Cornwall Council votes to make the poorest pay tax
7:10am Wednesday 30th January 2013 in News
By Greg Fountain, Reporter/Photographer
Cornwall Council gave the green light to taxing the poorest people in the county yesterday.
At an "extraordinary meeting", called because councillors' failed to come to a decision on the tax hike at their previous meeting on January 15, they gave the thumbs-up to everyone of working age on council tax benefit having their payments slashed.
This means that everyone of working age not living with their parents, regardless of their actual ability to pay, will have to pay at least 25 per cent council tax - one of the highest "minimum payment" percentages in the entire country.
A £1m safety net, described by deputy council leader Neil Burden as a "volatility fund", will be set up to support those in "the greatest need" while an additional £150,000 was earmarked for the Citizen's Advice Bureau (which announced a raft of redundancies yesterday) to help provide "information and advice."
The vote was carried by 55 for and 42 against. Two councillors abstained.
Plans to slash council tax benefit from 100 per cent to 75 per cent for those most in need came into being after central government announced last year that local authorities would be required to create their own "localised council tax support schemes" as part of changes to the national benefits system.
At the same time councils were told that the funding for the scheme was being cut by 12.5 per cent, which means that Cornwall faced a shortfall of £4.2 million.
Council leader Jim Currie said that yesterday's decision was necessary "to avoid leaving the new council [elected in May] with an unmanageable black hole."
He said there would be "no choice but to cut frontline services" if the "current level of council tax support" was maintained.
Former leader of the Cornwall Council Liberal Democrats, Doris Ansari, had called for "compassion" at the meeting and "consistency" with other local authorities in the region that have agreed to maintain current levels of council tax support.
Fellow Lib Dem Alex Folkes proposed maintaining current support levels by reducing the amount the authority spends on employing consultants, interim and agency staff.
But the meeting heard that this funding was for sickness and maternity cover and to provide emergency funding for adult care and support, children’s services, "specialist advice," libraries and one stop shops.
Conservative councillors said Mr Folkes came up with the scheme "on the back of a fag packet."
Just 41 councillors voted to maintain the current level of support with 61 voting against.
Following a recommendation from independent councillor for Porthleven and Helston South, Andy Wallis, it was agreed to ask the council’s monitoring officer to investigate the possibility of launching a judicial review "in view of the inequitable and inappropriate nature of this cut to council tax benefit which has been passed onto the council by central government."
Councillors will decide whether to go ahead with legal action at a meeting of the full council on February 26.
It was also agreed that the council would monitor the impact of the tax changes and officers would report back by September.
Comments(82)
GrahamHarris
says...
9:03am Wed 30 Jan 13
The amount of money someone has is irrelevant, we are paying for the services from the Council.
The price to have your carpet cleaned is the same for someone on low income as it is for a millionaire - its a service!!
If there were no discounts whatsoever and each person just paid the same small amount, we'd probably be better off!
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
9:50am Wed 30 Jan 13
I have never claimed JSA so I am not sure but is it not only about £60 a week, if so how would someone claiming only that, pay council tax, food and bills if we all paid equal amounts of council tax? or am I missing something.
ronedgcumbe
says...
9:53am Wed 30 Jan 13
Disgusted by this totally unworkable plan. Hopefully Eric Pickles will step in and outlaw this stupid idea.
ronedgcumbe
says...
9:57am Wed 30 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:It is not just JSA claimants Gill this includes the sick and very low waged.
Yes but Graham you wouldn't have your carpet cleaned if you couldn't afford it, I can't, but I would have to afford the water bill, electricity bill,food etc.
I have never claimed JSA so I am not sure but is it not only about £60 a week, if so how would someone claiming only that, pay council tax, food and bills if we all paid equal amounts of council tax? or am I missing something.
Teejay
says...
11:47am Wed 30 Jan 13
Likewise in the 'everyone contributes' world, remove the concessions on 4000 odd students and however many second/holiday homes there are in Cornwall.
ronedgcumbe
says...
12:23pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
12:54pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Teejay wrote:When you say concessions on students do you mean the fact they pay no council tax? or the landlords ? The local council get reimbursed from the government for students in accomodation owned by landlords, if you charge landlords, this money would all go to central government as it would be business rates and the local council would lose out and everyone's council tax would probably be even dearer.
Everyone should pay something. Whilst I don't subscribe to the view that everyone on benefits is a scrounger, for many long term claimants there isn't much incentive to earn. So 25% minimum is fair.
Likewise in the 'everyone contributes' world, remove the concessions on 4000 odd students and however many second/holiday homes there are in Cornwall.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
1:00pm Wed 30 Jan 13
ronedgcumbe wrote:Some other counties operate the same policy although not at such a high rate.
I hope the councillors who voted for this never get to enjoy there massive rise in allowances after the next election.
Disgusted by this totally unworkable plan. Hopefully Eric Pickles will step in and outlaw this stupid idea.
Teejay
says...
1:32pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Right. So by having central govt. pay for the students I'm still paying twice. Once to Cornwall Council, plus the part of my income tax, VAT, or whatever other taxes central govt. choose to redistribute to pay student council tax in my area.
Teejay wrote:When you say concessions on students do you mean the fact they pay no council tax? or the landlords ? The local council get reimbursed from the government for students in accomodation owned by landlords, if you charge landlords, this money would all go to central government as it would be business rates and the local council would lose out and everyone's council tax would probably be even dearer.
Everyone should pay something. Whilst I don't subscribe to the view that everyone on benefits is a scrounger, for many long term claimants there isn't much incentive to earn. So 25% minimum is fair.
Likewise in the 'everyone contributes' world, remove the concessions on 4000 odd students and however many second/holiday homes there are in Cornwall.
So however you cut it, subsidising students costs extra.
40 to 50% of school leavers are being subsidised not only in education, but in billions of student loans that will never be recovered.
ronedgcumbe
says...
1:43pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Yes they have but other councils have not given themselves a huge rise at the same time.
ronedgcumbe wrote:Some other counties operate the same policy although not at such a high rate.
I hope the councillors who voted for this never get to enjoy there massive rise in allowances after the next election.
Disgusted by this totally unworkable plan. Hopefully Eric Pickles will step in and outlaw this stupid idea.
Wave
says...
2:06pm Wed 30 Jan 13
The council are in big trouble now.
I think the idea comes from the notion that some people on the legal minimum of income, in actual fact have spare money, as they can afford say tobacco or alcohol. But I suspect those people are not healthy or happy and probably sacrifice nutritional food and lifestyle to fund addictions or consume feel good items. I do not think these people will have spare money to pay council tax.
Rather than being an incentive, it will be an invitation to more crime, theft and fraud etc.
Will be interesting to see the following years crime figures for Cornwall.
Incentives work when they offer help.
They don't work by pressuring a scared animal into a corner, all you will get is a nasty bite.
I hope the bite hurts, it will be a lesson learned.
ronedgcumbe
says...
3:17pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Unless the council has learned how to wring blood from a stone this policy is doomed it can only bring further misery to the poor,sick and disabled.
Cleanduck
says...
3:25pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
3:29pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Wave wrote:I agree about the disabled, I have a cousin who is a severly disabled wheelchair user and cannot walk at all, is nearly blind and has unclear speech and additional health problems. He used to attend a 'workshop' facility where he did a little something and was paid a very small amount but they closed the facility. He will never work in the normal work place as additonally to his health problems he has no transport.
Teejay, how can someone with no money pay more? How can a disabled person unable to work but of working age be given incentive to go and try harder to find work and pay the council tax?
The council are in big trouble now.
I think the idea comes from the notion that some people on the legal minimum of income, in actual fact have spare money, as they can afford say tobacco or alcohol. But I suspect those people are not healthy or happy and probably sacrifice nutritional food and lifestyle to fund addictions or consume feel good items. I do not think these people will have spare money to pay council tax.
Rather than being an incentive, it will be an invitation to more crime, theft and fraud etc.
Will be interesting to see the following years crime figures for Cornwall.
Incentives work when they offer help.
They don't work by pressuring a scared animal into a corner, all you will get is a nasty bite.
I hope the bite hurts, it will be a lesson learned.
GrahamHarris
says...
3:29pm Wed 30 Jan 13
While I'm not having a go at anyone, its simple economics. There are people who pay into 'the system' with taxes, and then there are people who take out. The problem comes with the people who continuously take out, and receive everything they need without contribution.
It is always possible to find a little extra money - dont have so many kids, dont have sky tv and dont have an iphone 3,4 or 5 or whatever!!
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
3:34pm Wed 30 Jan 13
ronedgcumbe wrote:Bearing in mind some local Councils have Councillors that have larger allowances than Cornwall Councillors currently have though anyway.
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Yes they have but other councils have not given themselves a huge rise at the same time.
ronedgcumbe wrote:Some other counties operate the same policy although not at such a high rate.
I hope the councillors who voted for this never get to enjoy there massive rise in allowances after the next election.
Disgusted by this totally unworkable plan. Hopefully Eric Pickles will step in and outlaw this stupid idea.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
3:42pm Wed 30 Jan 13
ronedgcumbe wrote:Ron the only thing is, some Councillors voted in favour of the allowance increase but voted against the Benefit claimants paying the council tax, other Councillors voted against the allowance increase but voted for the council tax payment by benefit claimants. So who do you vote for ? or can you vote yourself if you are standing for election? just a thought.
I hope the councillors who voted for this never get to enjoy there massive rise in allowances after the next election.
Disgusted by this totally unworkable plan. Hopefully Eric Pickles will step in and outlaw this stupid idea.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
3:45pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Teejay
says...
3:50pm Wed 30 Jan 13
GrahamHarris wrote:Those who abuse the system ruin it for those genuinely in need of help.
The problem is that there are too many 'poor', 'sick' or 'disabled' people around.
While I'm not having a go at anyone, its simple economics. There are people who pay into 'the system' with taxes, and then there are people who take out. The problem comes with the people who continuously take out, and receive everything they need without contribution.
It is always possible to find a little extra money - dont have so many kids, dont have sky tv and dont have an iphone 3,4 or 5 or whatever!!
How about if some of them could repay the society that supports them in other ways, e.g. litter picking, shopping for elderly/disabled relatives, and any number of things which have been cut from the budgets.
There are many who maybe can't get a job but have two arms, two legs and could improve things for those who pay for services we're not getting.
Social welfare could work both ways.
Why should there be any free lunches?
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
4:44pm Wed 30 Jan 13
GrahamHarris wrote:I understand your logic, however, you say it is always possible to find a little extra money. I had two children and a mortgage on the strength of mine and my husbands wages, what I didn't know was that my husband would die in his forties. Therefore I could not suddenly not have two children. I had to redeem the mortgage. I used to claim council tax benefit only for being on a low income, I had no phone, holidays, booze, and whatever else is deemed inappropriate by those who are judgemental and I have never smoked. It is not always that easy to find a little extra money.
The problem is that there are too many 'poor', 'sick' or 'disabled' people around.
While I'm not having a go at anyone, its simple economics. There are people who pay into 'the system' with taxes, and then there are people who take out. The problem comes with the people who continuously take out, and receive everything they need without contribution.
It is always possible to find a little extra money - dont have so many kids, dont have sky tv and dont have an iphone 3,4 or 5 or whatever!!
I am glad I no longer claim council tax benefit because I feel there are too many judgmental people around.
Yes I get annoyed when I witness some of those on benefits living a better lifestyle than me, however, I would never judge because there are those that genuinely need help. Why do we have food banks.
What no one seems to acknowledge either, is the question , where are all those jobs that the unemployed are supposed to get. Every day I read about people that are about to be made redundant.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
4:54pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Cleanduck wrote:I agree, choosing the services each individual wants would be good, but how would it work, what if I chose not to have the use of libraries then toddled off and used the library, the administration in checking who was eligible for what services would be horrendous. Supposing I opted out of the police service part of the council tax, would that mean they couldn't arrest me if I committed an offence.
What if we could choose what services we require? For example, someone may not wish to pay for schooling other peoples children or contributing to the social housing and welfare bill of families. Others may not want to use the NHS if they have their own private medical insurance etc. This would half council tax bills for these people.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
4:58pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Lanty Slee
says...
6:04pm Wed 30 Jan 13
GrahamHarris wrote:GrahamHarris everyone, a.k.a Alan Beresford B'Stard
Why should some people get 100% discount though, I think its right they pay at least 25%.
The amount of money someone has is irrelevant, we are paying for the services from the Council.
The price to have your carpet cleaned is the same for someone on low income as it is for a millionaire - its a service!!
If there were no discounts whatsoever and each person just paid the same small amount, we'd probably be better off!
Lanty Slee
says...
6:10pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Cleanduck wrote:Yes, because that is an entirely workable, manageable solution.
What if we could choose what services we require? For example, someone may not wish to pay for schooling other peoples children or contributing to the social housing and welfare bill of families. Others may not want to use the NHS if they have their own private medical insurance etc. This would half council tax bills for these people.
How about we just abolish the government altogether? Then no one pays taxes, the sick suffer, the unemployed starve, the homeless freeze to death and we can all live happily ever after behind our little picket fences.
Except we won't, because there will be no army or police.
And then who will keep the great unwashed from breaking down your door because they want what you have?
And what would you do if you ever lost your job? Or retirement fund? Or whatever it is you rely on?
It's people like you and your "I'm alright Jack" attitude that sums up everything that's wrong with this country.
Right-wing idiocy at its finest.
Wave
says...
6:35pm Wed 30 Jan 13
The sooner the council gets overwhelmed by requests the sooner they will see what a mess they have created. And hopefully the tax change will be reversed quickly.
Protests are one thing, but emptying the council bank account of actual money is much more of a statement they will take note of.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
7:10pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Wave wrote:I believe the safety net funding is only there for a year, so what on earth happens after that, the problems will not go away after a year.
Please Falmouth Packet can you in collaboration with the Citizens Advice Bureau publish the steps a citizen needs to take to apply to the Council for the safety net funding.
The sooner the council gets overwhelmed by requests the sooner they will see what a mess they have created. And hopefully the tax change will be reversed quickly.
Protests are one thing, but emptying the council bank account of actual money is much more of a statement they will take note of.
Wave
says...
7:43pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
8:48pm Wed 30 Jan 13
My point being, what happens if someone needs prescriptions and cannot afford them.
I personally find that being judged and categorised is enough to make me depressed.
jane-w
says...
7:21am Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
8:41am Thu 31 Jan 13
ronedgcumbe
says...
9:58am Thu 31 Jan 13
Incidently do not parents have a responsibility of care with there children. If a parent was to leave a child hungry and pay the council tax would that not be classified as neglect.
Council tax will not be a priory for families on the breadline it will cost far more to collect this money then will ever be collect.
I have no confidence left in this council who priority seems to be towards boosting there own personal incomes at the expense of the poor,sick and disabled.
The song from the music hall era that went"Its the rich that get the pleasure. Its the poor that gets the blame, seems very appropriate at the moment.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
11:02am Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
11:18am Thu 31 Jan 13
Teejay wrote:It does not really work like that though does it. You will likely pay the same tax etc whatever the government choose to spend it on. I could say I am subsidising libraries and schools which I do not use for example, or adult social care or child minding government schemes or anything, however, we live in a democracy and have to accept that everyones needs should be considered.
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Right. So by having central govt. pay for the students I'm still paying twice. Once to Cornwall Council, plus the part of my income tax, VAT, or whatever other taxes central govt. choose to redistribute to pay student council tax in my area.
Teejay wrote:When you say concessions on students do you mean the fact they pay no council tax? or the landlords ? The local council get reimbursed from the government for students in accomodation owned by landlords, if you charge landlords, this money would all go to central government as it would be business rates and the local council would lose out and everyone's council tax would probably be even dearer.
Everyone should pay something. Whilst I don't subscribe to the view that everyone on benefits is a scrounger, for many long term claimants there isn't much incentive to earn. So 25% minimum is fair.
Likewise in the 'everyone contributes' world, remove the concessions on 4000 odd students and however many second/holiday homes there are in Cornwall.
So however you cut it, subsidising students costs extra.
40 to 50% of school leavers are being subsidised not only in education, but in billions of student loans that will never be recovered.
ronedgcumbe
says...
12:26pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:I think if you voted for the rise and fully intend to accept the increase if elected than it is a fair comment. I would of cause be unable to accept the massive rise with the knowledge of where it came from.
Ron you say the council's priority seems to be boosting their own personal incomes at the expense of the poor, sick and disabled. In all fairness, that is not strictly true because there is no guarantee that the current councillors will be re elected, and the increase in allowances would not come into effect until after the next election.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
1:16pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Cleanduck
says...
1:30pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
2:05pm Thu 31 Jan 13
You also say it is the non esssential services that people object to and consider a waste of money eg the welfare system, I didn't think council tax funded the welfare system. How could anyone opt out of the welfare system because if one became incapacitated in old age for example then the system would be obliged to help one, they couldn't just neglect the problem.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
2:16pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Cleanduck
says...
2:55pm Thu 31 Jan 13
ronedgcumbe
says...
2:57pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Cleanduck wrote:As a person who lives in social housing can I apologise for being one of "these sort of people".
As my original comment was misinterpreted by Lanty Slee's at 6:10pm Wed 30 Jan 13, I will clarify this further. I was just raising the issue about what services we could choose. It may be a good idea to have a base line of essential services which people can't opt out of e.g. fire, police etc. It's the non-essential services which people object to and consider to be a waste of money e.g. the welfare system (not in all cases, I agree). This system is now overly abused with people sub-letting social housing or making multiple benefit claims so that they can actively avoid work. It generally discourages people from trying to better themselves and encourages crime and poverty of desire as evidenced by the drug culture in the social housing areas. People are tired of their earnings subsidising these type of people and therefore should have a choice as to what services they want to subscribe to.
I also have sky and a nice phone so there is no hope for me.
ronedgcumbe
says...
2:59pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Cleanduck
says...
3:22pm Thu 31 Jan 13
This is the third time someone has misunterpreted my comment. I am now coming to the conclusion that the Cornish education system is in need of a serious overhaul. "(not in all cases, I agree)" is clearly stated in my comment so as to not to generalise. Your purchase of luxury items "sky tv and a nice phone" is your concern and was never referred to along with your lack of self-worth "there is no hope for me".
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
4:32pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Cleanduck wrote:I am sorry Cleanduck, although I may possibly have mis-interpreted some of what you say, although I remain unconvinced (yes there will always be some people that abuse the benefits system) however, what other way is there to interpret the fact that you say drug dealers in most cases would be living in social housing scamming the benefits system. I do not choose to ignore the facts, I am not naive, and I would not agree with your comment "which most people can see" who are most people? have you asked most people? I have lived in many different areas and under many different circumstances, when I 'loosely' said 'big posh houses' I was actually just making the point that the only problem I and others were aware of regarding drug culture was in one privately owned property within a group of privately owned properties, there was however no known drug related culture within the social rented properties. If you think most drug dealers live in social housing then I disagree, I am not saying that none do, but once again you are generalising and putting the emphasis on the problem being mainly linked to social housing tenants scaming the benefits system. Drug dealing is clearly a lucrative business therefore dealers would in my opinion not need to live in social housing.
Gill Zella Martin 09 2:16pm Thu 31 Jan 13 has also misunterpreted my comment. My point was the people who are scamming the welfare system are destroying the intent of it. There will always be exceptions like your example which I covered in my comment "(not in all cases, I agree)". People in "big posh privately owned houses" who use drugs have to purchase them from somewhere which in most cases would be a dealer living in social housing scamming the benefits system. You may not agree with my comments but ignoring 'the elephant in the room' which most people can see will not make the problem go away.
I am not naive to problems within society such as drugs, 'back handers' benefit fraud etc etc but feel it wrong to categorise anyone or any particular group.
Like I previously said I think some people categorise others too easily.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
4:41pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Chelz65
says...
5:22pm Thu 31 Jan 13
It should also be noted that it is not the fault of the Sick, Disabled or the Unemployed that wages (esp in Cornwall) are so low that the levels are similar to those in receipt of Welfare. What is happening to the poorest is appalling. The way people are being treated is very sad. We should all be united on this and all the other Reforms.....
I appeared on the National News today which was far, far from easy I assure you. It was not because I wanted to but because I fear what is happening, not just to me but all of the poorest in Society. To insist on putting a 'Tax' on Benefits that is deemed by LAW to be what people NEED is a very dangerous thing to do.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
5:59pm Thu 31 Jan 13
I am not going to apologize for the compassionate side of my nature, and I feel sorry for those in need, I also feel sorry for people if they do happen to be categorised in any unfair way because I understand what that feels like.
The problem with this situation is that if the council do not increase incoming money from council tax then frontline services will suffer and other people in need will suffer the consequences. With regards to the controversial allowances increase, even if that was to not proceed, the council would still left with a shortfall for frontline services because of government cuts.
ronedgcumbe
says...
6:03pm Thu 31 Jan 13
The loansharks must be thinking christmas has come very early this year.
ronedgcumbe
says...
6:20pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Chelz65 wrote:Chelz65 I belive i just saw you on the news. Just want to say i could see it was not easy but i think you did a great job.
Please can I remind people that Benefit Fraud stands at less than 1%. I don't condone Benefit Fraud by any way shape or form.
It should also be noted that it is not the fault of the Sick, Disabled or the Unemployed that wages (esp in Cornwall) are so low that the levels are similar to those in receipt of Welfare. What is happening to the poorest is appalling. The way people are being treated is very sad. We should all be united on this and all the other Reforms.....
I appeared on the National News today which was far, far from easy I assure you. It was not because I wanted to but because I fear what is happening, not just to me but all of the poorest in Society. To insist on putting a 'Tax' on Benefits that is deemed by LAW to be what people NEED is a very dangerous thing to do.
I did not realise we are missing out on goverment money by the council inflicting this tax on the poor, sick and disabled. No wonder they are in such a mess.
Teejay
says...
6:58pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:That's exactly how it works! Some of us pay at every turn while others contribute nothing.
Teejay wrote:It does not really work like that though does it. You will likely pay the same tax etc whatever the government choose to spend it on. I could say I am subsidising libraries and schools which I do not use for example, or adult social care or child minding government schemes or anything, however, we live in a democracy and have to accept that everyones needs should be considered.
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Right. So by having central govt. pay for the students I'm still paying twice. Once to Cornwall Council, plus the part of my income tax, VAT, or whatever other taxes central govt. choose to redistribute to pay student council tax in my area.
Teejay wrote:When you say concessions on students do you mean the fact they pay no council tax? or the landlords ? The local council get reimbursed from the government for students in accomodation owned by landlords, if you charge landlords, this money would all go to central government as it would be business rates and the local council would lose out and everyone's council tax would probably be even dearer.
Everyone should pay something. Whilst I don't subscribe to the view that everyone on benefits is a scrounger, for many long term claimants there isn't much incentive to earn. So 25% minimum is fair.
Likewise in the 'everyone contributes' world, remove the concessions on 4000 odd students and however many second/holiday homes there are in Cornwall.
So however you cut it, subsidising students costs extra.
40 to 50% of school leavers are being subsidised not only in education, but in billions of student loans that will never be recovered.
Of course you pay for bits you don't use, we all do.
But we're breeding a society that thinks the world owes it a living. The real social security of the past has given way to 'Benefits', and now so many of our democratic society choose to benefit from the state the genuine hardship cases can't get a fair share of the support they need.
A whole generation is growing up knowing that someone else will pay their debts.
You don't have to agree, but please try to accept and respect other people's points of view. It's a free forum but you always seem to have to have the last word on every thread. No offence meant.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
8:01pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Teejay wrote:I feel there is a difference between accept and respect, whilst I may not always accept an opinion and will debate on a point raised or issue, I always categorically respect others opinions. I do not always have the last word and I am never impolite to people. I often raise/quote other people's opinions simply to gain more information from them on their opinion (i notice you often quote other people's comments.) I find that if I gain more information from people about their opinions I very often see things from a different view point or even completely come round to their way of thinking which I have done very often in the past. Perfect example, I happen to agree with your last comment about the benefits system and the real cases of hardship not getting a fair share because of some that think the world owes them a living/pay their debts etc.
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:That's exactly how it works! Some of us pay at every turn while others contribute nothing.
Teejay wrote:It does not really work like that though does it. You will likely pay the same tax etc whatever the government choose to spend it on. I could say I am subsidising libraries and schools which I do not use for example, or adult social care or child minding government schemes or anything, however, we live in a democracy and have to accept that everyones needs should be considered.
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Right. So by having central govt. pay for the students I'm still paying twice. Once to Cornwall Council, plus the part of my income tax, VAT, or whatever other taxes central govt. choose to redistribute to pay student council tax in my area.
Teejay wrote:When you say concessions on students do you mean the fact they pay no council tax? or the landlords ? The local council get reimbursed from the government for students in accomodation owned by landlords, if you charge landlords, this money would all go to central government as it would be business rates and the local council would lose out and everyone's council tax would probably be even dearer.
Everyone should pay something. Whilst I don't subscribe to the view that everyone on benefits is a scrounger, for many long term claimants there isn't much incentive to earn. So 25% minimum is fair.
Likewise in the 'everyone contributes' world, remove the concessions on 4000 odd students and however many second/holiday homes there are in Cornwall.
So however you cut it, subsidising students costs extra.
40 to 50% of school leavers are being subsidised not only in education, but in billions of student loans that will never be recovered.
Of course you pay for bits you don't use, we all do.
But we're breeding a society that thinks the world owes it a living. The real social security of the past has given way to 'Benefits', and now so many of our democratic society choose to benefit from the state the genuine hardship cases can't get a fair share of the support they need.
A whole generation is growing up knowing that someone else will pay their debts.
You don't have to agree, but please try to accept and respect other people's points of view. It's a free forum but you always seem to have to have the last word on every thread. No offence meant.
I will however in future not quote your posts to debate with.
Lanty Slee
says...
8:26pm Thu 31 Jan 13
There's no picking and choosing, either you are a part of society or you are not.
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Poldark
says...
8:53pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Teejay wrote:Got it in one TEEJAY, I have been banging on about paying twice, and we do , and how many landlordsdon't pay the business rate and don't declare they let to students
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Right. So by having central govt. pay for the students I'm still paying twice. Once to Cornwall Council, plus the part of my income tax, VAT, or whatever other taxes central govt. choose to redistribute to pay student council tax in my area. So however you cut it, subsidising students costs extra. 40 to 50% of school leavers are being subsidised not only in education, but in billions of student loans that will never be recovered.Teejay wrote: Everyone should pay something. Whilst I don't subscribe to the view that everyone on benefits is a scrounger, for many long term claimants there isn't much incentive to earn. So 25% minimum is fair. Likewise in the 'everyone contributes' world, remove the concessions on 4000 odd students and however many second/holiday homes there are in Cornwall.When you say concessions on students do you mean the fact they pay no council tax? or the landlords ? The local council get reimbursed from the government for students in accomodation owned by landlords, if you charge landlords, this money would all go to central government as it would be business rates and the local council would lose out and everyone's council tax would probably be even dearer.
.
Notice how every bus goes
to Tremough? all subsidised.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
10:01pm Thu 31 Jan 13
ronedgcumbe wrote:Ron, the council are not missing out on money from the government if the council keeps the benefit claimants contributions to council tax very low, it is a loan they are offering and would have to be paid back, which would result in an extra increase next year for everyone.
Chelz65 wrote:Chelz65 I belive i just saw you on the news. Just want to say i could see it was not easy but i think you did a great job.
Please can I remind people that Benefit Fraud stands at less than 1%. I don't condone Benefit Fraud by any way shape or form.
It should also be noted that it is not the fault of the Sick, Disabled or the Unemployed that wages (esp in Cornwall) are so low that the levels are similar to those in receipt of Welfare. What is happening to the poorest is appalling. The way people are being treated is very sad. We should all be united on this and all the other Reforms.....
I appeared on the National News today which was far, far from easy I assure you. It was not because I wanted to but because I fear what is happening, not just to me but all of the poorest in Society. To insist on putting a 'Tax' on Benefits that is deemed by LAW to be what people NEED is a very dangerous thing to do.
I did not realise we are missing out on goverment money by the council inflicting this tax on the poor, sick and disabled. No wonder they are in such a mess.
ronedgcumbe
says...
10:11pm Thu 31 Jan 13
I would invite any councilor who voted for both the increase in allowance and this disgusting vote at this the cost to the poor,sick and disabled to debate this issue with me.
ronedgcumbe
says...
10:18pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Gill we are talking about people turning off there heating, lets get threw this winter first.
ronedgcumbe wrote:Ron, the council are not missing out on money from the government if the council keeps the benefit claimants contributions to council tax very low, it is a loan they are offering and would have to be paid back, which would result in an extra increase next year for everyone.
Chelz65 wrote:Chelz65 I belive i just saw you on the news. Just want to say i could see it was not easy but i think you did a great job.
Please can I remind people that Benefit Fraud stands at less than 1%. I don't condone Benefit Fraud by any way shape or form.
It should also be noted that it is not the fault of the Sick, Disabled or the Unemployed that wages (esp in Cornwall) are so low that the levels are similar to those in receipt of Welfare. What is happening to the poorest is appalling. The way people are being treated is very sad. We should all be united on this and all the other Reforms.....
I appeared on the National News today which was far, far from easy I assure you. It was not because I wanted to but because I fear what is happening, not just to me but all of the poorest in Society. To insist on putting a 'Tax' on Benefits that is deemed by LAW to be what people NEED is a very dangerous thing to do.
I did not realise we are missing out on goverment money by the council inflicting this tax on the poor, sick and disabled. No wonder they are in such a mess.
ronedgcumbe
says...
10:25pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Who voted against the poor , sick and disabled.
Please phone on 01326 561392.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
10:30pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
10:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
10:47pm Thu 31 Jan 13
I am not on benefits but I cannot afford to pay twice as much next year as what it would be if the council do borrow money.
Lanty Slee
says...
10:51pm Thu 31 Jan 13
The experiment has failed - it's a ridiculous waste of money that can't operate efficiently.
They call it a unitary authority, yet I feel this county is more divided than ever.
molesworth
says...
10:56pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Regarding taxes - people with the most money should pay the most taxes. 'End of.' As my daughter oft says.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
11:12pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Thank you molesworth that is very kind of you. I doubt very much I would dislike you, I do not judge people, and I like most people, I am interested in people. As for being politically incorrect, I am very often politically incorrect.
ronedgcumbe
says...
10:49am Fri 1 Feb 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:I think we will have a larger hole next year anyway. Some people will pay but many simply will not be able to. It will be interesting to see how the courts will deal with the ministers.
Ron, hypothetically, say they did it your way, took the loan, put the benefits claimants contributions to council tax down to a much lower level for this year, how would you sort out the problem next year when there is no longer a contingency fund to help and the money had to be re paid to the government and everyone was asked to pay more, I am interested to see what you would do ?
Cut spending is the only way. For instance I use the libraries but be happy to see them close to stop this dreadfully situation.
ronedgcumbe
says...
10:52am Fri 1 Feb 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
11:52am Fri 1 Feb 13
Have the same problem with my phone, I nearly posted something completely irrelevant and rude on one article, and this nearly said 'in the attic' instead of 'on one article'
I agree about the libraries but then I suppose that would make more people redundant.
ucsweb
says...
4:48pm Fri 1 Feb 13
It was supposed to be more efficient and more economical. You phone the Truro number-to get a Camborne switchboard- that then transfers you to a Truro office!
The experiment has failed. It is not even democratic, with the cabinet system dictating policy!
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
5:07pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Let us know who these councilors are.
Who voted against the poor , sick and disabled.
Please phone onIn answer to your question, as far as Helston is concerned I believe that Councillor Alec Robertson voted in favour of the council tax proposal I also believe Councillor Judith Haycock voted in favour and Councillor Andrew Wallis voted against it.
ronedgcumbe
says...
9:17am Sat 2 Feb 13
A shame he is not my councilor, Mrs Haycock is my councilor. As she has been heavily criticised on this forum in the past I will not further add to this but am certain she will be replaced in may.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
1:44pm Sat 2 Feb 13
There are also some excellent Councillors in other areas such as Falmouth, Camborne and the Lizard, I specify these areas only, as they are as local as what affects me personally.
Grocer
says...
9:56pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
6:36am Sun 3 Feb 13
The idea of the increase in allowances was to allow those people that would otherwise be unable to afford to do so to stand for Councillor, otherwise we could end up with all financially affluent Councillors representing us. I personally would like to see representation from a cross selection of people from society. No Councillor voted for the allowance for themselves as there is no guarantee any current councillor will be re elected and the increase does not, if it goes ahead, come into effect until after the next election.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
6:53am Sun 3 Feb 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
6:58am Sun 3 Feb 13
ronedgcumbe
says...
10:27am Sun 3 Feb 13
Grocer wrote:I must admit I was very disapointed with his decision on the allowance rise.
There is no doubt that Council Tax must be increased, even if it means that the poorest must pay. After all, we have to pay for Councillors' 20% pay rise somehow. (Am I right in believing that Mr Wallis voted in favour of that?).
jane-w
says...
10:40am Sun 3 Feb 13
ronedgcumbe
says...
10:51am Sun 3 Feb 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Gill my home has broadband but I do not claim benefits and pay all my council tax. However my disabled daughter claims benefits and lives with us, my wife also claims a carers allowance. I know you would not judge but your comment has made me question if it is right for them to have access to youtube.
I am not on benefits but cannot afford broadband, Having read many online comments submitted by people who obviously are against those on benefits being made to pay a small amount of council tax, I do in fact wonder out of interest sake how many of those actually on benefits have broadband.
It would maybe be interesting to compile a list of things benefit types maybe should not have. So far on this thread we have,
Sky tv.
Mobile phones.
Children.
Broadband.
I would like to add fast food which I love but rarely enjoy but suspect benefit types of consuming with gusto.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
11:53am Sun 3 Feb 13
I have witnessed real poverty with people living in social rented flats with no heating, very little food or clothes and certainly no phone, they also had children at school.
Like I have said in the past it is not for me to judge and I personally would
Bear in mind each individual case is different, for example one person may need a car to get to work given the rural areas and lack of public transport especially shift work, but then may claim benefits for being on a low income but if they did not have a car they could not work and therefore would claim more benefits.
Someone else may have special requirements for disabled people, if someone is disabled and spends a lot of time indoors then maybe the television or computer is their only source of company/communicatio
n. That is why I think the benefits system should be overhauled and more emphasis put on individual needs rather than a 'one size fits all' attitude.
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
1:51pm Sun 3 Feb 13
falmouthborn
says...
3:26pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Gill Zella Martin 09
says...
5:09pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Chelz65
says...
6:01pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Gill Zella Martin 09 wrote:Isn't that why some of them were not allowed to vote first time around as they had Family or knew some one that was Claiming said Benefits..
Has it actually occurred to anyone I wonder, that some Councillors may claim benefits themselves for being on a low income so it will affect them as well.
Can't wait to see what happens at the High Court tomorrow.
themaid says...
7:26am Wed 30 Jan 13