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.

[quote glitter98]@NiceGerbil

It means that local people will report dangerous activities and local politicians will be under pressure to ensure that both measures and economic support are balanced against the people who will have to pay it back.

Local people and their representatives feeling the pressure will police the measures in place and introduce new ones much more effectively if the cost of doing so is considerably higher local taxes for everyone in the local community.

I would have thought this was self-evident - if not, what is the point of local mayors?[/quote]
I live in Durham. I have not seen any dangerous activities. Almost everyone has been compliant. Yet here we are with a rolling 7 day rate of 5000 in our city centre, where the students are mostly based. We are second only to York in the percentage of shops that have shut for good. The city centre is dead and largely boarded up. Yet you think that us residents should bare the cost if we get thrown into tier 3 restrictions?

Oh dear, Glitter98.

You seem to have made a bit of s a twit of yourself.

How can you have such little understanding of taxation and the economy?!

@Chloemol

How exactly are you going to do that bearing in mind all taxes are paid direct to the Government , with the exception of Council tax

The Government doesn’t re distribute the taxes based on what happens in local areas, ie some areas have higher numbers on benefits, paid for by taxes from those in more affluent areas, so in your school of thought maybe those in more affluent areas should keep their money in the local area, pay for local schools, local nhs hospitals and therefore get possible better treatment, better nurseries for kids, etc etc , and let everyone in poorer areas go hang?

I haven’t heard such a stupid idea for a long time

Isn't that exactly what rich countries do to poorer countries? We hardly share the wealth the global economy generates in an equal way. I am not advocating it, but do find it bemusing when someone is outraged by the idea of things not being egalitarian across one map line when (often) it is in those same areas that lots of people live who are outraged about international aid etc. Doublethink at its finest.

If government makes shops and businesses close for a local lockdown then government should provide some support. It should not be 80 per cent though. Maybe 50 per cent. People might try harder to wear the masks, and social distance then. I really think Sunak wAs too generous in lockdown. Most we European countries offered 70 or 75 per cent.

I find the recent horse trading unpalatable - but given that local councils/authorities do not have tax making powers, they can't be expected to self fund.

However, I used to like Andy Burnham and thought he had integrity - but the recent "We need to be tier 3"/"Boris is making it all up" whilst all the while supporting Keir Starmer's call for a national lockdown has shattered that illusion.

Welcome to 2020 where visiting your mum is a "dangerous activity".

So why should people in Lincs pay for people in Manchester for a problem caused by their own behaviour

The problem was caused by a virus.

Private Eye Magazine
@PrivateEyeNews
·
5h
Open-ended PPE contract awarded to Tory donor's firm in a phone call with no formal written record - and this one isn't even on the Crown Commercial Service list they've used as an excuse before. Full story in the new Private Eye, out today.

Local lockdowns should be funded locally

Sounds cool. Can we do this will all elements of a socialised society? Maybe all benefits, policing and hospitals should be funded locally instead of nationally?

Let’s have toll roads. I don’t want those rich southerners driving on my fragile Welsh roads. And we’ll keep outlet Welsh water - not sharing it with big English cities any more!

Ooh, and waste disposal! Every pretty little village can have its own rubbish tip, rather than sending it all to a tip adjacent to a council estate in a big town!

Just fuck off

[quote glitter98]@BigChocFrenzy

I'm suggesting that local tax be changed to implement much higher local taxes if necessary. Might need significant increases in local council taxes, local sales tax and local income tax. Maybe a local corona level per person based on the number of cases per month, so everyone in the area might get a money charge of £5 if low transmission or £5,000 if high transmission.

Loans could could come from central government for cash flow, but the people locally should bear the costs of the measures needed to control in their area caused by them.[/quote]
Councils have to hold a referendum if they want to raise council tax above a certain level. That would take time and cost money, and who is really going to vote to pay more council tax unless they are going to see improved services.

We don't have local income tax or local sales tax in this country. That would require contentious legislation to be passed and would mean that poor areas, with low average incomes, would have to pay a much higher rate of tax than affluent areas. For many, the loss in net income would be partly made up by increased means-tested benefits, so central government would end up paying a good chunk of the cost anyway.

Much of the above would apply to local sales taxes, too, which are a nonsense in a country as small as ours where people would drive a few miles to get their shopping cheaper. And how would you apply local sales tax to internet purchases? And it would be illegal until we leave the EU in the new year.