Council Tax 2008/2009

[blazey]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Councillor Peter Britcliffe:
106 New Lane
Oswaldtwistle
BB5 3QW

or

01254 381 147

or

[email protected]

and

Councillor Tony Dobson:
Rosedene Barn
The Bridleway
Off New Lane
Oswaldtwistle
BB5 3QL

or

07774 470 870

or

[email protected]

Feel free if there's something you desperately need to ask them. I have no idea why you're only mentioning Conservative councillors though. Greg Pope has had the facility to use online surgeries through Hyndburn Life and it was very successful when he did.

They live near me, so if anyone decides to visit them, please come and see me too

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

just curious as an non-partisan outsider , according to earlier posts LCC takes 82 % of the council tax , leaving 18% for diving up by HBC the local council .
now a couple of questions .....

1. is this a fixed ratio 82 to 18 or does it fluctuate ?
2 . is there a breakdown of % increases by the LCC and HBC (who is demanding a bigger slice of the pie ?)
3 . Do the tax bills show where the increases have gone ?

Seems to me , and just an observation , the guys on the front line (local councillors ) are being used as whipping boys by their LCC colleagues who are responsible for devouring the bigger part of the pie

1. The ratio is not fixed, they booth choose independently to raise their segments of the council tax. Policy and Fire services are also now seperate from LCC but all four make up the end figure of council tax (hence HBC get blamed for having a high tax because most of it goes to county)
2. As of 2008 72% goes to Lancashire County Council, 15% to Hyndburn Council, 9% to the Police Authority and 4% to the Fire Authority
3. There was a leaflet with council tax that showed what segment of the council tax went to the four institutions answered in (2) but from what I can remember that is it.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by andrewb

It was £100,000 less, not that it makes a difference but lets get some accuracy. Where is the report of them wasting it? It looks online to me.

I take it that you have looked at Hyndburn Life recently - most of the information is years out of date. The info about Accrington Stanley quotes season 2005 to 2006.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by claytonender

I take it that you have looked at Hyndburn Life recently - most of the information is years out of date. The info about Accrington Stanley quotes season 2005 to 2006.

I see so rather than it being a waste of the original money, it is the council employee not doing his job keeping it up to date? If the job exists of course. Has the upkeep specifically been raised at council do you know?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by claytonender

The median hourly rate for all workers in 1999 was £6.50 and in 2007 was £7.97 an increase of £1.47 or 22.62 %, which is considerably less than the 31.8% increase in council tax that you are quoting for the same period. In 2004 the hourly rate was £7.96 2005 it was £8.01 and in 2006 it was £7.84. So in from 2004 to 2007 it only rose by £0.01 or 0%.

I have already proved that council tax went up less than weekly wages. I think weekly wages are an awful lot more accurate because they actually take into account how much you work in relation to how much you get per hour - how much people are actually taking home to pay for council tax.

Anyway, services need to be paid for. I don't think it would go down very well if services were cut to further reduce council tax. They're already doing a great job at keeping council tax down if you compare us with the rest of the country, nowhere near the crazy 'most expensive council' claim.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

They're already doing a great job at keeping council tax down if you compare us with the rest of the country, nowhere near the crazy 'most expensive council' claim.

So says someone who isn't even paying council tax yet.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I have already proved that council tax went up less than weekly wages. I think weekly wages are an awful lot more accurate because they actually take into account how much you work in relation to how much you get per hour - how much people are actually taking home to pay for council tax.

Anyway, services need to be paid for. I don't think it would go down very well if services were cut to further reduce council tax. They're already doing a great job at keeping council tax down if you compare us with the rest of the country, nowhere near the crazy 'most expensive council' claim.

But hourly rates do have a profound effect on what the weekly wage is, and the percentage increase is still the same . In 1999 median hourly rate (for all workers) was £6.50, multiply by 38 hours per week = weekly earnings of £228.00 or £11856 per ammum, in 2007 median hourly rate (for all workers) was £7.97, multiply by 38 hours per week = weekly earnings of £302.86 or £15748.52 per annum.
I do agree that services need to be paid for.

As a matter of interest do you pay any council Tax?

[andrewb]

Actually never mind.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I see so rather than it being a waste of the original money, it is the council employee not doing his job keeping it up to date? If the job exists of course. Has the upkeep specifically been raised at council do you know?

They could have, but didn't, employ a whole team of people to run the website, with the £591,000.00 that was given to them as a grant.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

They could have, but didn't, employ a whole team of people to run the website, with the £591,000.00 that was given to them as a grant.

I have failed to receive your report which details any of this. You do know once the website is built (which costs all the money) it is a simple matter of maintaining it with up to date information. And as yet we don't know why this is (other than speculation) so I am waiting for someone in the know to respond.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by claytonender

But hourly rates do have a profound effect on what the weekly wage is, and the percentage increase is still the same . In 1999 median hourly rate (for all workers) was £6.50, multiply by 38 hours per week = weekly earnings of £228.00 or £11856 per ammum, in 2007 median hourly rate (for all workers) was £7.97, multiply by 38 hours per week = weekly earnings of £302.86 or £15748.52 per annum.
I do agree that services need to be paid for.

As a matter of interest do you pay any council Tax?

I apologise for the error I made in my last post in the calculation of wekly wage rates for 1999, the 1999 rate of £6.50 multiplied by 38 hours is £247.00 per week or £12844.

The increase in weekly wages from 1999 to 2007 is £55.86 (or annual increase in weekly wages of £6.28 each year) the increase in annual wages from 1999 to 2007 is £2904.72 (or an annual increase in yearly income of £363.09 each year)

So the percetage increase from 1999 to 2007 is 22.62%.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Actually never mind.

Is this remark addressed at anyone in particular.

[lancsdave]

Ever get the feeling there's always somebody who will defend the indefendable

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by claytonender

I apologise for the error I made in my last post in the calculation of wekly wage rates for 1999, the 1999 rate of £6.50 multiplied by 38 hours is £247.00 per week or £12844.

The increase in weekly wages from 1999 to 2007 is £55.86 (or annual increase in weekly wages of £6.28 each year) the increase in annual wages from 1999 to 2007 is £2904.72 (or an annual increase in yearly income of £363.09 each year)

So the percetage increase from 1999 to 2007 is 22.62%.

I don't really understand what you're getting at. You have already said the increase in weekly wages was 36%, less than council tax over that time. You can find specific circumstances where that is not true, of course, because it's an average. If you are arguing for a review of council tax so that it is based on ability to pay (which you seem to be getting at since I'm sure you accept 45% increase over the last 10 years is much, much less than the average in the country), then that's a national government issue. Our council can only deal under the current structure.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I have failed to receive your report which details any of this. You do know once the website is built (which costs all the money) it is a simple matter of maintaining it with up to date information. And as yet we don't know why this is (other than speculation) so I am waiting for someone in the know to respond.

I'm still waiting patiently for Peter Britcliffe's promised enquiry, as to why this shameful waste of public money was allowed to happen.


'Councillor Britcliffe said that he would support an inquiry into the project and added: "The aim was to give people in deprived areas access to the Internet.
"But things move on. These community representatives now have access to the Internet and they don't need to take us on.'
http://www.accringtonobserver.co.uk/...perate_failure