Optional Tax Options

[Simon Kirby]

You may have seen that the Town Council are advertising for ideas for more stuff for them to do. Personally I think they're already involved in way too much and rather than growing their administration empire the council should be slimming-down their operation.

Much of what the council does can be done in an alternative way at little public cost if the council would only allow it, and some of it just doesn't need to be done at all. For example the allotments could be better run at no public cost if they were simply allowed to self-manage; the mayor could be provided at no public cost by a voluntary civic society; the office accommodation could be a tiny fraction of the town hall costs if the council was reasonably sized and occupied a modest modern office; the charter market could be run by a commercial operator or allowed to fail if it wasn't any longer viable; and the council just doesn't need to give our tax away in grant awards.

If your council tax was optional, what town council services would you choose to pay for, and which would you decline - bear in mind that if you choose to share the cost of a service you might be in a small minority and end up with a very large share of the cost, so choose carefully!

I've used the council's own net costs for the services, so there's no back-office administration costs and overheads included - the full service costs are quite a bit more.

[motormad]

With the amount I have to pay in tax, I will do anything possible to avoid paying more in a legal and morale manner.

Out of those services you listed, to me, at my age and with my hobbies and interests, none really would be what I would call a good use of my tax.
I voted yes for grants to local businesses and organisations, which I believe to be an important issue in today's world; too many big bucks corporations and not enough small, family owned or local-only businesses.

And while I do not like allotments personally, I saw Simon's and can appreciate how it feels for him to work on something he enjoys, sort of similar to how I enjoyed building my Dad's plastic shed, or working on my car - so I voted yes to that.
Everything else

[On the edge]

This is an interesting question, and gives rise to other questions. For instance, certainly in the case of the market, how on earth have we come to the position where we are subsidising an apparently profitable commercial operation which actually claims it has no need!!! Similarly, when it comes to charitable organisations, are we not all capable of doing that ourselves, surely most of us don't expect our Councillors to do that for us?

[NWNREADER]

Simon has shown energy, but (as so often) offers his opposition a get-out. His poll is not limited to NTC electors, so NTC will ignore any negative outcome (if they note it at all). I don't live in the NTC area, but have offered my opinions.
I wonder if his real issue is whether the amounts spent are right, as much as whether anything should be spent at all?

Good luck

[Simon Kirby]

Simon has shown energy, but (as so often) offers his opposition a get-out. His poll is not limited to NTC electors, so NTC will ignore any negative outcome (if they note it at all). I don't live in the NTC area, but have offered my opinions.
I wonder if his real issue is whether the amounts spent are right, as much as whether anything should be spent at all?

As you suggest, my personal feeling is that it could be appropriate for a modest parish council to spend a reasonable amount of money on these things and others - for example I feel that the parish council should be at the heart of the town's community life and as such it would be appropriate to spend a little money on a ceremonial mayor to bring a bit of pageant and colour to the odd garden fete and summer social - £500 would be reasonable. But the council, as with all of their services, milk the opportunity for all it's worth and turn a modest piece of civic pride into an administration feeding-frenzy and screw us for £56k.

As it is the cost isn't my primary concern, what I object to is the council's failure to engage with the community. The council should be at the centre of civic life, building and enabling communities, but the council's cloying mania for control and it's overweening and debilitating sensitivity to criticism has created an appallingly arrogant administration that sucks the life out of the communities that they should be empowering. Now that they've gone so deep into their bunker it's next to impossible to persuade them to come out of their own volition, but if there were to be a popular challenge to their spectacular inefficiency then they might have little option but to challenge their problems, and without the administration gravy-train we might just get a modest council that actually wanted to serve its community.

[JeffG]

bear in mind that if you choose to share the cost of a service you might be in a small minority and end up with a very large share of the cost, so choose carefully!

This is where the whole concept of optional subscription falls down. No one in their right mind is going to opt in to a proposal however much they want to if they risk paying for the whole lot themselves.

So pointless idea. Sorry.

[On the edge]

This is where the whole concept of optional subscription falls down. No one in their right mind is going to opt in to a proposal however much they want to if they risk paying for the whole lot themselves.

So pointless idea. Sorry.

That's exactly the point, the government should onlybe doing anything the great majority see as necessary and should not be made to subscribe to things that they don't.

[Sherlock]

NTC will ignore any negative outcome (if they note it at all).

That's very cynical of you, this online poll is no more pointless than any other pointless online poll.

I'm surprised that cemeteries aren't on the list. My feelings about cemeteries mirror those I have about schools: at my time in life I have no use for them and don't see why I should have to fund them. As usual motormad talks a lot of sense on this.

I'm sure Richard Branson would happily take over our current facility and run it with a great deal more flair than the council. For those who can't afford his services we can either re-institute paupers' graves. use recycling/landfill or pass a by-law requiring the impecunious to donate their cadavers for scientific research.

[Simon Kirby]

This is where the whole concept of optional subscription falls down. No one in their right mind is going to opt in to a proposal however much they want to if they risk paying for the whole lot themselves.

So pointless idea. Sorry.

Like you say, no one in their right mind would personally pay £56k for the council to provide a mayor when the Newbury Society could do it at no cost to the tax-payer, so if optional tax encourages tax-payers to take personal responsibility for the way their council delivers its services then that's a good thing.

[Simon Kirby]

That's very cynical of you, this online poll is no more pointless than any other pointless online poll.

I'm surprised that cemeteries aren't on the list. My feelings about cemeteries mirror those I have about schools: at my time in life I have no use for them and don't see why I should have to fund them. As usual motormad talks a lot of sense on this.

I'm sure Richard Branson would happily take over our current facility and run it with a great deal more flair than the council. For those who can't afford his services we can either re-institute paupers' graves. use recycling/landfill or pass a by-law requiring the impecunious to donate their cadavers for scientific research.

Cemeteries weren't in the list because they're a common good and it's right in a civilised society to tax everyone to pay for those services. Not doing so creates the kind of laissez faire inequality that you describe. Of the services that NTC provides the same goes for parks.

[On the edge]

That's very cynical of you, this online poll is no more pointless than any other pointless online poll.

I'm surprised that cemeteries aren't on the list. My feelings about cemeteries mirror those I have about schools: at my time in life I have no use for them and don't see why I should have to fund them. As usual motormad talks a lot of sense on this.

I'm sure Richard Branson would happily take over our current facility and run it with a great deal more flair than the council. For those who can't afford his services we can either re-institute paupers' graves. use recycling/landfill or pass a by-law requiring the impecunious to donate their cadavers for scientific research.

Wouldn't disagree. Indeed, if the whole thing was properly regulated, the operator could be obliged to offer 'concessionary' funerals. Its exactly the same as having private operators manage water and sewerage; but better, insofar as it wouldn't be a monopoly. After all 'why seek the living with the dead'?

[Simon Kirby]

And while I do not like allotments personally, I saw Simon's and can appreciate how it feels for him to work on something he enjoys, sort of similar to how I enjoyed building my Dad's plastic shed, or working on my car - so I voted yes to that.

With allotments, and a few other things, if the council didn't tax us to provide allotments the quality of the service could actually improve and the rents could go down - Oxford City Council for example have shown how self-management delivers cheaper rents at less public cost. The benefits are also broader than simply financial because people enjoy doing stuff for themselves and allowing people to organise themselves creates community, so having local government do less really is a win-win.

[On the edge]

Another item which isn't on is the 'administration'. Even if the Council want to 'manage' all the services they have at the moment, we still don't need the rather bloated administration overhead we have in place. I'd argue that all of the admin overhead they have today could be taken on by the staff at West Berkshire on a marginal basis. I suspect, given some thought to process, they could do it without even noticing.

No other Parish has an administration of this size, albeit Newbury has set a very bad example and Thatcham are trying. This is a real jobs worth effort! Do we really need a Chief Executive; after all, a good few of us think there is little enough real work for the one at WBC?

[Simon Kirby]

Another item which isn't on is the 'administration'. Even if the Council want to 'manage' all the services they have at the moment, we still don't need the rather bloated administration overhead we have in place. I'd argue that all of the admin overhead they have today could be taken on by the staff at West Berkshire on a marginal basis. I suspect, given some thought to process, they could do it without even noticing.

No other Parish has an administration of this size, albeit Newbury has set a very bad example and Thatcham are trying. This is a real jobs worth effort! Do we really need a Chief Executive; after all, a good few of us think there is little enough real work for the one at WBC?

Indeed. The council's administration "service" is £194k, and that's in addition to the direct administration that delivers the services, and the £88k overhead cost of the office accommodation.

Strictly speaking there's nothing significant in calling the town clerk a "chief executive" as the Local Government Act gives the office the same limited responsibilities and obligations. It's the elected members together that exercise the council's authority, though within limits they can delegate that authority to council officers if they choose, and it's certainly sensible to delegate the day-to-day administration like that.

Good parish councils manage with a part-time clerk and my feeling is that a modestly-sized NTC would do fine with no more than a part-time clerk and a couple of full-time grounds staff. That wouldn't sit well with the councillors who see themselves as the board members of a multi-national conglomerate, but that's kind of the point. A nice little parish council that could engage honestly with the community and whose focus was on helping that community to stand on its own two feet would serve us well.

[Andy Capp]

That's very cynical of you, this online poll is no more pointless than any other pointless online poll.

I'm surprised that cemeteries aren't on the list. My feelings about cemeteries mirror those I have about schools: at my time in life I have no use for them and don't see why I should have to fund them. As usual motormad talks a lot of sense on this.

I'm sure Richard Branson would happily take over our current facility and run it with a great deal more flair than the council. For those who can't afford his services we can either re-institute paupers' graves. use recycling/landfill or pass a by-law requiring the impecunious to donate their cadavers for scientific research.

There is a balance between having a cohesive community and 'everyone for themselves'. Of course you need schools and cemeteries, even if you are not a point of use client. Without good schools we have poor children that don't turn into good tax earning people, and without cemeteries we have sanitation issues.

Simon's issue is to dent or bring down the the council; however, I believe he has a point that all the services should come under review and the councillors should be obliged to look at ways to save money.

What would be really useful to me as a tax payer is to know what those 'frivolous' services cost me in terms of cash. £200,000.00 divided amongst 70,000 people isn't much a year to really get my knickers in a twist about. And if it means a few more pen pushers earning a wage to feed their family and pay tax, all power to it.

[MontyPython]

That's very cynical of you, this online poll is no more pointless than any other pointless online poll.

I'm surprised that cemeteries aren't on the list. My feelings about cemeteries mirror those I have about schools: at my time in life I have no use for them and don't see why I should have to fund them. As usual motormad talks a lot of sense on this.

I'm sure Richard Branson would happily take over our current facility and run it with a great deal more flair than the council. For those who can't afford his services we can either re-institute paupers' graves. use recycling/landfill or pass a by-law requiring the impecunious to donate their cadavers for scientific research.

You have missed the point, the services listed are "not essential" and are therefore optional extras which depending on both age and interests may or may not seem to be worthwhile particularly when the costs are taken into consideration.

In addition there is no reason why some could not be farmed out to the "Third Sector" see thread regarding allotments, or alternative solutions found. So my more detailed response.

Ceremonial Mayor Costs - Does this add any value to Newbury or the events attended?, probably not so save the cost. £56k is far too excessive for this!

Town Hall - Investigate other uses / revenue streams or look at any redevelopment options that would keep the character. Would need to delve deeper into the ral cost to see which elements of the expenditure are necessary.

Charter Market - Cleaning Costs reduced b y the stall holders doing it themselves, does it add value to Newbury or attract significant visitors? Does the staff member (if there is one) attract new stalls? if not reduce or remove funding.

Donations - Need to review level of donations and the Criteria, not against donations as such but it shouldn't be for Councillors Pet Projects or Vanity projects.

Allotments - Third Sector involvement so minimal or no cost.

[Squelchy]

You may have seen that the Town Council are advertising for ideas for more stuff for them to do.

I'd be happy with them just doing whatever the fvck they're supposed to do correctly.

Instead, we've been lumbered with one of the most incompetent, self-serving, lazy, sanctimonious, half-witted, short-sighted, victimising, bunch of doo-lally looney-tunes and onanists it's ever been my misfortune to meet or deal with.
(and I dealt with Westminster under Shirley Porter - that'll give you some idea).

Give 'em more things to do? Jeeez, I wouldn't let 'em clean out the toilets.

[On the edge]

........ I wouldn't let 'em clean out the toilets.

Good job too, they have to share that pleasure with WBC paying half the cost! Does that mean no one actually trusts NTC with a bog brush, not even WBC?

[Simon Kirby]

As I post there have bee 19 votes on the poll, and the results are more interesting than I thought they might be.

It's fair to say that the argument for allotment self-management is clear and the poll supports a devolution of this service with 14 votes to 5. That's an immediate saving of £41k on the service running costs and direct administration. If you voted to pay the tax on the allotment service your precept will increase by 10%, otherwise you'll see a 4.1% saving.

There is also strong support with 13 votes to 6 for dropping the tax-funding for a ceremonial mayor and leaving it to civil society to fill the gap. That's an immediate saving of £56k on the running costs and direct administration. If you voted to pay the tax for the mayor your precept will increase by 12%, otherwise you'll see a 5.6% saving.

Overall there's a majority for keeping the tax-funding for the Gothic town hall, the Charter Market, and the grants, altogether a spend of £152k. If you voted to pay the tax on these three services you're precept will increase by 11%, otherwise you'll see a 15.2% saving.

For a band-D council-tax payer electing to pay the tax on all five services your personal precept increases from £75 to £100, and if you declined to pay the tax on all those five services your personal precept will reduce to £56.

Maybe you're happy to pay 79% more tax in order for the town council to provide these inessential services, but do you suppose this kind of socialist excess is limited solely to the town council? What if the same savings were possible in every state monopoly - and why would you suppose any other branch of local government or civil service was any more efficient that the town council? - as the most local function of the state apparatus parish councils are probably the most efficient and excess increases as it becomes easier to hide from the tax-payer.

The idea of optional tax doesn't necessarily make the state any more efficient, but if I can opt-out of the excess then that helps, and if out of deference you choose to pay twice as much tax as me then fair enough, but that still doesn't shake off the dead-hand of the socialist state, and we know how that turns out.


The new Trabant TC - Town Council edition.

[Ron]

The new Trabant TC - Town Council edition.

Pretty painful for 25k miles per year