Change font size
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:44 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 3   [ 35 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:05 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Another result is in from the survey of Council Tax summons/liability order costs – this one from NE Lincolnshire. From a tax base of 619,171 households, it took in £575,000 in fees from over 11,000 summonses in the last full financial year, thus emerging in the top ranks of charging authorities, with one in six households getting a summons.

What is highly significant, however, is the internal council budget document for 2011, which puts "summons costs" in the category not of cost recovery but of "income generation", aiming to increase revenue by £188,000 for this and the following three financial years.

View full article here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:06 pm 

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:04 am
Posts: 740
Location: Cheshire
This seems to be another case of the banality if evil. These are the sort of people who would never dream of killing an actual Jew in a concentration camp, but would have been quite happy to process the purchase orders for Zyklon B. So long as they can say "alles in ordnung" and clear their desks at the end of the day, all's well in the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
These people are the incarnatiuon of the infamous 'Button Pushers', videos of whom have caused us to doubt our Humanity...their job is to push buttons; that's what they're paid to do.
The pain & suffering at the end of the wires is of no concern to them....they have no idea that they are monsters who defy description.~
Hopefully, Richard & friends can prise the scales from their baleful eyes & put them somewhere where they will get their deserts.

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:40 pm 

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 293
permanentexpat wrote:
These people are the incarnatiuon of the infamous 'Button Pushers', videos of whom have caused us to doubt our Humanity...their job is to push buttons; that's what they're paid to do.
The pain & suffering at the end of the wires is of no concern to them...



Milgram was something of a pariah for his work which demonstrated that what you describe is, in fact, all too human.......(and at the same time as Lt Calley too which was something of, shall we say, an embarrassment....)

Including women too.....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:16 pm 

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:29 pm
Posts: 8
Richard - I think your dwellings count for North East Lincolnshire is out. It should be around the 69,000 mark. Here is a good source containing an Excel file with all local authority dwellings: "Dwelling Stock Estimates: 2010, England - Tables"

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicati ... gstock2010


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:10 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
PeterS wrote:
Richard - I think your dwellings count for North East Lincolnshire is out. It should be around the 69,000 mark. Here is a good source containing an Excel file with all local authority dwellings: "Dwelling Stock Estimates: 2010, England - Tables"

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicati ... gstock2010


Sorry, typo ... sorted

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:58 am 

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:59 pm
Posts: 1862
I are been a-googling the gubmint domain and have confuddled myself.

Does this really mean what I think it means? [pages 33 to 35]

Courtesy of warwickshire.gov.uk:

Quote:
7.3 The income stream for cost of collection through the courts for the period 1st April 2010 to 15th October 2010 is £116,313 compare this to the same period last year and the costs were £136,585. This is a reduction to the income stream of £20,272 or 14.84%.

7.4 The cost per summons has increased for the year 2010/11 from £50.00 to £60.00. The budget for the cost of collection expenditure has remained the same.


Later

Quote:
9.1 From evaluating the data so far there has been a reduction in the income stream through court costs of £20,272 or 14.84%. The budget for cost of collection expenditure has remained the same which is £30,500 per annum.

They budgeted £30,500 *per annum* and had an income stream of £116k in a little over 6 months?

Also in that section are details of the cost of sending out notices and reminders. A few pounds including staff costs. So where is the cost of the summonses coming from?

Another local government, Burnley, released some info a few years ago - a breakdown of their costs.


EDIT

Some more googling.

From derby.gov.uk Addendum to Resources Directorate Fees and Charges report

Quote:
Further rigour has been applied to the test of reasonableness by comparing our proposed costs level with those currently applied by comparable local authorities within our audit family group. This is shown in the table at Appendix 3.

Well that's alright then. Safety in numbers. Others charge more.

The cost of having someone at court is applied to every summons and liability order yet we know they do it in bulk. Those appearance fees for having council staff in court are being duplicated across all the summonsed people. Appearance fees divided by the number of summonses is surely more appropriate.

Compare that to this from Redcar and Cleveland several years ago. I can only find 'interest on lost revenue' in relation to that one council and in relation to that single year. Weird.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:05 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
gareth wrote:
I are been a-googling the gubmint domain and have confuddled myself.

Does this really mean what I think it means? [pages 33 to 35]

Courtesy of warwickshire.gov.uk:

Quote:
7.3 The income stream for cost of collection through the courts for the period 1st April 2010 to 15th October 2010 is £116,313 compare this to the same period last year and the costs were £136,585. This is a reduction to the income stream of £20,272 or 14.84%.

7.4 The cost per summons has increased for the year 2010/11 from £50.00 to £60.00. The budget for the cost of collection expenditure has remained the same.


Later

Quote:
9.1 From evaluating the data so far there has been a reduction in the income stream through court costs of £20,272 or 14.84%. The budget for cost of collection expenditure has remained the same which is £30,500 per annum.

They budgeted £30,500 *per annum* and had an income stream of £116k in a little over 6 months?

Also in that section are details of the cost of sending out notices and reminders. A few pounds including staff costs. So where is the cost of the summonses coming from?

Another local government, Burnley, released some info a few years ago - a breakdown of their costs.


They are all over the place when it comes to how to calculate the costs. Yet none of them so far seem to want to give any detailed data.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:27 am 

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:59 pm
Posts: 1862
Perhaps they don't know.

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL 9th May 2006

Quote:
Liability Order Summons Costs – the most numerous thus having the greatest impact on taxpayers. In accordance with the Council’s Charging Policy we are required to ensure that full costs are recovered. But at the moment, due to the way current accounting systems are configured, we are unable to accurately estimate exact costs incurred. However, Council Tax technical guidance on Liability Orders (England and Wales) states that “the likely cost of proceedings claimed by the local authority on a summons is between £35 and £50” (Council Tax Handbook 5th Edition – Child Poverty Action Group). Intelligence would suggest that our proposed charge of £30 is generally in line with other authorities


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:09 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 19
Interestingly this local authority has been quizzed on this deceitful penalty hike in a freedom of information request.

FOI Question:

Quote:
Can justification be given to why, in a Council document listing proposed savings, i.e. "Increase summons cost" - projected savings of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is forecasted when such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not constitute savings by way of income generation?

Their initial response completely failed to address the "proposed savings document", and, their attempt to justify "costs raised", could be described as lame at best.

FOI Response:

Quote:
The costs raised are to cover the cost of Council Tax collection and recovery. This includes the technological systems in place and employment of staff. Costs collected also cover monies paid to Her Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities. The monies raised from costs are not greater than the cost of the service. The increase in summons costs does not represent `income generation' but a saving that can be made in the cost of the delivery of the service, that would otherwise ultimately be passed on to the Council Tax payers of North East Lincolnshire.
The authority is quizzed further as their response is clearly not acceptable. It seems they obnoxiously dumped raw data from a system in their feeble attempt to justify the costs – 2011/12 Revenues budget (debt recovery). I've taken the liberty to arrange this data into some legible form.

FOI Further Response:

Quote:
1. We refer you to the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement regulations 1992, which state that the Council may add costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application.

2. The Council Tax Administration & Enforcement regulations do not require the Council to justify the amount charged to each individual, only that the costs have been reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of payment or tender. The annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax and Business rates amounts to approximately £1.1 million.

2011/12 Revenues budget (debt recovery)

A0184 Control & Monitoring

Total revenue expenditure budget – £507,000
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 20%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £101,400

A0187 Debt Collection

Total revenue expenditure budget – £738,500
£ recharged income – (£121,800)*
Percentage recovery work – 100%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £616,700

A0191 Council Tax

Total revenue expenditure budget – £826,900
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 50%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £413,450

Total £1,131,550

*cost of sundry debt collection recharged to other directorates

The freedom of information request went on and on, never seeming to be answered satisfactorily.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:15 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
gareth wrote:
Perhaps they don't know.

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL 9th May 2006

Quote:
Liability Order Summons Costs – the most numerous thus having the greatest impact on taxpayers. In accordance with the Council’s Charging Policy we are required to ensure that full costs are recovered. But at the moment, due to the way current accounting systems are configured, we are unable to accurately estimate exact costs incurred. However, Council Tax technical guidance on Liability Orders (England and Wales) states that “the likely cost of proceedings claimed by the local authority on a summons is between £35 and £50” (Council Tax Handbook 5th Edition – Child Poverty Action Group). Intelligence would suggest that our proposed charge of £30 is generally in line with other authorities


More and more it comes over that the authorities really do not know what their costs are, and have never really tried to find out. This is going to have to go all the way.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:07 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 19
Digging somewhat deeper into North East Lincolnshire council's murky past will reveal this isn't the first time it has failed to cover its dirty little deceitful tracks.

We must go back to 2002 and read this Incriminating document – another example of penalties being used for income generation.

QUOTED FROM THE DOCUMENT

Quote:
SUMMARY:

The report identifies ways of funding additional resources to ensure the backlog of work that has arisen due to changes in the IT system are addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That Cabinet consider the following recommendations:

• that the Council Tax establishment is increased by two members of staff.
• that the Council Tax summons cost be increased from £10 to £15 with immediate effect.
Unfortunately there are no prizes for guessing that the forecasted increased revenue, realised by this 50% increase in the Summons cost, would correspond with the employment costs for the two additional staff members needed to rectify the IT system blunders.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:09 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
gareth wrote:
I are been a-googling the gubmint domain and have confuddled myself.

Does this really mean what I think it means? [pages 33 to 35]

Courtesy of warwickshire.gov.uk:

Quote:
7.3 The income stream for cost of collection through the courts for the period 1st April 2010 to 15th October 2010 is £116,313 compare this to the same period last year and the costs were £136,585. This is a reduction to the income stream of £20,272 or 14.84%.

7.4 The cost per summons has increased for the year 2010/11 from £50.00 to £60.00. The budget for the cost of collection expenditure has remained the same.


I simply do not understand their logic ... they tell us that the cost to the authority of producing a final notice, including stationery, printing, postage and staffing costs is £1.22 per notice. Yet the cost of producing a summons is £50. How do they make this out?

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:39 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:51 am
Posts: 1
Hi all first i would like say a big thanks to Richard for his help with my registration

I will gladly send my local authority a freedom of information request if someone can point me in the right direction with the questions

I live in wales and as of the 11 April 2011 fees for a liability order were capped at £70


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A stealth tax on the poor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:03 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Bristol is an interesting exercise ...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1 ... panded.pdf

effectively, two man hours per summons.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 3   [ 35 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net