wouldn't need to cut services or subsidies to fund the Council Tax cut, they would be able to make savings by eliminating waste.I just don't see the point in giving me 50p a week off my Council Tax and helping to pay for it by raising the price of MoW.  Why didn't they just freeze the Tax rate and have a lower increase in the MoW cost ?It's nothing but petty political posturing, IMHO.

Andrew Broadbent ● 5895d

The vulnerable people who will have to pay another 50p a week for Meals on Wheels will get rather more than that from the 5% rise in their pensions/benefits from April, based on the rise in RPI to last September.  Is that so unfair?

Richard Jennings ● 5897d

I would urge readers to look at the facts, as laid out by my colleague, Cllr Antony Lillis on this subject -- http://hfconservatives.typepad.com/residents_first/2009/03/commitment-to-the-frail-and-elderly-in-hf.html -- rather than the Labour propaganda being peddled by Mr Broadbent.

Greg Smith ● 5897d

Just to clarify, people in band A will save £17.25 per year.  That's 33p per week.Those in the highest Band H (i.e. those in a propoerty worth over £320k) will save 99p per week. I'm not convinced they'll be whooping with joy.Charging vulnerable people 50p more for Meals on Wheels to fund such poxy tax changes is a waste of time, IMHO.  How much extra expense has the Council incurred (i.e wasted) in it's extensive publicity campaign, I wonder.What a bloody disgrace.

Andrew Broadbent ● 5898d

"That not the way you should look at it."With respect, why not ?  You, I and may others who are able to pay save the equivalent of the price of a Mars bar every week.  Someone who is vulnerable enough to need meals on wheels pays 50p more for every meal.  The Council should allow for increases in costs when they decide on budgets and anyway, I don't imagine that the cost of the food ingredients accounts for much of the cost of a meal on wheels.  So, IMHO, any increase in costs is no excuse.  They're taking money from the vulnerable to fund tiny (and IMHO pointless) tax cuts.I challenge a Councillor to come on here and justify it.

Andrew Broadbent ● 5899d

That not the way you should look at it.I'm happy that people on low incomes for whom Council Tax takes away a significant proportion of their disposable income have had that burden reduced even it is only slightly. I would have preferred if cost savings could have been made in other areas. I don't know how meals on wheels costs have changed over the past few years but I do know that food prices have risen substantially so the increase may be due to the level of subsidy maintained rather than a reduction in Council spending in this area.

Ellen Kearney ● 5899d

So, you're happy to put 50p extra a week in your pocket whilst recipients of meals on wheels have to pay an extra 50p per meal ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 5900d

'I wonder if Aaron Lewis (who posted the original thread) and everyone else who supported the tax cut is still feeling good about the fact that they're saving 50p per week in Council Tax ?'Yes, on balance I would say I would. In the current economic environment the tax burden weighs even more heavily on local people many of whom will be getting less overtime, smaller and lower bonuses or be forced to take less well paid work than they had before. By putting money back in their pockets - even if it is a small amount individually there is a broader benefit to the local area.The tax burden has crept up incrementally over the last few years with justifications that it doesn't amount to much than less than a pound a week. Council Tax went from being a relatively small sum to being a significant proportion of the less well off's desposable income and it is right that things start to move in the opposite direction.Don't know the background to the increase in Meals on Wheels charges but this could just as easily be explained by rising costs as by budget cuts.

Ellen Kearney ● 5904d