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 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 15 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

@ Dawi Yes Dave Such was a very interesting man. I think UKIP are the only realistic oposition against the gang of three, my main concern is that the smaller indipendent parties could split the vote and one of the gang of three will get re-elected. I think that for real change in this country we need to break the governmental mould.

peter hensman
28/02/2013 at 00:14

peter hensman,

peter hensman,

Sorry UKIP aren't the only party to have never had an MP, I don't think that "The Monster Raving Loony Party" have every had an MP, although the late "Screaming Lord Such" was I believe the longest serving leader of a political party (Party Leader 1963 to 1999).

At least judging by their party name you would know what you were going to get. Mind you their policy of wanting to introduce a 99p coin does have some merit.

Dawi, Aldershot
27/02/2013 at 19:24

The LiblabCon trick (ukr) is just that between them over the years they have been the ruination of our country. The one party that cannot be held responsable because they have never had an MP is UKIP so my vote will be with them. Unlike the gang of three they cannot take our votes for granted so will have to try harder

peter hensman
27/02/2013 at 10:36

Unhappy which party would you vote for in next election?

i have been labour party all my life and thinking now with what has happerned to my wife, which way to go?

I feel it doesn't matter what party gets in to council/goverment their will be many that will suffer!

As for my wife she has suffered through a labour goverment and the now goverment so makes me feel why vote for any of the parties!

They all blame each other for mistakes of each goverment instead of getting on with helping the people in the uk!!

PJA
27/02/2013 at 07:09

unhappy maybe you should stand for council or goverment?

you seem to know alot?.

As for you wanting to know my particulars i find that offensive, but things have changed my wife went to her doctor over the past month and asked them to sign her back to work.

My wife told her doctor and her surgeon that she has no choice to go back to work because past Labour goverment and the current goverment have refused to pay her any benefit to live on, and 5 years on nothing to live on is enough, all she has to lose is her life because still having cancer and on chemo.

Oh might I also add she isn't even entitled to job seekers because she has been ill, and not paid any stamp, so is still in catch 2 position.

So to all those who have been on benefits for many years that complain about paying 8% of their council tax, you really have nothing to complain about at all, especially when a sick person [cancer] has to go to work to pay taxes so that you can have your benefits paid!!

Try and pay 100% on no money and get handouts from family to do so!!

PJA
27/02/2013 at 07:00

Or how about this:

http://dailyelection.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/con-dem-double-whammy-labour-poster.jpg

"70 pence increase in JSA" and "8% Council Tax to pay"

Or you could have scales of Social Justices:

One pan show 70 pence increase or £71.70/week while the other scale pan showing all the Bills that have to be paid!!!

Or a Fatcat banker version of this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lWgdhMr6XB8/TwZtu9eqAJI/AAAAAAAABPI/ZSWMSc8uHN4/s1600/balance%2B001.jpg

unhappy (now disgusted)
24/02/2013 at 01:27

Labour are useless and spineless.

Ahead of the Commons vote on benefits DOWNrating, the Nasty Party (descendants and inheritors of wealth from serfdom, slavery, bonded labour, work houses, sweat-shop labor, etc) launched an in-your-face poster campaign across London.

Where was Labour's counter poster campaign, asking:

"Can you pay your Food, gas, electricity, water, household goods, tv licence, fares, phone calls, food, clothing, correspondence, house repairs, mortgage and COUNCIL TAX from £71/week"

Forget the Christmas, holidays, car, cinema, Sky Sports (that Mr Howarth, our useless, greedy, homophobic, xenophobic, racist, self serving, MP for Aldershot thinks he is ENTITLED to on his MP's Expenses), etc.

unhappy (now disgusted)
24/02/2013 at 00:31

Talking of fraud, the DWP tried to DEFRAUD Claimants of their Benefits as reported here:

"Benefits: Department of Woeful Practices

"The message being sent through the benefit system is that the government is intensely relaxed about making the poor poorer" - Editorial, The Guardian, Friday 8 April 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/08/benefits-department-woeful-practices

Yet NOT one person was investigated/prosecuted just as was going to happen at Stafford Hospital but for the public outcry. Indeed IDS tried to deny it at first.

When is the PM going to sack this inept?

unhappy (now disgusted)
22/02/2013 at 16:15

Last night (on BBC's Q-Time) once again yet another Tory proved what a bunch of ignorant and out of touch lot their are. Lord Hesltine stated that:

>> British-Pakistani women did not work because of cultural reasons. Obviously he was not aware of Baroness Warsi, former Chair of the Conservative Party and now Minister in the current Cabinet.

Or Shazia Awan, Conservative Candidate for Leigh, Wales - http://www.shaziaawan.co.uk/about.php

Or Mrs Mishal Hussain, BBC Journalist, http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/news-night-and-day

But less well known can be seen at work in family run business, NHS (like our NHS ACfH), etc.

He of course never met Pakistani female Ambassadors ( http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/03/08/comment/columns/women-in-diplomacy/ ) or the late Mrs Bhutoo, the former Pakistani PM.

More here - http://newsweekpakistan.com/features/955

>> He then tried to EXONERATE the Bankers! Yes. He suggested that it was President Clinton's efforts to get the US-Plebs onto the housing ladder that was responsible for the Banking crises. COMPLETELY side-stepping the MASSIVE fraud by the Bankers in the sub-prime mortgages.

A few weeks ago when the horse meat scandal broke Mr Grant Shapps, co-chairman of the Conservative party, Party ventured to enlighten us that we did not horse meat because we only eat animals that eat plants!!!!!

unhappy (now disgusted)
22/02/2013 at 16:05

"The Woman with 11 kids"

She has cancer - well that's what Dr Vince Cable said last night on BBC's Q-Time.

The Children are from TWO relationships - Future tax payers (to fund the pensions for the ever aging uk population) and canon fodder for some other wars.

I did a check of the kitchen/Dining room size quoted by the Daily Excrement with that of some 4-5 bedrooms on sale in that area and it was comparable - yet it is for TWO families Mother-Partner and 11 kids plus grandchild.

The family had been requesting a larger residence for years and were not JUST handed on demand.

As I said it is just Tory/Right Whinge ongoing propaganda to undermine the welfare system.

unhappy (now disgusted)
22/02/2013 at 16:04

Work Programme is a FAILURE: It "only managed to get 3.6% of the people on the scheme off benefits and into secure employment in its first 14 months, the Public Accounts Committee said."

It "was a mark well below the target of 11.9% that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) expected to achieve".

"The committee's report pointed out that it was also below the official estimate of how many of those claimants would have found work anyway if the programme had never been launched."

More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191

unhappy (now disgusted)
22/02/2013 at 15:27

As this topic has led to a great debate, you might all be interested in the speech that I made at the Rushmoor Borough Council meeting last night, as follows.

Mr Mayor, I doubt if there is any one among us who remains unaware that the Government has been, and is, making major changes to the benefits and tax credits systems that will affect a large number of households in Rushmoor.

Some difficult changes for people living in privately rented accommodation have already come in, while others will happen in April or later this year.

These changes could significantly cut the amounts of benefit that some households in Rushmoor receive.

These households need to know what effects these changes will have on them, so I am moving that the Council should ask the Welfare Task & Finish Group to bring forward proposals to prepare them to meet the challenges that these changes will bring.

I know lots of people are worried about these changes and are struggling to pay their bills.

Of course, this Council could wash its hands of the problems and say that it’s all the fault of the Government for demanding £18bn in cuts in the welfare budget by next year and a possible further £10bn after that.

But we surely cannot do nothing – on the basis that somehow it will encourage the unemployed to get into work – or the low-paid to work more hours – or those paying high rents to move somewhere cheaper.

All these are huge changes, which will present many households in Rushmoor with difficulties – especially over budgeting as payments move to monthly and all applications have to be made on-line – by people who do not have the basic computer skills to do so.

Unfortunately, the majority Conservative Group did not support the Motion – so the Council will not be bringing forward any proposals to help people adversely affected by all these changes.

Cllr. Alex Crawford, Aldershot
22/02/2013 at 14:44

@ SpongeBob NoPants

You have summed it up nicely, a little investigation on this story shows that the media have twisted the facts to get a sensational headline

peter hensman
22/02/2013 at 13:37

This woman does not own the house 'supplied' and it does not cost £400,000. It would have cost about 40-50k to build and is part of a housing association scheme. When her children move on then she will no longer live in the house. The asset remains part of the housing associations portfolio. Every year hundreds of millions of pounds, more than a billion is distributed by the HCA to housing associations, local authorities and private developers to regenerate and build social housing stock just like this, as well as affordable housing released to part buy/part rent schemes and keyworker housing. This story is designed to get under the skin of people just like PJA who seem to blindly jump on the bandwagon and give the Tories the green light to CUT CUT CUT while the fooled proletariat drip with blood lust at the 'undeserving poor' desperately trying to keep their children warm and fed.