Skip to main content

How Central Government is Pushing up Council Tax (and how they deny it)

Only some of the money that councils have to spend comes from Council Tax. The rest is doled out by Central Government. Central Government (the Offfice of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)) have a set of formulas which they use to determine how much cash each council gets. Part of these forumla is an assumption about how much money will be raised in council tax by the council: The more money a council raises itself the less it needs from ODPM. This is designed to even things out between rich and poorer areas. The table below shows how ODPM's assumptions about the amount raised in council tax by councils has been rising above the rate of inflation for each year since 1994/1995 apart from 2004/2005.

This means that if a council wishes to maintain the same income in real terms over two years it will have to increase council tax: it will be recieving less from central government. Council Tax has to rise in order for the council's spending to stand still.

Assumed Band D Council Tax values

YearRPI .Relative Diference (%) .ANCT .Increase (%) .CTSS .Increase(%) .RNF .Increase (%) .
2006/20071.52.1%£12593.6
2005/20063.20.6£1101.963.8£1215
2004/20052.5-0.2£1061.462.3
2003/20043.10.5£1037.463.7
2002/20031.53.7£1000.83*£769.165.2
2001/20021.83.3£730.905.1
2000/20013.01.6£695.544.6
1999/20001.63.2£664.884.8
1998/19994.03.0£634.627.0
1997/19982.41.8£593.094.2
1996/19972.40.7£568.943.2
1995/19963.31.3£551.564.6
1994/19952.64.5£527.417.1
1993/19941.3£492.66


ANCT : Assumed National Council Tax before floors and ceilings calculations
CTSS: Council Tax at Standard Spending
RNF: derived from the Relative Needs Factor
RPI: Retail Price Index. A measure of inflation.
Relative Difference: The increase in ODPM assumption minus inflation (RPI)
*: The large change between 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 was due to the effect of Resource Equalisation, which aligned the CTSS (renamed ANCT) more closely with actual local authority Council Tax values. A notional figure for ANCT in 2002/2003 was calculated by ODPM (by assuming the Resource Equalisation had happened a year earlier) to show the trend without the effect of Resource Equalisation.


The relationship between council tax rises and ODPMs assumptions regarding ANCT, CTSS and RNF is denied by Phil Woolas, the Minister responsible. Please follow the link.

Comments

Stephen Booth said…
I thought it was councillors recarpeting their offices with insanely expensive carpet that was pushing up my council tax?
PoliticalHack said…
We are blessed that in Birmingham, a council tax rise of just 1.9% was pushed through by the Lib Dems and the Tories.

Of course, that means that they have had to cut services. But you can't have everything.
john said…
There should be no front line service cuts although some Labour districts have gone for such. On a citywide basis Labour proposed a small cut in spending compared to the partnership in any event.

The increase in council tax generally has a local element and a national element.
TonyF said…
Or is it Councillors voting themselves pay rises that they don't earn?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…