bridge too far

Although they have introduced the rule that says you don't have to pay for 'nursing' care - only 'personal' care.

Hey, I've got a bright idea! Why don't we scrap council tax altogether. Instead, we can individually pay the firefighter or the police to deal with personal fires, crime, RTAs etc. We can each pay for our children to go to school and we won't bother about trying to stop child abuse any more. WE can take our own rubbish to a rubbish tip, although who will manage that tip I really don't know. Perhaps we'll just have to dump it in the woods! We can cut the grass verge outside our own house, and sweep the gutter and climb up the lamppost if the bulb goes. This is a great idea. But there is one problem. I haven't worked out how much it will cost me to do all of this (and more). I wonder if it would cost me more as an individual than my council tax. After all, I won't have economies of scale

I never fail to be staggered by the sheer ignorance shown by some people on this forum! Councils are not 'awash' with money. They collect money from us (and get some from central government) to spread over the financial year. This inevitably means that at the start of the financial year they have surplus funds but it is all budgeted for although not needed immediately. So, as we all do when we have spare cash, they invest it to get interest to be used to provide more services. Most councils employ the services of private contractors to advise on investment. None of those advisors foresaw the Icelandic bank collapse (nor did anyone else) and the councils simply followed the professional advice they'd been given.

I've tried so hard to put this myth to bed before. I've obviously failed. This is a FALLACY. Local government / NHS workers do not retire early. They cannot receive their workplace pensions until they are of retirement age. The exception to this is the nurse who may have to retire early with back problems caused by lifting. But that is the ONLY exception and, from memory, they can only retire at 5 years before national retirement dates. Local government / NHS workers contribute to their pensions in the same way as (some) workers in private industry do. Public sector employers (councils, NHS) contribute to those pensions as do private employers to their employee pension funds. Who do you think ACTUALLY funds for example the pensions for, say, M & S staff, or building company employees? You and I do, through the prices we pay just as we do for the council / NHS services we pay for through council tax or NI. NHS / council staff pensions rise in line with inflation as do private pensions (it's called index-linking). NHS / council pensions are predicated by years of service x 1/80th final salary. Since most of these workers are relatively low paid, it means that the average worker on, say £16K a year, and working for 20 years for the same employer, would get a pension of £4K a year. Eye watering amounts eh?

Local councils can and do implement their own IT infrastructures and programmes as well as tap in to national ones. The point being discussed, Steve, was whether councils did or did not instruct and fund capital developments. Nothing more.

And there's something about £16K in savings too, I believe. What did surprise me though, and I think is good is this. If you (the elderly parent) can't sell your house to fund your care (because of the state of the housing market for example), Social Services will 'lend' you the money, interest free, to pay for your care and then recoup that loan once your house is sold. As far as leaving it to the kids - I'd rather my mother had a decent end to her life than worried about leaving money to me. Inherited money is just unearned income anyway and I don't feel I have a 'right' to it. If there is any left after her demise, I'll probably give it to my children TBH.

We have no problem with my mother funding her own care (although I would dispute the 'wealthy' tag). I live 2 hours away and have to work full-time and often away from home. My brother is self-employed and also has a back problem and cannot manage the required lifting. Whilst we believe the principles behind self-funding are wrong, we are all happy to subscribe to the system in order that my mother receives the help she needs and that other people who don't have her resources can enjoy relative comfort in their old age at little or no cost. But shall we return to the original topic about waste and packaging? Or do you want to continue to challenge the care my mother is receiving and belittle the very real difficulties elderly people have in all sorts of ways?

Not all of them. There are a number of central government initiatives, to be sure, such as Building Schools for the Future (I'm currently auditing a number of such schemes in a Midlands council) but quite often local councils have to use (and justify the use) of 'their own' money for smaller capital schemes. Many of them use a yardstick called 'Invest to Save'. I suggest this is self-explanatory. Capital schemes aren't necessarily buildings. They can be IT infrastructures, for example.

Of course she does. Her financial situation means that she doesn't qualify for help from Social Services. Should she require nursing care at some stage, that will be paid for by the NHS.

Bungle's right (BTF in agreement with fence-sitter shocker :shock:) Another consideration is this. Councils have to have long-term plans, usually a 5 year programme. If the unexpected happens they can be over budget. In the past 12 months, I can think of two examples of this. 1) the cost of fuel and 2) the fall in the property market (as councils often dispose of property as part of a business case to build a new school for example).

She pays for her own care. One day (maybe soon) you'll be old and infirm. Your callousness will come back to haunt you.

The Scottish article is from 5 years ago! And I think, although I'm sure Bungle will tell me if I'm wrong, that Scotland determines its own cap? These articles point out that council spending is to be CAPPED. If my (conservative) district council wants to limit next year's rise to 0%, it can do so. However, no doubt, care for the elderly, refuse collection, street cleaning etc. etc. will be suffer. Police and Fire and education services may then also be reduced as local councils pay part of the council tax to these services (its called a precept).

No, she doesn't. Her shopping is ordered for her and delivered to her. She still has to open things though. However, that's history as she's now in a care home. But thanks for your understanding and compassion WSS.

I would imagine that's included under the heading VAT/Sales/GST in the tables. Some other countries put these taxes on food which we don't do. Here's another gem for you WSS. This is from the Adam Smith Institute - hardly a bastion of socialism It shows Tax Freedom Day since 1965. I'm sure you know what that means. You will see that it has hardly changed over 40 years and, as the legend to the right of the table explains, it includes 'stealth taxes'. http://www.adamsmith.org/a-history-of-tax-freedom-day/

Going off at a slight tangent here: Freezing council tax won't actually put money in people's pockets IMMEDIATELY. All it will do is to keep people's outgoings the same as they are currently. So no more money would flow INTO the economy right now. So it won't solve the problems NOW. It's my opinion that this is how the Conservatives are showing their ignorance of the situation. They don't seem to be able to grasp that steps needed to be taken NOW, not next year. Nearly every other sophisticated economy in the world understands this and is taking similar steps. George Osborne is, apparently, standing in splendid isolation. Given the low rate of inflation, I would think council tax increases will be minimal next year anyway.

I think the figures are more recent than that WSS. Believe it or not, I'm not making a political point here. In this country, we tend to believe that we are one of the most heavily taxed nations in the world, mainly because of the 'stealth taxes' headlines of the press. I'm simply pointing out that we're not, according to this data (which is, I would think, independent).

I'm laughing at myself for being such an anorak but look what I've found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world I don't know how up to date this is but bear with it and scroll down the page. There you can see the comparative data. We're not as heavily taxed as we like to think we are

Not at all - for the purposes of expanding my own knowledge, I thought I'd look up the levels of VAT past and present. Nothing more sinister than that actually

This assumes they have the strength to use scissors. My mother doesn't have that strength.

I often wish I was brave enough to rip off all that excess packaging and leave it at the check-out! I do sometimes wonder how frail / elderly people manage with that shrink-wrap stuff.

I was so, so tempted to make a riposte

Oh OK - me too. I thought you were Cherwell for some reason.

Recyclabes DO NOT get dumped into landfill. Every council has a target % of recyclables and if, like me, you had seen the systems and processes used with regard to waste, you'd appreciate just what an efficient and effective operation it is. I've had to audit a number of waste collection contracts and, believe you me, they're impressive.

We have to put a house brick on the lids when we put them out for collection. However, the refuse collectors just fling them all over the road (boxes and lids) and a few of our boxes have 'disappeared' over the past couple of years. I guess they make good toy boxes or similar. I wish they'd replace them with wheelie bins - much easier to take out for collection. I just don't know how elderly or infirm people manage with the boxes. But you're not the same council as me are you Ponty?

I've just done a bit of research on VAT tax rates over the years. "In 1979, the UK had a Zero Rate, a Basic Rate of 12.5 per cent charged on "luxury" items and a reduced rate of 8 per cent charged on most other goods and services. When the Conservatives came to power that year, Chancellor Geoffrey Howe increased both of these to a single rate of 15 per cent, to partially offset the impact of large cuts to the Basic and Higher Rates of Income Tax. This was portrayed as a deliberate move aimed at shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to consumption. VAT remained at 15 per cent until 1991, when Norman Lamont increased it to 17.5 per cent. This step was intended to provide revenue for the "Community Charge Reduction Scheme", aimed at assisting local authorities suffering from the fall-out of massive levels of defaulting on the "poll tax"." Interesting.....