“Pickles is planning to let every local council set its own rules on who gets council tax benefit, thus making the system more complicated and increasing the risk that people are better off on benefits than working.”

There is no reason to think that the system will be more complicated for the people applying. They do not apply in Surrey and in Mid-Lothian after all. It may increase the risk that people are better off on benefits but there is no reason to think so, nor do I see any reason given why it might be so – nor do I think that the author can give a rational reason why it might be so. This is just a stick to beat the Tories.

In reality it is likely to do whatever local councils want to do. They know their own local situations best. They will be able to judge how best to achieve their own ends. Which I hope would include moving people into work.

“As usual, if Pickles wins, the losers are likely to be people on low incomes.”

More of the usual Tory bashing without any reason given.

“Analysis by the New Policy Institute shows that these plans will hit deprived areas more heavily – areas like inner London and Merseyside will be hit more than three times as hard as parts of rural Hampshire and Surrey.”

Well obviously areas with more poor people will suffer more than areas with few poor people. But that does not mean poor people will suffer.

“Letting councils set their own rules for council tax benefit directly undermines the government’s plans for welfare reform, by creating hundreds of different benefits systems instead of one national one. This is likely to reduce financial incentives to work.”

Rubbish. For the people applying, there will be only one benefit system. Not hundreds. What is more, what it does is it allows adjusting of the various schemes to local conditions. Places where taxes on houses are high due to high house prices may have different priorities to somewhere housing is cheap. This will allow each council to tailor policies to suit their areas. Which is a good thing.

And yet again, there is no reason to think this will reduce incentives to work.

“The power to choose whether to cut services even more deeply or raise taxes on the poor is not one which any local councillor (except possibly Shirley Porter) has ever sought.”

Yeah. Responsibility is a b!tch isn’t it? Let’s see those local dogsbodies earn their six figure salaries.

Frankly I would like to see the government take all welfare spending not directly related to the NHS and hand it as a block to local authorities – jointly appointed by the local councils and the local members. To spend as they please on those they feel most deserving. Get the national government out of welfare spending altogether. They are too isolated and remote from ordinary people.

They’ve alreay undermined the idea of the universal credit by taking council tax benefit outside it.

This means the 65% withdrawal taper for univeral credit would become 85% if the existing 20% taper of council tax benefit were retained: exactly the same as it is now for people working on low incomes. The entire point of the universal credit is undermined at a stroke just by not including council tax benefit.

And if the reformed council tax benefit is withdrawn any faster than at present, the universal credit withdrawl rate will be higher than now.

OP: “The power to choose whether to cut services even more deeply or raise taxes on the poor is not one which any local councillor (except possibly Shirley Porter) has ever sought.”

However, the Tories at Essex County Council (ECC) did seek specific powers under the (well-intentioned) Sustainable Communities Act (2007) such ttat (and I quote from their submission to government):

“The duty to set the eligibility criteria and amounts payable for all working age benefits for all claimants in Essex be devolved from central government to ECC.”

The submission then continues in nothard-to-break-code, so

Being “in a powerful position to tailor the most important work-related benefits to local market conditions” is policy speak for reducing benefits.

“[T]here is an intrinsic problem with any nationally set rules in that huge local variations exist in what can be classified as a ‘decent standard of living’ and ‘an incentive to find work’” is a plan to starve people into submission.

“Should we decide to change eligibility to Income Support for certain groups….” means they do intend to cut the benefits of the sick, for example.

See http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=3171870 for the whole submission from Essex.

It fits the pattern that Don identifies above.

‘Frankly I would like to see the government take all welfare spending …and hand it as a block to local authorities’.
Yes, let’s bring back the Old Poor Law, that sorted out the most deserving didn’t it.

“There is no reason to think that the system will be more complicated for the people applying. They do not apply in Surrey and in Mid-Lothian after all. ”

And with this you demonstrate your ignorance. The stats for council tax recipients are from here: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb – download the excel tables and table 1 gives you the stats for each ward.

Surry has roughly 55,000 recipients of CT benefit in total, Midlothian has 7,360 in total.

And if you think the forms to apply for it will be the same for each local authority I can only assume you have never had to deal with different local authorities.

“One thing which I don’t quite understand is why the Lib Dems aren’t making a fuss about all of this… unless they do something, they will end up being responsible for shifting the council tax burden so it hits the poorest harder.”

The Lib Dems have been happy enough so far to shift the burden of taxation in that direction; that’s precisely the effect of raising VAT (which hits the poorest hardest) at the same time as raising the tax threshold (which benefits the poorest least). Why change now?

Er, I thought the plan was to take the poor out of tax? Surely this move will basically cripple the poor by imposing further tax rises and a pretty regressive tax at that? The Lib Dems income tax threshold raise will be more than wiped out if people lose council tax rebates.

Is it possible that if you really want to ‘take the poor out of tax’ and eliminate the benefit trap we need get rid of Council Tax? Why have the Lib Dems not pushed for that, instead of the pointless tweaks in income tax? Have they been duped into an income tax cut to suit the Tory ideology rather than any benefit the poor may get?

3. Paul – “Being “in a powerful position to tailor the most important work-related benefits to local market conditions” is policy speak for reducing benefits.”

No, it is your interpretation, your strongest desire, of those words. Not what they actually mean.

“…. is a plan to starve people into submission.”

Is, again, an interesting insight into your mind. Not what they asked for.

4. steveb – “Yes, let’s bring back the Old Poor Law, that sorted out the most deserving didn’t it.”

Well yes it did and no that is not what I asked for.

5. Planeshift – “Surry has roughly 55,000 recipients of CT benefit in total, Midlothian has 7,360 in total. And if you think the forms to apply for it will be the same for each local authority I can only assume you have never had to deal with different local authorities.”

Sorry but would it be possible to post a more irrelevant reply? This has nothing to do with what I said. I am pretty sure Surrey and Mid-Lothian would have very different procedures. As they should. And different criteria. As they should. I have not said anything to even suggest otherwise.

Now would you like to go back and read what I actually said and try again to post something a little more, you know, relevant?

“Er, I thought the plan was to take the poor out of tax? Surely this move will basically cripple the poor by imposing further tax rises and a pretty regressive tax at that? The Lib Dems income tax threshold raise will be more than wiped out if people lose council tax rebates.”

Central Government gets to play generous this way, while Local Government stays the villain (as it already is via the cuts). It is especially Labour local councils which will be seen this way, and so Labour which will suffer in elections while the “virtuous” Tory and LibDem councils, which will have cut less and have far fewer poorer households as a matter of course will benefit. Local TV and media are already playing this game, allowing rich Trafford and Ribble (for example) to parade themselves as saintly and economic beside impoverished Liverpool and Manchester and their avalanche of cuts.

‘Duncan Smith is attempting to simplify the benefits system, while Pickles is planning to let every local council set its own rules on who gets council tax benefit, thus making the system more complicated and increasing the risk that people are better off on benefits than working. As usual, if Pickles wins, the losers are likely to be people on low incomes.’

IDS was the villain yesterday, now he’s the only thing standing between Pickles and the poor.

I can’t keep up.

‘Is it possible that if you really want to ‘take the poor out of tax’ and eliminate the benefit trap we need get rid of Council Tax?’

Precisely.

@8 – I thought you were implying that people in Surrey and Midlothian didn’t apply for council tax benefit. But I’ve re-read it, and concede that this isn’t clear – I’m now no longer sure what the hell you were actually meaning to say?

Shatterface – the thing about IDS is that some of his proposals are sensible and seem to come from somebody who has researched the problems and come up with some practical solutions. Hence his difficulties in cabinet in persuading Osbourne that the taper rates should be reduced, and his difficulty in persuading Pickles that council tax benefit should be part of USC. However he then combines this sanity with a tendancy to say some divisive and nasty things that give every impression he is still a nasty person, and adding some nasty punitive measures to his sensible ones.

8
Perhaps you could explain what you understand to be ‘the most deserving’ with regard to welfare benefits. Perhaps you would withdraw free education in areas that are not doing well academically and where there is high unemployment. What’s the point spending taxpayer’s money on a lost cause.
Only a right-wing nut could give such a simplistic, all embracing, analysis of the complex differences between councils and their demographics in the UK. yes let’s divide people into the deserving and not deserving.

It’s been Lib Dem policy for years to scrap council tax and replace it with a local income tax, which would solve the problem set out here. No idea why it hasn’t been brought up more.