Last minute hand out!

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 125 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #43609
    Anonymous
    Guest
    #123832
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Wow! If true this is a bombshell. I have written to DCLG asking for clarification…..

    #123833
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Unfortunately, as someone who does not subscribe to The Times I cannot see the full article, but if it simply a one off £100m it will make little difference overall.

    #123838
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    I think the idea is that all LA’s take the default scheme in the first year (keep CTB in other words) …as they are doing in Scotland.

    But that will cost £500 million of course….

    #123843
    mattk
    Participant

    Our director just called the DCLG press office, who seemed a bi surprised and said it may be ‘speculation’…

    They will said they would call back though.

    There seems to be rumours of linking to a max of 8 1/2 % reduction. Problem is that if we all get 20% less a reduction than we previously though, for us this means that our shortfall reduces from 25% to 20% still meaning a 11 1/2 % shortfall?!

    #123844
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Plus what about your consultation? Do you have to revise your scheme and start the entire process again? Is this an attempt to buy off the House of Lords amendments?

    #123845
    Julian Hobson
    Participant

    Bombshell indeed. If that affects the scheme (or could do) then all the consultations will have been pointless. If the level of funding changes then the authority might well remodel and redesign its scheme in its entirety (I actually think they should). Mattk is right in that the article suggests that folk that have been paying nothing in the past would have their contribution limited to 8.5% of the CT charge. That effectively means a national scheme !

    #123847
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Well…you could just put in an amendment to say (in 2013/2014 the maximum amount a prescribed person will pay will be limited to xxx”). That way, it is clear it won’t apply in the second and subsequent years.

    But consultation etc. …will it all need to be done again? DCLG may say no because it is a one-year change but..what a complete farce this is becoming.

    #123848
    andyrichards
    Participant

    This article seems to be one that appeared in Saturday’s print edition, of which I now have a scan.

    Whilst there is no official statement in it from DCLG, it seems like a well-informed article and not “speculation”. Article says that the extra money is to ensure that no-one paying nothing now would have to pay more than 8.5%. Also says that it is a one-off (which, the article points out, pushes the problem closer to the next election!)

    #123849
    Julian Hobson
    Participant

    What about those schemes that remove entitlement entirely for those with capital over £x ? I can’t see that for them it will be simple at all. Throws the modelling out completely. And I think i’m right in saying that some have knocked out under 25’s too. Limiting reduction in support to 8.5% means some folk come back into entitlement , This could mean that the amount paid by the remainder might go up not down.

    The Lords sit tomorrow, the Marshalled list of amendments is available and as yet doesn’t include anything of this nature. I suspect there will be lots of questions about it in tomorrows debate, I imagine thee Lords will not be happy at all.

    #123851
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Yes..but I think we always guessed something like this would happen. Politically, April 1 is desperate for the Government with tax cuts for the better off and benefits cuts for millions. To have working people on minimum wage with a 30% increase in council tax on that day was always going to be tough…and I suspect the S of State has just realised that the guidance on work incentives was being ignored by many LA’s who simply could not protect every vulnerable group and pensioners and make big cuts.

    #123852
    John Boxall
    Participant

    [quote=peterdelamothe]….. I suspect the S of State has just realised that the guidance on work incentives was being ignored by many LA’s who simply could not protect every vulnerable group and pensioners and make big cuts.[/quote]

    No, the guidance wasnt ‘being ignored’ – it was simply impossible to protect vulnerable groups, AND maintain work incentives.

    That should have been aparrent to Pickles & Co from the word go

    It’s starting to feel like the last years of the Major Government

    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

    Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

    #123853
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yep with 2.5 years to go :Sp

    #123855
    Julian Hobson
    Participant

    I haven’t done any maths but the two figures “8.5%” and “£100m” don’t add up ! If you were going to take out £500m worth of funding and that equated to around a 30% cut in some authorities, how could putting 20% back in limit the cut to 8.5%.

    The other interesting bit is why 8.5% ?

    What came first the £100m or the 8.5% ? The article says Eric has “scrambled the funds together” suggesting that is all he can afford just now. You can imagine him saying to the Civil Servants at CLG “right I’ve found £100m, what can i get for that ?” If their answer is an 8.5% limit then I’d like to see how they got to that.

    Of course if the limit is 8.5% but the additional funding is inadequate (an i think it is) then the financial burden on authorities that were going to pass it all on increases.

    What will authorities that were propping it all up do when they see that the government is apparently content with an 8.5% hit ? I imagine some of them will now be passing it (could backfire).

    #123857
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    John…you know what I mean. My guess is they expected LA’s to fund the cut via other ways and not by big cuts to CTB.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 125 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.