Croydon Council

[discovolante]

Councils have statutory obligations and as I understand it councillors and officers could be open to personal liability if they were to deliberately fail to discharge them. It seems optimistic to think that ‘but there wasn’t enough money’ would be a watertight defence.

I've brought committal proceedings against relevant council leaders (I.e. to be sent to prison) when councils have breached court orders I've got against them. Obviously there is never any expectation that it will actually happen but it tends to get things moving. However this is contempt of court proceedings rather than statutory obligations.

[jdc]

Why don't councils just raise local taxes to make up the shortfall? They could target it a bit progressively/towards Tory-voting demographics - higher bands of properties and business rates for the rich c.nts, and whatever it is that old people enjoy, bingo halls and chip shops and stuff I guess.

Put out an announcement saying "central government have cut our funding by £10m, therefore we're raising the money locally, if you don't like it take it up with them".

Obviously they'd lose the next election, but apart from that it's a good idea.

I'm not sure how much room for manoeuvre local councils get. For council tax, "Each local authority sets a tax rate expressed as the annual levy on a Band D property inhabited by two liable adults. This decision automatically sets the amounts levied on all types of households and dwellings" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#Calculation and the bands are set by VOA rather than individual councils.

Business rates seem to go by a set formula too: https://www.gov.uk/introduction-to-busi ... calculated

Business rates are worked out based on your property’s ‘rateable value’.

This is its open market rental value on 1 April 2015, based on an estimate by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA).

You can estimate your business rates by multiplying the rateable value by the correct ‘multiplier’ (an amount set by central government).

I think there are also restraints on things like the % increase in council tax that's allowed.

I guess they could tell their traffic wardens to target nice-looking cars but I can't see that ending well tbh.

[Bird on a Fire]

I thought there might be a sensible reason. Thanks jdc.

So apart from speculation and parking fines (do they get to keep that money? Speeding tickets go to central government, apparently), what are the options for councils to raise the money they need for public services?

[sTeamTraen]

Something that you young sprogs might have forgotten is that Council Tax was merely a ghastly compromise after the utter failure of the Poll Tax. But the Poll Tax only came about because everybody (really, there has rarely been such unanimity in UK politics) agreed that the old domestic rates had to go. Back then, one of the huge issues was administration; the local council had no idea what you earned, so the only basis for taxation was where you lived. But the size of your house ought to be irrelevant in any properly liberal society; why should you be taxed more because you spend money on buying or renting a bigger house, versus a nicer car or private school for your kids or more cocaine?

In 2020, if local taxes didn't exist and had to be invented from scratch, I'm 99% sure that someone would say "Well, let's have a local income tax code. Based on your postcode, HMRC determines which local authority you live in, and they send in a number between 2% or 5%, or whatever, and we plug that into your annual tax calculation". And everyone would agree with it. It could also be made to work very easily for PAYE via the tax code system. Your local council's "tax top-up" rate would be public knowledge, and would become a debating point at local elections: The Tories would promise to reduce 3.2% to 3.1% through "efficiency savings", and Labour would say "The kind-hearted people of Blargtown are surely prepared to see the 3.2% go to 3.3% to fund better policing and youth activities", or whatever.

[discovolante]

Or, land value tax.

[jdc]

I thought there might be a sensible reason. Thanks jdc.

So apart from speculation and parking fines (do they get to keep that money? Speeding tickets go to central government, apparently), what are the options for councils to raise the money they need for public services?

Haven't found anything official that spells it out yet but this makes it sound like it's the councils: https://www.racfoundation.org/research/ ... nd-2018-19

In 2018-19 English councils made a combined profit of £930 million from their parking activities.

The figure for the last financial year is up 7% on the £867 million councils made in 2017-18.

It is up 41% on the £658 million made in 2013-14.

The 353 local authorities in England received total income of £1.746 billion from their on- and off-street parking operations in 2018-19. This included £454 million from penalties, 6% higher than the £428 million in the previous financial year.

The amount they spent on running parking – as reported to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – was £816 million. This does not include interest payments or depreciation on their capital assets such as car parks as these figures are not accounted for in the official data.

The difference between the income and expenditure figures – £930 million – is the surplus (profit) from day to day operations.

[El Pollo Diablo]

In terms of raising council tax, the last I heard (which could be out of date) is that if councils wanted to raise tax by more than 5% in a single year, they had to have a local referendum to ask the population if that is okay. Which, in effect, means that no council could raise taxes by more than 5%, because the majority of the population of the UK doesn't like paying for good local services.

[Millennie Al]

Councils have statutory obligations and as I understand it councillors and officers could be open to personal liability if they were to deliberately fail to discharge them. It seems optimistic to think that ‘but there wasn’t enough money’ would be a watertight defence.

They can always resign if they feel they are being put in an impossible position.

If they lose money on speculation they should suffer an even greater punishment - both personal liability and imprisonment as they have both failed and made things worse.

[Rich Scopie]

I thought there might be a sensible reason. Thanks jdc.

So apart from speculation and parking fines (do they get to keep that money? Speeding tickets go to central government, apparently), what are the options for councils to raise the money they need for public services?

Parking.

In Wellingborough, all council owned parking is free. Every now and again, some bright spark on the council suggests introducing Pay and Display, or parking meters to raise revenue, which gets shot down every time on the basis that "If we introduce parking costs, no-one will come to Wellingborough".

Now, I don't know about you, but I've never had an urge to go somewhere, simply because the parking is free. I imagine it's free to park at Chernobyl, but that's not a reason to visit.

[Martin_B]

I thought there might be a sensible reason. Thanks jdc.

So apart from speculation and parking fines (do they get to keep that money? Speeding tickets go to central government, apparently), what are the options for councils to raise the money they need for public services?

Parking.

In Wellingborough, all council owned parking is free. Every now and again, some bright spark on the council suggests introducing Pay and Display, or parking meters to raise revenue, which gets shot down every time on the basis that "If we introduce parking costs, no-one will come to Wellingborough".

Now, I don't know about you, but I've never had an urge to go somewhere, simply because the parking is free. I imagine it's free to park at Chernobyl, but that's not a reason to visit.

No, but it might be a differentiation point if your choice of shopping location is Wellingborough or Kettering or Northampton or Market Harborough. Cost and ease of parking, if you are going to get in a car and drive to do your shopping anyway, could influence your choice.

[Sciolus]

Or if you're trying to keep town centres alive in the face of competition from out-of-town malls and megastores. Which leads to the interesting argument that access for people without cars is helped by giving car users free town-centre parking.

[Rich Scopie]

I thought there might be a sensible reason. Thanks jdc.

So apart from speculation and parking fines (do they get to keep that money? Speeding tickets go to central government, apparently), what are the options for councils to raise the money they need for public services?

Parking.

In Wellingborough, all council owned parking is free. Every now and again, some bright spark on the council suggests introducing Pay and Display, or parking meters to raise revenue, which gets shot down every time on the basis that "If we introduce parking costs, no-one will come to Wellingborough".

Now, I don't know about you, but I've never had an urge to go somewhere, simply because the parking is free. I imagine it's free to park at Chernobyl, but that's not a reason to visit.

No, but it might be a differentiation point if your choice of shopping location is Wellingborough or Kettering or Northampton or Market Harborough. Cost and ease of parking, if you are going to get in a car and drive to do your shopping anyway, could influence your choice.

No-one chooses to come to Wellingborough for shopping.

Or if you're trying to keep town centres alive in the face of competition from out-of-town malls and megastores. Which leads to the interesting argument that access for people without cars is helped by giving car users free town-centre parking.

Rushden Lakes has destroyed any chance of any big name stores coming to Wellingborough.

[nekomatic]

They can always resign if they feel they are being put in an impossible position.

It’s funny, I thought you might say that. So anyone who’s bright enough to realise they’re in an impossible position, but not enough of a spiv to try and work the system for personal advantage before it all goes tits up, gets out of public service while the getting’s good. I can’t think why such a brilliant solution hasn’t gained more traction to be honest.

[Bird on a Fire]

They can always resign if they feel they are being put in an impossible position.

It’s funny, I thought you might say that. So anyone who’s bright enough to realise they’re in an impossible position, but not enough of a spiv to try and work the system for personal advantage before it all goes tits up, gets out of public service while the getting’s good. I can’t think why such a brilliant solution hasn’t gained more traction to be honest.

"There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” - Douglas Adams

[Millennie Al]

They can always resign if they feel they are being put in an impossible position.

It’s funny, I thought you might say that. So anyone who’s bright enough to realise they’re in an impossible position, but not enough of a spiv to try and work the system for personal advantage before it all goes tits up, gets out of public service while the getting’s good. I can’t think why such a brilliant solution hasn’t gained more traction to be honest.

What's the alternative?

[nekomatic]

I dunno, maybe offer some moral support to the people who try under pretty tricky circumstances to maintain the services that less fortunate people really need and meanwhile call out the Westminster policy of standing on their windpipe, rather than brushing it off with ‘councils are always moaning about not having enough money’.

[Millennie Al]

I dunno, maybe offer some moral support to the people who try under pretty tricky circumstances to maintain the services that less fortunate people really need and meanwhile call out the Westminster policy of standing on their windpipe, rather than brushing it off with ‘councils are always moaning about not having enough money’.

Moral support doesn't feed or clothe people or provide for any other needs.

[bmforre]

... Moral support doesn't feed or clothe people or provide for any other needs.

People don't live by words alone.
Food is needed.
And clothing and housing and warming.

And electric power so you can charge your phone and have words.

[Bird on a Fire]

Of course, resigning doesn't feed or clothe people or provide for any other needs either.

[noggins]

Or, land value tax.

How about a local stamp duty ?

[noggins]

But who do Croydon actually owe the money to? If it was a business, the creditors would have to accept x pence in the pound, what is different?

[sTeamTraen]

But who do Croydon actually owe the money to? If it was a business, the creditors would have to accept x pence in the pound, what is different?

The problem is that they need many of those same creditors to supply office furniture or road signs or adult nappies or whatever is part of the services that the council provides, and they need to do the same thing next year as well; and indeed the good burghers of Croydon need the council to provide those services. Normally one of the attractions for a business of supplying a local authority, as opposed to a private company, is that your financial controller doesn't feel that they need to run a credit check to decide what to add to the price as a premium for the risk of not getting paid. When the creditors accept X pence in the pound, the debtor doesn't generally continue trading, and certainly doesn't expect to phone up next week and say "Oops, sorry about wiping out your cash flow, now can you send another 300 boxes of bin bags at the same price please?"

For me this is also a good rule of thumb about what shouldn't be privatised. Part of the deal with the private sector is that companies go bust, for all kinds of reasons. If a society can't afford for the only possible local (or national natural monopoly) supplier of a service to go bust, it probably ought to keep it under government ownership. So for example while having multiple private sector energy "suppliers" (in the sense of people who buy and sell energy on the markets and bill you for it) might be a reasonable thing to do, privatising your national grid probably isn't a good idea. (Again, this is just a rule of thumb.)

[Bird on a Fire]

Or, land value tax.

How about a local stamp duty ?

The advantage of a property tax as seen in much of the world is that it provides a constant stream of income. With a transaction tax like stamp duty it dries up during slower market periods, which are probably correlated with the periods of highest need for the resources local authorities provide. With a property tax the wealthy contribute to those services in a regular, predictable way.

[sTeamTraen]

Or, land value tax.

How about a local stamp duty ?

The advantage of a property tax as seen in much of the world is that it provides a constant stream of income. With a transaction tax like stamp duty it dries up during slower market periods, which are probably correlated with the periods of highest need for the resources local authorities provide. With a property tax the wealthy contribute to those services in a regular, predictable way.

I believe that property taxes tend to be very high in the US compared to the UK, and even more compared to Europe. In France or Spain it's fairly rare to spend more than 1000 Euros per year on property taxes.

[Bird on a Fire]

I don't think the UK has a property tax at all, really, unless I'm missing something?

Taxing wealth rather than income does seem "fairer" to me somehow, especially forms of wealth like property that are (a) unproductive and (b) only increase their value by restricting availability of a basic human necessity.

Could a council levy a property tax without Westminster's permission?