Local lockdowns should be funded locally

[glitter98]

In the early virus stages where everything was unknown we needed a national lockdown, but a lot has now been learned. Only a national measures should be funded centrally.

I'm not sure why we need national vs local politicians arguing about funding. National politicians should set the framework to indicate when areas go into restrictions, and local politicians should implement the framework, take localised measures and fund them.

If people in an area do not take actions together to suppress the virus, then they should pay for the necessary restrictions because of their actions - it doesn't matter if legal or not. People in Cornwall or Norfolk should not be paying for people in Manchester behaving irresponsibly or deciding to live in a way that encourages transmission.

There should be no need to negotiate with Boris, he should just enforce the policy - Manchester should then implement the minimum measures (and go beyond if needed) and pay for any support they decide they should provide between themselves. If council tax and business rates need to rise, then that's the impact of local people's actions.

This would cause communities to self police.

Of course Lincolnshire has lower rates than Greater Manchester, and its not because people in Manchester have broken the rules more. Its because one is a rural area and one is a massive city surrounded by crowded towns and suburbs.

Local funding does not work-- it means poorer areas are unable to generate revenue (cause their population can't afford more council tax or higher businesses rates), so they can't afford the services that improve people's lives, and have a higher need for things like social services support, drug and alcohol services, early years interventions etc. And it all goes round in a big cycle of generational poverty.
And all that is without a pandemic in the mix.

You might as well argue that the farmers in Boston should get zero support from central government because price drops are a local issue and their behaviour (ie, voting for Brexit) caused it anyway.

@Wherehavetheteletubbiesgone

Having lived rurally I don't really like either the old or new lockdowns. We have had zero deaths from covid in our area. Why should rules be foisted on me to pay for metropolitan lifestyles in London and university towns. Yes I can work from home so lockdown affects me less but people's decision to take the benefits of living in a city or University town should now accept these localized lockdowns as a cost. In much the same way as rural bus services and hospitals have been removed we are effectively subsidizing the cities anyway. Agriculture subsidy should be removed too. Basically nobody should be subsidizing anyone and we need to encourage more self policing of communities not expecting those that don't need lockdown to pick up the tab.

Again, the assumption that we have a crystal ball, knew a pandemic was on it's way and chose to live in a uni town. Can I just point out that many unis are in rural locations too. Aber is hardly a metropolis, neither is Lampeter!

In the model you propose I assume everyone is going to be entirely self sufficient, We live in a community. We pay for things all the time that we don't use personally, but that benefits society. Those who are fit and healthy are subsidising the NHS for those who are not. The childless are subsidising the school places for others etc etc. If we are prepared to accept that all of those things are reasonable, for the good of the whole of society, then we should logically accept the same applies to covid restrictions and financial support for those who need it.

Nasty and divisive OP - implied sneering at "The North"

The fact that you namechanged for this suggests you knew you were being an idiot.

There's a difference between Manchester ( the city) and Greater Manchester ( the area).
If you think the average person living in Oldham ( which is a part of Greater Manchester) has a salary of over 30k you're completely delusional.

Whilst we're at it why not ban all 'Southerners' from holidaying up North and bringing the virus with them, which caused our case numbers to rise in the first place! I'm not being serious, before anyone jumps on me, just expressing a similar line logic to the OP.

Johnson admitted that he believes National lockdowns are an ineffective measure, yet he didn't hesitate to lockdown the whole of Northern England back in March when cases were much lower than they are now. Why should the North continue to be penalised?

When I read rubbish like this I can see why we are in the mess we are in.

This is one of the most unreasonable AIBU posts I have ever read! You do realise that local governments have almost no money that is theirs to spend???

Quite apart from the fact that the different local effects are highly correlated with poverty levels in those areas.

Both of which have a great deal to do with the actions of central government.

Wow! So basically I'm all right Jack so fuck the rest of you. Your comment represents loads that is wrong with our society.

It's very clear by this point that poverty and lower incomes are a significant factor in the virus spreading.

People doing jobs which can be done from home are normally better paid and not on 0 hours contracts. People with more money can afford to go out less by getting deliveries or just doing a big shop. Lower paid jobs are more likely to be in people facing roles so more exposed.

Also people on lower incomes or in poverty are more likely to have inadequate homes ore mental health needs. So have greater need to get out of the house and have family support.

So the idea that people who are already more vulnerable to covid should pay for it too because they've caused the local outbreaks is way off. Its actually quite sad someone could think like this.

Fucking hell. What a vile OP.

Where's this money coming from exactly?? Should I expect the sheriff of Nottingham at my door imminently demanding taxes from me??

People should really be vetted before they are allowed internet access and opinions

...ok...
perhaps we can all stop paying national tax then and put all it into local coffers instead? Where it might do some actual public good?

And while we're at it, why bother calling ourselves a nation any more, and why not break the country up?

The cost to the taxpayer to 'help' Greater Manchester is likely to be less than 34 pence each.

YABU the country should share the financial impact.

You do wonder how some people have survived into adulthood, don't you?

This is embarrassing

Why not just tax the poor for being poor? If we tax them hard enough they can pay for their own benefits.

@MayYouLiveInInterestingTimes

...ok... perhaps we can all stop paying national tax then and put all it into local coffers instead? Where it might do some actual public good?

I would like it. I can't vite in GE, but could vote in local. Like this I would feel like I have some say😁

As a PPP said, the short answer is because we are supposed to live in a community. We are supposed to take care of each other.

We could take your idea even further though... I’ve never had cancer so why should I pay towards someone else’s cancer treatment? I’ve only got one child, why should I pay towards the education of someone else’s second child? Fuck it, I’ve got food in my cupboard, why should I donate to a food bank?

No.

This thread has made me smile. It’s nice to see how caring people are towards those greatest affected.

Biggest issue here if taxes were high in x area people with money move to lower tax areas. High earners want to pay small tax. This would leave thousands without jobs as the money has moved. Lower tax more profit more jobs.

I think that's enough internet for me for today. It's fucking depressing to know there's people who think like the OP does.

OP, even by your logic it's illogical.
So what about Mrs Jones in Oldham who followed the rules to the T? Is she exempt from the increased taxes?
Will there be some demonstrable proof required that the person encourages transmition?
I'll admit, in early lockdown I did go out twice one day for my exercise.
So what % am I responsible for?