Local people are being urged to take part in a consultation on major changes to Council Tax and Council Tax Benefit.
The government has announced that from 1 April 2013 they will be abolishing Council Tax benefit in its current form. Instead, all councils will need to create and run a local Council Tax support scheme. There will be less funding from the government under the new scheme, which means that Thanet District Council will have to work within a budget that has been reduced by approximately £2.2 million. The government has also announced that from April 2013 councils can change discounts and exemptions given for Council Tax. These changes mainly affect empty properties and ‘second homes’. Thanet District Council is now consulting on a proposed local Council Tax support scheme. This scheme aims to reduce the impact on benefit customers by removing some Council Tax discounts and exemptions. The main proposals are to:
There will also be no change to the Council Tax exemption for properties undergoing major structural repair. Leader of Thanet District Council, Cllr Clive Hart, said: “It’s essential that local people are aware of the changes to Council Tax and Council Tax benefit. “At Thanet we’re facing a reduction of over £2 million from central government to fund Council Tax benefit. This means we’ve had to make some really difficult decisions about who gets financial support, and how much, in order to continue providing this benefit to those on low incomes. “Working together with the East Kent Councils, we’re proposing a scheme that reduces the impact on benefit customers by removing some Council Tax discounts and exemptions as well as cutting benefit awards. This will help to reduce the overall financial impact on benefit reductions to working age people, however working age Council Tax benefit claimants will still have to pay more Council Tax than they have before. “Whether you’re in receipt of Council Tax benefit, or own a second or empty property, I would urge you to take part in this consultation and ensure you have your say.” To view a copy of the full proposed scheme, and to take part in the consultation, please visit www.thanet.gov.uk/counciltaxchanges To request a paper copy of the scheme and survey, call the central information line on 01227 862310. You can also collect paper copies from Thanet’s Gateway Plus in Cecil Street Margate, Ramsgate District Office in York Street or by visiting any Thanet library. The consultation closes on Monday 17 September 2012. |
Tuesday 24 July 2012
Consultation begins on changes to Council Tax and Council Tax Benefits
26 comments:
Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reducing civil servants salaries, expenses or staffing levels not being considered? Why pay them just to put up tax?
ReplyDeleteThe good thing about having a Labour council is we can blame them for the cuts that are being forced on Thanet by David Cameron and people won't notice - easy lets just sit back!
ReplyDeleteYou are of course quite right, 17:16, instead of laying the blame where it firmly belongs with the last Labour government who ran up the debts that made the cuts necessary.
DeleteHow much public money has been lost with the missing Manston fines?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, 12:58, but how about you tell us as you seem to be the expert in matters of fines, aquifers and monitors.
DeleteThe councillors or Infratil or Environment Agency would be the experts on fines, aquifers and monitors at Manston Smidt - you're not a child, go ask a few and find out and then let us all know.
ReplyDeleteCancerVictim.
You're at it again, 15:44, engaging in an exchange with someone called Smidt. Can't you see when someone is extracting the urine?
DeleteSmidt is obviously a fake name as is Anon 15:44. So what? Their views are idiotic. The extracting the urine seems a tenuous joke of your own making, if at all.
DeleteSo, rather than stating the flipping obvious, why not contribute to the debate on Manston fines, aquifers etc if you have something worthwhile to say.
CancerVictim.
Surely you are the one who always springs up with a question, but nevber any answers. The suggestion that if you have something worthwhile to say, say it, applies as much to you, if not more, as anyone else. Furthermore, as far as I can see Smidt and the other commentator have not expressed any views. The former has simply asked you to expand on yours. In conclusion, it would appear you have no military service otherwise you would be familiar with the extracting the urine expression.
DeleteYou're at it again 11:36 with empty statements in the debate. I'm familiar with the expression the point was that it was feeble as you've also demonstrated.
DeleteThe discussion was on Manston, aquifers and fines. What do you have to say - maybe some squaddies should clean it up for Infratil?
CancerVictim
In a debate about councillors and council officers remuneration, you come up with a nothing statement, totally off thread, about how much money has been lost in Manston fines. Most of us are not interested and find taking on yet another senior local government officer for £90K a year far more worrying in times of austerity.
DeleteThere was no discussion on Manston aquifers and fines until you popped up with your out of context question. As for your suggestion of using troops as cleaners, that just about takes the biscuit for misappropriation of personnel. They are for the defence of this nation, its interests abroad and to join with others in NATO or UN peacekeeping missions. Not for sorting out some bee you happening to have in your bnnet.
As you have been told before, you want to know about Manston fines and aquifers then you find out. I have no interest in and hence no view.
I'm interested in Manston and the fines and aquifers - maybe others are too as with nightflights -especially if they cost more than the new council officers salary as they seem to be. They're also directly relevant to offsetting other costs/lower council tax.
DeleteWhy would you not be interested in the costs of Manston? I'd like to know the business rates discounts too and car park construction.
You don't speak for anyone although you seem to think you do.
And why not use troops to clean up Manston if the RAF helped pollute it originally? There's the remnants of the MOD fire base still. It would be cheaper than hiring contractors from public funds or leaving it polluted. It would be more useful than leaving them sat around in their barracks and certainly no less wasteful than policing the Olympics. Maybe call out the reserves and use them as they're funded by the public.
Few soldiers serve abroad now - only 10,000 for a war in Afghanistan (and it was a little less in Iraq) out of c.200k troops. Perhaps a thousand or so for NATO or UN office duties. You're simply guessing on the roles.
But you're taking us off thread and down memory lane with your military days. It seems like you've still forgotten Manston is no longer an RAF base and is up for sale after going bust again.
What do you think about the aquifer under Manston then - the drinking water is quite important isn't it? How will it be cleaned up if the army aren't used?
CancerVictim
Your ignorance on military matters is self evident. To keep 10,000 troops operational in Afghanistan requires at least three times that number for rotations, support, rest and recuperation. We still have a large force committed to NATO in Germany and ongoing garrisons in Cyprus, Gibralter, the Falklands, Belize and Brunei not to mention training teams scattered around the third world. But that apart, imagine the outcry from the unions if it were suggested that train drivers should clear up the diesel splillage on the tracks. Why expect troops, highly trained in a range of specialist roles, to be used as skivvies.
DeleteYet again you do what you accuse me of, in this case claiming to speak for others. Personally I have no idea if anyone else shares my views, and don't much care, but I simply find your ongoing anti-Manston campaign, regardless of the subject under discussion, rather tiresome. Now you add belittling our army personnel to your repertoire. I do not know you, but with your latest comments I would suggest you are not fit to lick the average troopie's boots.
Now go find someone else to play your silly games with, oh, and get yourself some bottled water if you are so concerned about it.
Anon 00:02, excuse me butting in on your exchange, but just where do you get your circa 200,000 troops from? That might have been correst many moons ago, but after thirteen years of Labour reduced the army to its lowest numbers level since 1851, along has come a Conservative led coalition which has gone even deeper with the cuts. Just over 80,000 regular soldiers is now the aimed strength under the Strategic Defence Review (an important sounding name for a purely cost driven cull).
ReplyDeleteIrrespective of size though, I am totally with the other anon at 08:54 when it comes to using troops as labourers and that includes bailing out some failed security company who did not deliver on their contractual obligations. Use troops to defend and secure the Olympic sites, fine, but doormen, no way.
8:54 and Tom my comments on the military stand and you're way off thread again. It's not denigrating the military to suggest there are too many. They agree. The 200k figure is army, navy etc - everyone. The figures I've seen are the lowest since the Boer War. After Afghanistan it will still be too many.
ReplyDeleteThree times the number required for operations? Rotations to where? And aircraft carriers? Only in the bottomless budgets of the public sector. We've more admirals than ships for example.
Troops in Germany? The Germans are in Afghanistan with us. And the cuts are mainly in Germany. Because the Cold War is over.
Quibbling over more numbers might go down well in the corporals mess but the reality is we've rarely needed more than 10k troops and likely to be less. Training teams are just that - a few soldiers training others.
200k is too many. Wrapping yourself in the flag and conjuring up enemies doesn't work.
Using troops or reserves to clean up Manston? Why not? The RAF walked away and left a mess and so will Infratil. More importantly you haven't explained how it will be cleaned up.
Troops as labourers or security guards? That's part of the job isn't it? You'll want to hire someone else to carry the backpacks next. The military have hardly defended the Olympics so far with IranAir and banned aircraft flying into Manston.
You two aren't fit to defend the military with your exarmy, proManston blinkers.
Drinking bottled water and paying for it on the rates sums up your pampered public sector past lives.
CancerVictim
You are utterly clueless, make your figures up to suit your argument and are bloody rude too boot. As to someone who thinks active service is a pampered public sector life, I suggest you try it thoughh my guess is you are way too old and crotchety.
DeleteAnd maybe your cancerous grandchildren will thank you for not buying them the bottled water you suggest. Try buying bottled air for the asthmatic ones. Manston aquifer cleanup?
DeleteGet real, 23.59, the world is contaminated and increasingly so. CO2 and other gas emissions are warming the planet, the sea is full of human debris and destroying the coral reefs in the process, fish, bird and animal species are hunted to extinction and several rogue states have or are close to having nuclear weapons. Yet all you fret about is Manston.
DeleteOK, so what is the solution to that tiny piece of the overall problem.. Would an industrial estate or a housing estate be any less risk to the aquifer. No, so that leaves farming. Well arable involves chemical fertilisers and weed killers whilst livestock release methane adding to the global warming problems.
Face the facts. The world needs a dramatic reduction in its human population and, for the moment, whether Manston is an airfield or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the planet's situation. Sooner or later, nature will step in and come up with a solution to save the place, probably in the form of some virus and then all your bleating about aquifers and monitors will be utterly pointlesss.
A field doesn't need to be farmed - especially with the aquifer/chemicals underneath it as you say.
DeleteThe rest of your comments are both dull and stupid.
And we were discussing TDC and the Manston fines and cancer cost etc. Even now there are still illegal overflights of the towns increasing the cancer - and crash - risk and presumably not fined.
Bayford and Wise write in the Gazette of encouraging night flights, knowing and covering up these problems, while Hart is shaking Buchanan's hand over radar. All with Samuel and White paid off and McGonigal and the new Airport Commitee and KIACC silent.
We've had systemic and deliberate failure of the required and specified safety controls at Manston haven't we?
Shouldn't the police be called in to investigate Infratil and TDC? Seems unfair to let Sandy carry the can alone.
At worst they could take part in the coverup with the councillors and civil servants, or wait for elections in a year or so, or maybe the public take matters into their own hands?
And how exactly will Manston be cleaned up - again with 747's landing over the aquifer still?
CancerVictim
So now people who debate with you are dull and stupid. Not exactly big on charm and good manners are we? There is also a certain paranoia creeping into your comments with clear signs of conspiracy mania. Do you also think describing yourself as 'cancer victim' somehow adds credence to your cazse. Grow up man, loads of people are aflicted in various ways but don't feel obliged to sign themselves off accordingly. Perhaps pain in the rear might be a more suitable signature block.
DeleteYawn. Empty statements and insults again.
ReplyDeleteBack to the thread, and the questions on the aquifer, missing monitors and fines and how/if Manston will be cleaned.
CancerVictim
You, sir, are a complete nutter.
DeleteYawn. Back to the thread. With Infratil and TDC removing the monitors how will the fines be imposed? And the aquifer cleaned?
DeleteLooks like it could be left as another derelict dump like the Hoverport.
CancerVictim
You should do something about that yawn because you seem to prefix every comment with one these days. By the way, hope your MacMillan nurse is a cracker.
DeleteSmidt
Last night I was walking from the Holiday Inn back to the caravan park at Quex when I was horrified to discover squadrons of mosquitoes landing and taking off at the north end of the Manston runway at past midnight. Have Infratil paid the fines for these unauthorised night time air movements. Even worse, I noticed stagnant water gathered in a hollow just inside the airfield wire. Had this been sprayed? What could be worse than mosquitoes and untreated water. Who is dealing with this?
ReplyDeleteMalariaSufferer
Somebody help me here for I thought an aquifer was a layer of subterranean hard rock where water settled. How can one be left as a derelict dump like some Hoverport was when nobody can see it.
ReplyDelete