News

Rushmoor approves controversial tax scheme

By Amy Taylor
January 29, 2013

COUNCIL tax benefit in Rushmoor will be replaced by a new scheme where everyone, even the worst-off, will pay a contribution.

The local support scheme was approved by councillors at a special meeting on January 23, despite protest from Labour councillors who said it was unfair on low-income families.

From April 1, everyone of working age living in Rushmoor borough will pay a minimum of 8% towards their council tax bill after the Government delegated authority to local councils to set their own benefit programmes.

While pensioners who receive council tax benefits will see no change to their support, everyone else who is eligible to work could see their benefit income fall.

Those who received benefits for 100% of their council tax bill will see that support fall to 92% – requiring them to pay at least 8% in a bid to encourage people back into work.

Introducing the scheme, council leader Peter Moyle, said: “This was a difficult issue since time was limited – we had to react as quickly as we could to develop a new scheme and address the loss of funding, which was quite huge.

“It was particularly difficult as it affects the more vulnerable in our community, and we have sought to minimise that.”

Neighbouring borough Surrey Heath, covering Camberley, Frimley and Bagshot, have reduced their maximum support level to 70% – requiring people to pay at least 30% of their tax bill, to which Rushmoor councillors responded with disbelief.

Labour councillor Mike Roberts slammed the decision as ‘deplorable’, adding: “The impact on the poorest cannot be comprehensively examined at present.”

Many agreed that Rushmoor’s proposal of 8% was reasonable but Labour councillors proposed that the scheme be reconsidered.

Cllr Alex Crawford said people receiving council tax benefit should continue to get the same level of support, rather than the council claiming what adds up to £431,000 during the 2013/14 financial year from the 3,600 poorest claimants in the borough.

“Early on we were led to believe this meant all recipients of council tax benefit of working age were going to have to pay something more than they do this year.

“I’ve always baulked at that, as it seems most unfair to be imposing extra charges on our poorest, lowest paid residents with the least money, while freezing council tax bills for everyone else.”

He said a hardship fund of £50,000 for the first year, set aside to ease the impact on the worst-off, would not be enough.

“There is the issue of chasing up the 720 poorest, lowest paid in the borough who are not expected to pay up,” he said. “They will end up in court if they cannot pay and they are refused payment from the Discretionary Exceptional Hardship Fund.”

Despite Labour’s concerns, the scheme was passed and councillor Charles Choudhary, who led the working committee which put the proposals together, said it would be reviewed in nine months to ensure the hardship fund was adequate and tax bills were being paid.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (213)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 213

Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ... | 15 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

@ peter hensman “. . . . above the rank of Vicar they are so out of touch.”

Will you apologise to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 43 Bishops after reading their open letter, which shows them very much in touch:

“Next week, members of the House of Lords will debate the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

The Bill will mean that for each of the next three years, most financial support for families will increase by no more than 1 per cent, regardless of how much prices rise.

This is a change that will have a deeply disproportionate impact on families with children, pushing 200,000 children into poverty. A third of all households will be affected by the Bill, but nearly nine out of 10 families with children will be hit.

These are children and families from all walks of life. The Children’s Society calculates that a single parent with two children, working on an average wage as a nurse would lose £424 a year by 2015.

A couple with three children and one earner, on an average wage as a corporal in the British Army, would lose £552 a year by 2015.

However, the change will hit the poorest the hardest. About 60 per cent of the savings from the uprating cap will come from the poorest third of households. Only 3 per cent will come from the wealthiest third.

If prices rise faster than expected, children and families will no longer have any protection against this. This transfers the risk of high inflation rates from the Treasury to children and families, which is unacceptable.

Children and families are already being hit hard by cuts to support, including those to tax credits, maternity benefits, and help with housing costs.

They cannot afford this further hardship penalty. We are calling on the House of Lords to take action to protect children from the impact of this Bill.”

Cllr. Alex Crawford, Aldershot
11/03/2013 at 09:06

@ Dawi

While I agree that it is undesirable for one person to excert to much control over the media it is also undesirable for a politicaly motivated organisation to have enough power to manipulate items being reported. Many general secretaries of the NUJ have leanings towards the Comunist party, some having stood for election sponsered by the comunist party others as editors of the Morning Star and Marxist news sheets. The NUJ through the NUJ left is known to sponsore the SWP money being diverted to fund the UAF a radical proactive far left group. Yes I would like to see control of our media strictly governed and that includes both owners and unions

peter hensman
10/03/2013 at 16:20

@peter hensman

A bigger problem is that such a large portion of this country’s mainstream media is either owned, controlled or heavily influenced by one person, which as we have seen in the past has given advantage to whichever political party or issue that person wants to put his weight behind, because control of the media is the ability to control the flow or presentation of information, why else do you think that Nigel “went to dinner with him”.

Dawi, Aldershot
10/03/2013 at 15:45

@ Dawi A big problem with the media in this country is that it is biased. A party leaning to the right can expect a hate campaigne from the left reporting very little truth. The big bad EDL is a good example of not allowing the story to be spoilt by the truth, many points raised by the EDL were not reported but have since become relevent and are now being tackled by the very people who condemed the EDL. There has to be a balanc and to achieve a balance of fare reporting you sometimes have to mix with company you would rather not sit with, The Liberals are another example any good that they have achieve is buried by stories of charator assasination. The press has a great deal to answer to

peter hensman
10/03/2013 at 11:46

@peter hensman

"The Scum? I did not realise you read comics"

Good Joke. It's not even fit to use as bog roll

Dawi, Aldershot
08/03/2013 at 19:06

My point Peter , is that even if UKIP can establish themselves as a major party the electoral system will prevent them from having any real teeth. Heavily Labour/Tory areas will still support their parties like football teams so even if UKIP push the other parties into third and fourth place they still don't win. I keep seeing on this website about doing what Eastleigh did. Well they returned a Liberal Democrat to the commons despite the previous lib dem perverting the course of justice, breaking their major campaign pledge and enabling the government of the main rival in that seat from the previous election in a coalition. I'd say that was Lib Dems 1 UKIP 0

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
08/03/2013 at 17:00

We could still use the ballot box Peter.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
08/03/2013 at 16:52

@ Dawi

The Scum? I did not realise you read comics

@ Spongebob

That would take a revolution Alas we have to stick with the ballot box

peter hensman
08/03/2013 at 15:57

peter hensman,

Well it look like Nigel Farage is making his play for power now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21710739

I can imagin the headlines in "The Scum" in the lead up to the next general election.

Dawi, Aldershot
08/03/2013 at 15:17

If you want to put a fly in the ointment then the best solution is change the electoral system. Reduce the number of directly elected members to about 250 and have 250 appointed proportionally from the losing votes. That way people will start to vote for their beliefs rather than tactically and every single person's vote will count. The government will always be a coalition and the true voice of the people will pass or fail bills in the house.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
08/03/2013 at 15:01

Dawi When you have union leaders on high salaries, MP's on all parties who know nothing of real life who talk of average salaries of £35,000 pa and capping families on bennefit to £25,000 pa when working class famiilies feel lucky if they make £15,000 pa gross. We have a 3 party system, one group who has placed us in deep recession wants to continue trying to spend our way out of it putting us deeper in debt. The other group while continuing to enjoy their comfortable life style expect those lower down the scale to take the hit with promises of even more harship. Then you have the third group who runs around between the other two supporting who ever makes them look good. What is needed is a fourth group to act as a fly in the ointment, to be out spoken, Where are the Beast's of Bolsover who stood in the house and openly took their own party to task as well as everyone else. Where are the men of the house? There are none. We need a fourth party in the house and the only relevent party to become that fly in the ointment is UKIP. and that is why I support them. I was rather harsh on the church at a local level they not only work hard to spread the word of God they seem to work even harder working to help their local communities as Jesus has commanded them. But above the rank of Vicar they are so out of touch.

peter hensman
08/03/2013 at 11:07

peter hensman,

I'm glad to hear that.

If the Labour Party wants to stand a chance of getting elected they need to return to their socialist roots, not continue to be Tony Blair's Nu Labour Tory Party Clone.

There is also more need today than ever for effective unions (and I don’t mean the militant kind from the late 60’s/early 70’s). But Unions that work with employers to achieve a fair settlement and conditions for both the company and the workforce.

We also need a government that will provide a fair, just and stable environment for the country, unfortunate I don’t think that any of the existing major parties are capable of doing that (and that includes UKIP).

Dawi, Aldershot
07/03/2013 at 22:09

The working classes only lean to right because of the brainwashing of the masses over things like Europe and immigration. The Facts are skewed and these lies smokescreen the real agenda.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
07/03/2013 at 16:42

I have a great deal of respect for both the founders of the Unions and the Labour Party they made great strides in improving the lot of the working class we also owe a debt to the Church's who's Sunday schools taught the working class to read and write. But now the Unions, labour Party and the Church have become middle class and can no longer be relied upon to stand by the working class, but no matter we will no longer be ignored by National and Local Government as we have been in the past. These days the working class lean to the right politicaly but still retain their social conscience

peter hensman
07/03/2013 at 14:26

“Our country has the responsibility of providing quality healthcare, quality education, quality social housing and full employment for the benefit of all regardless of race creed or colour, that is the right of the working class”

It was not until the abolition of the Poor Laws which were replaced with the National Assistance Act 1948 that anything we would recognize today started to come in to being. Before the National Assistance Act there were The Poor Laws (The Old Poor Laws 1536 – 1834 and The New Poor Laws 1834 – 1948). There were a few changes in the early 1900’s e.g. the Liberal Welfare Reforms, Friendly Societies and Trade Unions.

One of the biggest accelerators for change was the formation of Trade Unions (and the formation of the Labour Party) which fought for changes to better the conditions for ordinary working people which is where most of what we recognise today comes from.

Tories and Tory policy has always been weighted in favour of the well off and rich. Even Churchill who was a great war time prime minister, was against forming the NHS, and is reported to have suggested that machine guns be used on the striking miners during the 1926 General Strike. (Bet Thatcher would have loved to do that one in the 70’s).