Unfortunately its difficult, someone will always be worse off. At least if you are earning a decent salary you can salary sacrifice into your pension and get the 40% kick back and maybe thats the quid pro quo that they dont change the rules around pensions or the tax free 25%.
It was a stupid promise to make, but I guess without it the RW press would have just had a field day. However, taxes have to come from somewhere, and if it's not from "working people", it's got to come from business and non-working people in some form or other. A CEO earning £10m is a working person but I suspect most of the public would consider him paying a bit more not an issue. The key thing is where the line is drawn regarding salary and it being fair game for a tax increase in some form or other.It is still a tax increase on working people though mate, they’ll try and play mind gymnastics and redefine working people and the usual suspects on here will fall for it and make out it’s not a break of an election promise.
All the more need to do away with council tax being raised on a regional basis and instead for it to be pooled, ring fenced and centrally distributed based upon need.Adult social care costs are killing councils.
It will either mean cuts in other services or big increases in Council Tax.
The Council Tax system is as broken as other things - Council Tax in Westminster is half what it is in the North West, because (a) they don't have as many older people needing care and (b) they take in so many millions in business rates. And (without going into too much technicality) the more deprived areas tend to have suffered most from the formula behind Council Tax. And councils that froze council tax now have even more to make up.
If that were to occur, then it would cease to be council tax and instead just become general taxation, would it not?All the more need to do away with council tax being raised on a regional basis and instead for it to be pooled, ring fenced and centrally distributed based upon need.
Surely that is the definition of "levelling up" taking it from more affluent areas and giving money to more deprived ones.
It was obvious they would walk the election so why labour boxes itself in fiscally in the way it did is a bit of a mysteryIt was a stupid promise to make, but I guess without it the RW press would have just had a field day. However, taxes have to come from somewhere, and if it's not from "working people", it's got to come from business and non-working people in some form or other. A CEO earning £10m is a working person but I suspect most of the public would consider him paying a bit more not an issue. The key thing is where the line is drawn regarding salary and it being fair game for a tax increase in some form or other.
For me social care should be nationally funded and organised. It’s the Wild West out there. Unfortunately though whenever and idea to tackle it is floated it becomes so politically toxic that it is “dementia taxed” to oblivion. Stuff like this needs de politicisation through a royal commission that an or all elected governments are bound to implement the findings of.Adult social care costs are killing councils.
It will either mean cuts in other services or big increases in Council Tax.
The Council Tax system is as broken as other things - Council Tax in Westminster is half what it is in the North West, because (a) they don't have as many older people needing care and (b) they take in so many millions in business rates. And (without going into too much technicality) the more deprived areas tend to have suffered most from the formula behind Council Tax. And councils that froze council tax now have even more to make up.
I agree. I've just watched a video by the economist Richard Murphy called Funding the Future. Amazing stat he comes up with is that tax relief for the richest 2 categories in the UK equates to the same amount as the top level of PIP or Universal Credit.It was obvious they would walk the election so why labour boxes itself in fiscally in the way it did is a bit of a mystery
Some of it is simple. If your council needs £100m from council tax and most of the housing is low-value, with fewer houses in the higher bands, the CT for a Band D house (and all bands) has to be higher than it would be in an area with more large houses.All the more need to do away with council tax being raised on a regional basis and instead for it to be pooled, ring fenced and centrally distributed based upon need.
Surely that is the definition of "levelling up" taking it from more affluent areas and giving money to more deprived ones.
The current system has existed for 30 years because the rich wouldn't want a fairer system, and because it had the same problem as the rates. The Tories wanted to avoid updating rateable values, came up with the Poll Tax, then came up with Council Tax with its own built-in mechanism to make it difficult to update it to reflect current house prices.If that were to occur, then it would cease to be council tax and instead just become general taxation, would it not?
Council Tax either needs to stay close to its current form, or effectively abolish it and fund many council services through central government expenditure and taxation.
And once you move away from the current set up, you have to develop new pricing systems - which still have to be related to house prices in some way, but not entirely - as well as mechanisms to maintain incentives for councils to be efficient.
It’s an exceptionally difficult problem to address, which is doubtless why the current system has existed for so long.
And Labour have been in power for half of that period, and done absolutely nothing about it, with the current lot actually incapable of doing anything because their policies have a shelf life of about three months.The current system has existed for 30 years because the rich wouldn't want a fairer system, and because it had the same problem as the rates. The Tories wanted to avoid updating rateable values, came up with the Poll Tax, then came up with Council Tax with its own built-in mechanism to make it difficult to update it to reflect current house prices.
But that fails to result in a national levelling up. If you have the perks of living in London for instance with its first class transport system, clock work bus services and on the whole higher performing schools, even in what some would call deprived areas. Then why shouldn’t you pay more even in the lower bands, after all your property is also worth more per sqm and the demand for that land is higher.Some of it is simple. If your council needs £100m from council tax and most of the housing is low-value, with fewer houses in the higher bands, the CT for a Band D house (and all bands) has to be higher than it would be in an area with more large houses.
If that were to occur, then it would cease to be council tax and instead just become general taxation, would it not?
Council Tax either needs to stay close to its current form, or effectively abolish it and fund many council services through central government expenditure and taxation.
And once you move away from the current set up, you have to develop new pricing systems - which still have to be related to house prices in some way, but not entirely - as well as mechanisms to maintain incentives for councils to be efficient.
It’s an exceptionally difficult problem to address, which is doubtless why the current system has existed for so long.
It was a stupid promise to make, but I guess without it the RW press would have just had a field day. However, taxes have to come from somewhere, and if it's not from "working people", it's got to come from business and non-working people in some form or other. A CEO earning £10m is a working person but I suspect most of the public would consider him paying a bit more not an issue. The key thing is where the line is drawn regarding salary and it being fair game for a tax increase in some form or other.
ISome weeks ago when the Angela Rayner witch hunt was on I commented that certain aspects of her behaviour did not make for good optics when perhaps she could have been taking a slightly lower profile. I see today she has been getting her bodyguards to move boxes from her partner's property into her new Hove property. Given her profile is she so politically thick that she does not think that this would be picked up on, would look really bad and just add fuel to the fire that she is now too entitled
Oh no. Not moving boxes...Some weeks ago when the Angela Rayner witch hunt was on I commented that certain aspects of her behaviour did not make for good optics when perhaps she could have been taking a slightly lower profile. I see today she has been getting her bodyguards to move boxes from her partner's property into her new Hove property. Given her profile is she so politically thick that she does not think that this would be picked up on, would look really bad and just add fuel to the fire that she is now too entitled
Some weeks ago when the Angela Rayner witch hunt was on I commented that certain aspects of her behaviour did not make for good optics when perhaps she could have been taking a slightly lower profile. I see today she has been getting her bodyguards to move boxes from her partner's property into her new Hove property. Given her profile is she so politically thick that she does not think that this would be picked up on, would look really bad and just add fuel to the fire that she is now too entitled