Cameron commends 'Kirklees model' where young pay for older residents' council tax rises

In his speech (a pdf of which is here) yesterday to Age Corncern the Tory leader highlighted a scheme run by Tory-run Kirklees council that shifts the burden of rising council tax from pensioners to younger residents. 

For next year's budget Kirklees Council of West Yorkshire plans to levy only a 1% increase on pensioners but a 5% 3% (correction at 11.42am) increase for other council taxpayers.  Mr Cameron praised the Kirklees scheme as as "a great example of civic responsibility":

"The whole point is that it is a local idea... Kirklees council has decided to use its powers to introduce a lower council tax for pensioners. They register and will get a guaranteed small fixed increase of no more than one per cent.  The burden of doing this falls on other households, but the registration scheme helps the council ensure that more older people get the benefits they are entitled to. That's just the sort of initiative I believe in."

Mr Cameron's speech also suggested that grandparents might be paid up to £175 per week to look after grandchildren (in order to "restore the relationship between the generations") and that house design should change to make it easier for older people to delay going into formal care.

Related link: Cameron bids to woo 'grey vote'

Comments

[anon]

So rather than propose an alternative to the Council Tax which reinforces local accountability (such enabling local authorities to set and collect business rates) we have more tinkering around the edges.

If I understand the proposal correctly I will be required to pay much more in Council Tax for services I do not use to fund a reduction in Council Tax for people who are more likely to use services than I am. Whilst I do not dispute that the Council Tax is a pernicious tax I worry about the trend that this is setting not to mention the additional inflationary pressure it places on the economy since for example my 5% increase in next years tax becomes a 7% increase to cover the deduction for the elderly.

How does Cameron suggest that this will win us votes with those Strivers who we need to attract back to the party?

Will the next announcement be on the benefits of collective farming whilst making references to increases in tractor production under a Conservative government?

I am trying hard not to feel depressed.

[Chad]

I'm sorry but that is plain bonkers.

Does Cameron not understand the phrase 'brain drain' as overtaxed younger people who are already doing so much to support the older generation decide to up sticks and bugger off to a lower tax country?

[bemused]

So just how does this fit in with the simpler, fairer taxation being promoted last week?

We need a compass for policy direction, not a spinning wheel.

[MH]

Anon / Chad - spot on. This is barking even by Dave's standards. That he and his little pet George cannot find the money out of the bloated, inefficient state machine that exists in the UK to fund this (in principle) laudable aim is shaming.

[Chad]

Think about it.

Because no-one has sought to control house prices (or proposed what is really needed - add them to the inflation target), young people are already financially crippled just to buy a home, and now Cameron wants to force them to be "socially responsible" and fork out more to help those who are sitting on a huge pile of equity.

Nice.

[sjm]

Sorry Dave, this is a wrong 'un. Him indoors and me are both pensioners, but we've paid off our mortgage and don't have young children to fund anymore. Why should those who are just climbing life's ladder with all the usual burdens have to pay for us?

More to the point is cutting council taxes so we're not funding some of the idiocies - like councillors' salaries and pensions, and inane bureaucracies (think LEAs).

[James O'Shaughnessy]

I have to agree with the above - and see Policy Exchange's recent report "2056: What future for Maggie's Children" (apologies for the plug). Today's under-25s are massively worse off compared to their baby-boomer parents: ridiculous house prices, failing pensions, university fees. And for those whose parents missed out on the Thatcher revolution? Well they're doubled screwed, because their parents will have nothing to pass onto them.

[DCT_tory]

The pertinent issue is not who pays what, but why council tax is so high in the first instance. Ten years ago we had a system of local government financing that was not perfect, but nor was it "an issue" in the way that it is now. Since then council tax has risen inexorably and yet local councils receive an ever greater amount of money from central government.

Rather than shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic, the question of "what on earth do they need all this money for?" must be dealt with. Increasing costs of the local government pension scheme? Move to a money purchase arrangement. People employed in politically-correct social engineering "non-jobs"? Allow them to find more productive jobs in the private sector.

The other reason why this is a daft idea is because it means you have an ever increasing number with less of a stake in keeping the overall tax burden down. The fairest and most stable taxes are those spread across as large (and as varied) a population as possible. The solution therefore is to tax at a level acceptable to everyone - currently, this suggests a lowering of the council tax burden.

[Simon Chapman]

Tim,

It would be good to see the whole speech. The Party's website hasn't posted it in full yet, which is a pity. Any idea where to find a copy?

[david]

Couldn't agree more with most of the above comments. Many elderly people are sitting in properties for sentimental reasons. Four and three bedroomed houses they have become attached too which they no longer need. Council tax on smaller properties should be much reduced, on larger properties much increased, regardless on who is living in them. This will encourage people to move into smaller and more appropriate properties when they retire, reducing their outgoings and releasing larger properties for families. Younger people should not be penalised to help the old, they carry a large enough burden as it is.

[Daniel]

Here's a task for someone - Calculate just how mcuh tax Cameron think 's her can get from me. 40% income tax, NI, 10% Student laon repayment, 5% of my income on council tax. They'll be nothing leess. My wife is from the US and I can get a green card. What exactly is keeping me here?!

[RobD]

It seems to me that while the Kirklees option is an interesting solution to the local problem, on a national level we should be looking at the bigger issue. Council tax is unfair to more people than just pensioners and I hope that at the right time we will have a policy to simplify and control council tax in a much more efficient way than just taxing the young to pay for the old.

[More to the Point]

Watch this space: the Kirklees policy will be ruled illegal under the new anti-Ageism legislation (which cuts both ways) within the year.

[Sean Fear]

A truly rotten idea. Younger people will be trying to bring up families, and (if they've been to university) paying back student loans.

It is hugely unjust that they should pay extra council taxes to subsidise those who are, in many cases, better off than they are.

And, as others have pointed out, they can always emigrate.

[Andrew Kennedy]

Kent County Council floated a similar proposal 3 or 4 years ago - and quickly dropped it due to the political outcry and threat of legal challenges from the borough Councils who were responsible for collecting the tax.

The scheme is blatantly unfair as it assumes that "retired" households are poorer than "young families" when the opposite is often the case.

The proposal is bonkers. Graducated taxation based on assumed need.

[Sean Fear]

The scheme is blatantly unfair as it assumes that "retired" households are poorer than "young families" when the opposite is often the case."

In Hertsmere, it would be usually the case, that older people have much greater capital, and not much less disposable income, on average, than people in their 20s and 30s.

[Mike Christie]

So in additon to having to pay for their tuition fees, reap the whirlwind of Brown's pensions and PFI scams in the future younger people and carry the burden of public sector pensions also have to subsidise even more those who have had the benefit of the boom in property prices and generous pension schemes.

We have a falling birth rate due to the fact that young people just can't afford to set up a home and have children.

This just further distorts the housing market too, we should get away from the idea that older people moving out of the big family house they've lived in for years is somehow a bad thing!

All in all, this is a crazy scheme.

[Denis Cooper]

More to the Point @ 10:48 - I'm surprised that this scheme is legal even now. Of course there are council tax benefits or rebates which presumably are recognised in whatever national legislation determines how councils can levy the tax, but I'm rather surprised that the legislation allows a council to apply different percentage increases in the basic council tax rate to different categories of residents.

[Richard]

This is demented for all the reasons outlined above. Furthermore it will simply create resentment between the generations. As someone asked above, why is council tax so high?

[Roslyn Freeman]

Does Cameron, the multimillionare, who is so out of touch with the people and his dwindling party membership not understand that what the people want is TAX CUTS, ECONOMIES,EFFICIENCY.NOT BLOATED GOVERNMENT,LESS RED TAPE,LESS INTERFERENCE,NO GIMMICKS,NO SOUND BITES,REAL LEADERSHIP etc..

That man is just scavenging around for the next nice thing he thinks is right to say.

Does he not understand that the young are burdened already with a millstone of Housing costs around their neck.

[Jon Gale]

This is a really bad idea. The more I think about it the worse it gets.

5% increase in most people's council tax? Was this scheme bizarrely popular in Kirklees or something?

[Sally Roberts]

We have to do something to solve the problem of pensioners being unable to afford their Council Tax - but this isn't the way to go about it! Not every younger person is well off financially and in addition the points made about possible "brain drain" are good ones. The younger people will simply move to another area to leave the "grey ghetto" that David Cameron has been talking about. Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid!

[alex r]

I am increasingly unsure if I can actually vote conservative at the next election.

What would be the difference between voting for Brown and having your taxes raised or voting for Cameron and having your taxes raised?

It's alright for cameron and osborne, they've got money. An extra couple of pounds here and there mean nothing to them, but to some of us it increasing makes the difference between having a summer holiday or not.

Please don't tell me that somehow tories run things better than labour do. that's just nonsense. I mean, it's not as if the tories have any great management experience behindt them: cameron as a pr man; and osborne as what?

[More to the Point]

What was that I remember about leadership candidate Cameron swearing he'd never 'bandwagon' a la Hague, IDS & Howard?

[Sean Fear]

Well, I think this idea is struggling.

It would be interesting to see if anyone is actually prepared to defend it.

[anon]

Anyone else noticed the striking similarity between Policy Exchange's recent report "Maggie's children" and the report "the Ipod generation" from Reform published over a year ago which first highlighted the plight of the younger generation?

[anon]

so i'll be much better off under a labour government now?

i can see every 20 and 30-something in the country, except old etonians obviously, feeling sick at this policy.

[anon]

so i'll be much better off under a labour government now?

i can see every 20 and 30-something in the country, except old etonians obviously, feeling sick at this policy.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

It's a bonkers idea. It's also, as somebody else suggested, potentially illegal under the new law. We ought to have a review of local governmnet taxation - the Council Tax isn't a winner; it was just more popular than the Poll Tax (as was Pol Pot).

[Roslyn Freeman]

This is clearly not thought out and is discriminatory under the ageism laws of this october 2006.
It can be challenged along with FREE eye tests,FREE dentisty,FREE bus passes,Subsidised rail,FREE TV licences,Half price meals in pubs and restaurants etc etc.

A hornets nest opened up by a Teddy Bear of a Leader.
Put bluntly it is just not on----Cameron should be looking for Economies in local government not expenditure.

[Sean Fear]

I would guess that even without recent legislation, a move of this type is open to legal challenge.

[William Norton]

Sean Fear: will anyone defend it?

I will, in a roundabout way.

I wouldn't have done it myself, but I can see where Kirklees are coming from. It's a little known fact that buried away in the council tax legislation is a facility to offer discounts to specified groups of people - for example, special constables (which I think is a more defensible idea and in Tower Hamlets this May that was one of our manifesto pledges as our way of reversing the dire local policing and recognising volunteers who contribute to their community; I don't think we were the only ones to push the idea).

The facility doesn't get used for the obvious point made on this thread - who chooses which group is favoured (and the fact that on the whole councils don't want to forgo the cash). An across-the-board OAP rebate isn't perfect but its more practicable than trying to run what would be in effect a local income tax and limiting the rebate to poor OAPs.

I'd be interested to see how it fares under the Age Discrimination Act. If it gets past that (which is anyone's guess) it could still face the same sort of legal challenge as Red Ken's bus fares policy in the 1980s - but my guess is that Kirklees are probably safe on the rationality etc grounds which would apply to a usual judicial review.

In summary: if Kirklees want to do this sort of thing, I say let them get on with it. I don't live in Kirklees. I don't have a vote in Kirklees. It's none of my business how Kirklees wants to set its council tax.

[Editor]

Simon Chapman:

I've prepared a pdf of the full speech:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/david_cameron_ageing_speech.pdf

[david]

I would remind Justin, everytime that there has been a change in local taxation, it has nearly always made the situation worse not better. Tories in particular should be very wary of this issue, there are those who have still not forgiven them for the disasterous 1974 re-organisation of local government, probably one the worse pieces of legislation that any government has ever enacted. In country where land is very expensive, we will have to consider two things, 1. releasing more land from agriculture for development. 2. Taxing larger properties much more highly than smaller one, i.e. flats, terraced properties would be at very low local taxation rates.

[TomTom]

Outrageous ! I hope Kirklees Council gets an outing in The High Court for age discrimination.

This is exactly how Brown justifies tuition fees for students so they can fund nursery places.

This form of taxing Peter to pay Paul is abusive and outrageous. There are 20 million people over 50 years old in Britain..........does Cameron think the regressive Council Tax should be banded on age rather than ability to pay ?

[Sean Fear]

But why should OAP's be favoured over and above young people, William?

Typically, the former are capital-rich and income poor, while the reverse is true for the latter.

[Stephen Yeo]

This is what he said:

Finally I want to publicise an initiative which I think is a great example of civic responsibility.

I should emphasise that this has nothing to do with the Conservative Party nationally – and I am not proposing it as government policy.

The whole point is that it is a local idea.

Kirklees council has decided to use its powers to introduce a lower council tax for pensioners.

They register and will get a guaranteed small fixed increase of no more than 1 per cent.

The burden of doing this falls on other households, but the registration scheme helps the council ensure that more older people get the benefits they are entitled to –

…and so more money comes into the area.

They’ve found a local solution to a cause of national concern.

That’s just the sort of initiative I believe in.

The policy wouldn’t work everywhere, of course.

But flexibility and social responsibility should be the watchwords for local government across Britain.

so its not a reason to change your vote yet!

However, I do wonder whether Kirklees are on the right track. Not only is such localism subject to legal challenge, but we already have a very elaborate national system designed to ensure that poor people can afford their Council Tax - it is the means-tested Council Tax Benefit.

At the last count, take-up of Council Tax Benefit amongst pensioners was below 60 per cent and falling.

Surely a better call would be to urge poor household (including pensioners) to claim their benefits and to criticise the Government for their shocking performance in this area.

Anyone who is familiar with the distribution of income across pensioner households will know how skewed it is. Providing blanket help, Kirklees style, actually accentuates the skew because better off pensioners will tend to live in bigger houses and pay more Council Tax.

[William Norton]

Sean - agree entirely, and I expect if we were both Kirklees councillors we'd have voted against it. But as I say, if Kirklees Council want to do it then I'm happy to let them face the voters of Kirklees on this one.

[anon]

Editor I have just read the text of the speech. The opening lines convince me further that we are merely going round addressing focus groups

"Last week I made a speech about the situation of disabled people.
Next week I’ll be talking about teenagers and young adults."

I can see the PR boxes being checked as we go along. Whether the whole thing adds up to a coherent policical strategy is obviously not being considered, and as for next May's elections well who knows?

[Jack Stone]

We need to do two things with council tax. Firstly we need to make it fairer, at present, in many cases, it results in poor people paying a lot more than those on decent incomes, and secondly we must bring council spending under control.
The only way to make council tax fairer is in my opinion to bring in a local income tax. It may be a Liberal policy but I am afraid that shouldn`t stop us supporting it as I think its right.
You will only control council spending by making our councils more accountable. I would like to firstly see any budget that increases spending by a percentage larger than the rate of inflation be made to put to a referndum of local people. I would also like to see twenty per cent of councillors up for election every year and I do believe that a system of proportional representation in local government that would end this nonsense we get in some areas where there is literally no opposition on the council would help make councils more accountable to the people who vote for them and encourage them to keep there spending under control.

[UK Daily Pundit]

Is there anyone that David Cameron doesn't want to hug? He'll be teaching the world to sing next. In perfect harmony.

[Afleitch]

As a recent graduate who will probably end up paying 55+% of my income for the next half decade in tax, due to tuition fees, high general taxation and paying for my parents generations mismanagement of the pensions system while getting nothing from the welfare state in return, then no I'm not happy at this.

[Andy Stidwill]

I'm sorry, but why on earth should young people (who are already the most overtaxed generation in history) effectively pay for the holidays of retired people, who are actually the richest section of the population?

This is ridiculous. But it's what happens when young people don't bother to vote. Hopefully they'll start to do so in the future.

[Chad]

"But why should OAP's be favoured over and above young people, William?"

Well I'm sure we'll agree that the honest answer is simply that yesterday was the OAP's turn on Cameron's carousel of spending/tax promises.

The young 'uns will get their turn soon I'm sure.

[James Hellyer]

An across-the-board OAP rebate isn't perfect but its more practicable than trying to run what would be in effect a local income tax and limiting the rebate to poor OAPs.

The thing is, the poorest OAPs wouldn't even benefit from the Kirkless model, as they are already generally exempted from making any payments, as they'll be in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

I expect if we were both Kirklees councillors we'd have voted against it. But as I say, if Kirklees Council want to do it then I'm happy to let them face the voters of Kirklees on this one.

I have a sneaking suspiscion that the people most likely to benefit from the Kirkless proposal are those who are among the most likely to vote in elections...

[More to the Point]

Given that Chad's here and posting, if he had lost his EPP cheque, we can safely assume the cheque would have bounced.

[Stephen B]

Sorry to be all high-brow but could you defend it from a Burkean 'inter-generational contract' perspective?

[More to the Point]

Given that Chad's here and posting, if he had lost his EPP bet, we can safely assume the cheque would have bounced.

[anon]

Chad, read my comment at 12:09. Young people are next week when do doubt we will be informed of how there will be more training, better opportunities, and new for disaffected youngsters to participate in.

[RobD]

Well I am much relieved now I have seen the actual text. What David appears to be saying is that he wants to enable local people to come up with innovative solutions to their problems. This seems like a truly conservative, small government policy and is in my mind therefore a good thing. We may not agree with the Kirklees policy but we should empower local government to make more proposals and be judged by the local electorate.

[Sean Fear]

"have a sneaking suspiscion that the people most likely to benefit from the Kirkless proposal are those who are among the most likely to vote in elections."

And vote Conservative.

[RobD]

Well I am much relieved now I have seen the actual text. What David appears to be saying is that he wants to enable local people to come up with innovative solutions to their problems. This seems like a truly conservative, small government policy and is in my mind therefore a good thing. We may not agree with the Kirklees policy but we should empower local government to make more proposals and be judged by the local electorate.

[James Hellyer]

And vote Conservative.

That was my somewhat cynical conclusion, Sean!

[Burkean]

From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs...

[Patsy Sergeant]

I quite agree sjm @ 11.10. I haven't read all the other posts on this site yet as I have only just come in, but I wanted to add another OAP's agreement with all the comments I have read so far.

For goodness sake there is enough negative feeling directed towards poor blameless silver-tops as it is - they are frequently the target of bullies to mug, who wouldn't dare to pick on someone more their own age.

Then there are so many OAP's - IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT BTW!! and the number is increasing, and some of the people who will object to this idea (not on this website I am sure!!!), will VERY SHORTLY be in the same category themselves - if they don't die before that!, believe me it goes that quickly. AND unfortunately quite a few of the people who will be in that category IN THE FUTURE, will have had their pensions destroyed curtesy of our genius chancellor.

NO it is a bad idea!!!

[Richard]

"Sorry to be all high-brow but could you defend it from a Burkean 'inter-generational contract' perspective?"

Nope, as this would cause conflict rather than harmony between the generations.

[Andrew Woodman]

What an appalling idea. It makes you wonder if out policy formulators ever get out of London and their TV reports and visit the real world. Young people can barely afford to buy houses, and to do so have to take on whacking great mortgages. The idea that they should have to pay more council tax than someone who's probably paid off their mortgage and is on a final salary pension is truly bizarre.

Why are we so scared of some real reform to local government taxiation instead of tinkering with a tax that has been so abused by Labour. Local Sales tax anyone?

[EML]

I think Kirklees Council should be congratulated for coming up with an idea to help pensioners cope with the exorbitant increases on council tax in recent years.

If the younger residents don't like it, they can vote for someone else when they next get a chance.

The source of the problem, of course, is central government, which hands out more and more responsibilities to local councils, without providing the necessary funding, or a way in which they can raise money themselves.

This is a little innovation from a council stuck in a tangled web of central interference.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Looks likes a badly thought through gimmick to me.

[Simon Chapman]

Interestingly, the number of pensioners in Kirklees is below the national average:
http://www.upmystreet.com/local/my-neighbours/population/l/Huddersfield.html

Cameron was entirely clear in his speech that this is a local initiative that he does not intend to replicate nationally. We should be cheering this as evidence of commitment to localism, not disparaging it.

The tension between generations, particularly baby boomers & those older & younger than them, needs to be recognised, as many on this thread have posted. David Willetts has also spoken about this in the past. We need to address it and manage it. Criticising localism in Kirklees is not the best way to do that.

I am glad that DC has made this speech – and many thanks to Tim for providing a pdf. It raises a number of really important long-term issues which are already being looked at in the voluntary sector and elsewhere. It was good to see DC’s comments about care homes, the need to re-think the environment in which older people live and are cared for, and encouraging new arrangements between generations. He’s right.

He’s right to mention the impact of dementia too. One in 20 people have dementia at the age of 65. One in 5 do at the age of 80. Incidence increases with longevity, which makes NICE’s recent decision all the more baffling. We should be investing in drugs to reduce the impact of Dementia.

Cameron is also right to look at ways of reducing the differences between health and social care. This may not prove comfortable though: direct payments & individual budgets in social care aren’t too far removed from vouchers. Social care is commissioned through local authorities, where there is direct democratic accountability. Some would say that social care is a model that health care should follow.

It’s a pity he repeats the line we often see: that carers save the taxpayer nearly £60 billion a year. That is to assume that the primary responsibility for caring rests with the state. It doesn’t – it rests with families & communities. The majority of carers do not see themselves as saving the state anything – they care for somebody because they are family or friend. The value of services provided by carers might be £60 billion a year. But that’s a very different thing. It’s almost insulting to value carers because they save the state money. They are first to be valued because of the sacrificial commitment they make to other people.

His emphasis on flexible retirement, working past the age of 65, and maximising the economic potential of older people is also important. I am 40, and have no intention of retiring at 65. I am sure I will need to work beyond then for financial reasons, as well as my wife's & my sanity.

It is good to see our party leader raising these issues. It will be interesting to see how the various policy review groups respond to them.

[Sean Fear]

"I think Kirklees Council should be congratulated for coming up with an idea to help pensioners cope with the exorbitant increases on council tax in recent years.

If the younger residents don't like it, they can vote for someone else when they next get a chance."

That's not much of an argument. Suppose we had a council that levied an extra council tax on people in wards that voted against the ruling party. Would you just say, "if they don't like it, they can vote against it?"

This is unjust - and IMO, a way of redistributing money from people who are less likely than average to be Conservative voters to people who are more likely than average to be Conservative voters.

We, rightly, criticise the government for concentrating hospital closures in non-Labour constituencies, but we're acting in a similar manner here.

[William Norton]

Sean: we'll have to agree on the policy being bad but disagree on Kirklees' freedom to adopt it. If you want to allow greater local freedom, then inevitably some localities will end up doing something daft. If Kirklees wanted to hold an International Festival of Chewing Gum I'll feel much the same about it.

From the excerpt of the speech quoted above by Stephen Yeo, I think Cameron's response is right.

[TomTom]

we must bring council spending under control.

I begin to wonder if Jack Stone has any idea how institutions function in Great Britain..............I find he should take one of those Civics courses to find out.

Council Spending is dictated by Whitehall. Very little of it is discretionary which is why Councillors find it so hard to cut anything.

Education is centrally dictated and that is the biggest item. Police and Fire Precepts usually outstrip the local council budget increase.

Refuse Costs are increasing because of Whitehall/EU policies

I find it very hard to see how Councils can contro, their spending simply because they are merely branch offices of Central Govt

[Stuart Raven]

Cameron's finally achieved the impossible. He's upset even hardened Cameroons!

Many OAPs have savings and mortgage-free homes. These days I meet plenty who are taking our equity release schemes to fund world cruises and other pleasurable activities.

In contrast, many young people are saddled with crippling mortgages and other debts, along with the total absence of career structures and worthwhile pension schemes.

I suppose Cameron's suddenly cottoned onto the fact that he needs OAP votes - hence this nonsense.

Let's hope for what remains of his credibility that nobody points him towards a neighbourhood full of BNP supporters.

Could the Heir to Blair become the Heir to Griffin at the drop of a hat? Stranger things have been known.

[David Belchamber]

Hi Chad @ 10.05, spot on:
"Because no-one has sought to control house prices (or proposed what is really needed - add them to the inflation target), young people are already financially crippled just to buy a home".
Not to mention the possible repayment of a student loan and rule out pension contributions!

Maggie's children meet Gordon Brown!
There is a real social problem brewing here.

[James Hellyer]

Cameron was entirely clear in his speech that this is a local initiative that he does not intend to replicate nationally. We should be cheering this as evidence of commitment to localism, not disparaging it.

I think what's being disparaged is that he appears to think the scheme is a good one - "a great example of civic responsibility".

[Patsy Sergeant]

Having had time to read through more of the posts, I would like to say to David @ 10.36 - that I would like to meet him in twenty or thirty years time (I COULD still be alive, but unlikely to feel it worthwhile to meet him, even if I have all my marbles at that time - my mother is still alive and at that age!); he has the kind of attitude that one might meet in a communist state and that is often found in young people involved in themselves and their families - why not. But I somehow think that when some other 'cool dud' comes along and says right, you! out!, it might have been your home for yonks, tough!, some one like me should have it, a bedsitter would be much more suitable for YOU!!!

If we go down the path of deciding exactly how much footage each unit of humanity 'needs', (and I can quite see Brown would love to go down that road), even some young people might be disconcerted to find that THEIR ideas of what is suitable for them, is not at all the same as the ideas that a chancellor such as Mr. Brown might have in mind for their type of unit!!!!!!

[John Travis]

As a resident of Kirklees and Conservative party member, I am completely opposed to these proposals.

Why should my next door neighbours get cheaper services due to their age instead of their assets/ability to pay ?

I put out hundreds of leaflets which helped to get a Conservative elected in my seat for the first time in many years in May. I was expecting lower local taxes for all.

We are a family with two pre-school children - why can't the benefit of a council tax reduction be spread between everyone. By picking one group for preference you alienate others.

[Stuart Raven]

A few heartfelt pleas that could inspire Cameron's eagerly anticipated manifesto:

"I've spent 50 years paying tax. I should get everything for free now"

"Nobody who didn't live through the Blitz should have the vote"

"Why couldn't they have let things be till all us old ones had passed on."

(Geriatric newly-wed) "He told me he'd been saving up for sixty years and I thought he was talking about his money".

That's the way to capture the Silver Swingers, Dave.

Go for it!

[Aghast]

Sighs deeply.............

Is this one of Oliver's policy development ideas or yet another off the cuff Oxford debating society moment.

Either way it's becoming immensely tiresome.

[Richard]

"If you want to allow greater local freedom, then inevitably some localities will end up doing something daft."

Not if it's at the expense of taxpayers' money!

[James Maskell]

Well done Cameron, weve just alienated the entire British population under the age of 50!

The joke does wear thin after a while. We all had a good laugh about hugging hoodies and chocolate oranges but it does get to a point where you wonder if this is more than just a mis-interpretation of liberal conservatism. These stupid, insulting ridiculous proposals can be seen right through by a GCSE level student in five seconds flat! This is an issue in Brown's backyard and he will tear these policies up and throw them in our faces and it will hurt come 3rd May 2007.

Thanks Cameron, youve just made local campaigns harder next year...could it hurt you to do something to help us in next years elections?

[Matt Wright]

David, your view that we should drive older people out of larger houses with punitive taxes is hardly Conservative and positively Orwellian,

Matt

[David]

I didn't know you could base a tax on someones age, I would have though that would be illegal. If 'Dave' wants to make the tax fairer for old people why not base it on the ablitiy to pay (income) rather than the value of the property. Or do the Tories still faviour the rich?

Also, there are plenty of vunerable young people struggling, especially those who have recently had children. I work with a guy who is 25 and he and his wife have two young children and he doesn't earn much. What makes 'Dave' think his life is any easier than a pensioners?

You do realise Gordon Brown is going to 'steamroller' David Cameron when he finally manages to get centre stage and the spot light is of Tony. See that poll of polls thing on this site, it was near 40% at one point, watch it slowly drift down...

[Matt Wright]

This thread is yet another classic example of a faction who misrepresent what has been said by Cameron and then obsessively talk it up until they convince themselves he is about to eat the first born. It is becoming quite ridiculous. Read the text. What he actually says is fine.

Matt

[Stephen B]

"Sorry to be all high-brow but could you defend it from a Burkean 'inter-generational contract' perspective?"

Nope, as this would cause conflict rather than harmony between the generations.

Not if the deal was that young, when they had grown old, would be treated in the same way as the pensioners today. In the short term I agree it would cause resentment but in the (real) longer term possibly not?

[Big Ted]

STOP YOUR MOANING!

If you are a student you are exempt from the Counvcil Tax.

If you are a single person you get a 25% discount.

If the property is empty and unfurnished you have 6 months exemption.

If it is empty more than 6 months you can have up to 50% discount.

If you have a second home you get up to 50% discount.

If your property is uninhabitable you get up to 12 months exemption.

All of these reductions, discounts and exemptions plus many more are already paid for by other tax payers by higher council tax - yet there is no moaning about these?

In life there is no such thing as a free lunch - so somebody elses pension or benefit increase, free bus pass or tv licence, discount, reduction or tax cut - is paid for by other taxpayers.

Becasue the Kirklees example is local and we can see what happens when one section if the community get a tax reduction - the rest pay more...

...Isn't this what will happen antionally when we call for tac cuts? Something else will need initially to increase to cover the shortfall?

[James Maskell]

"obsessively talk it up until they convince themselves he is about to eat the first born"

No ones saying that at all, though its not the first time a Cameroon has used that analogy.

[George Hinton]

Very utopian and altruistic.
But, what if the pensioner can afford the increase? What if the younger resident cannot afford the higher increase?. This forces the younger family to seek dependancy from the state, with all the intrusion and bureaucracy that that entails.
Whilst Kirklees may be on the right road they have taken a wrong turning.

[Mike Christie]

"your view that we should drive older people out of larger houses with punitive taxes is hardly Conservative and positively Orwellian"

I disagree, there is a huge problem brewing in the UK. Increasing life expectancy, falling birth rates, young people unable to set up house. We have an aging population, with the younger members bearing an ever increasing financial burden of tax to pay to support (increasing NHS costs of an aging society, public-sector pensions, people who in many cases had the advantage of benefits and situations not now available (free university, final salary pensions, low house prices etc.)

People have a right to live where they like, but using the tax system to encourage behaviour that benefits society as a whole is hardly Orwellian, it is a perfectly normal tool of government.

'Thatcher's Children' or the 'I-pod' generation are getting screwed both ways. The generation just coming to retire were content to strip away benefits like free university places and the like, but seem to expect that the pact between generations should be upheld by the 'youngsters' they expect to pay their pensions and hospital bills. The generation that were already on the housing ladder were content to see rocketing house prices give them the ability to buy second homes and a credit-led lifestyle without giving a second thought to the following generation who face crippling debt from student loans and house prices that have gone through the roof. That younger generation are now wondering why, having been so royally screwed, they should feel a moral obligation to support the people who allowed things to get this way.

As people turning 60 this year were born after WWII, the moral duty to those who fought for the country is not as universal as it was 20 years ago. Only a very small number of those who become eligible for their pension in the future will ever have taken up arms in our defence.

The moral case for the status-quo no longer exists.

We need to encourage an attitude in older people where it is considered the normal and decent thing to do to move out of the big family house into something smaller when it becomes appropriate.

It sounds harsh, but it is incredibly harmful to society to have young people who want to raise families unable to do so because they simply can't afford it.

[Andy]

Wow, such hostitlity, I would have posted sooner but have just been informed of this debate. There are some fair points made, and I'll try to answer a few for you in no particular order.

1. The Conservative leafleter in Kirklees should perhaps have taken the trouble to read some of the stuff he was delivering. Low Council Tax increases, and discounts for pensioners have been Group policy for some years - policy to be implemented when the Group took control of the Council last year for the first time since 1979. Could it be that such pledges helped increase the Group from 5/72 Cllrs to 21/69 as is now the case? Yes. Could it be that this bold new Conservative administration is going to try to implement the pledges that it made? Yes.

2. The bloke who commented about Kent County Council, who highligted the idea in the first place and from which Kirklees have developed the idea, clearly knows little about local government. It was not particulalry because their idea got bad publictity that it didn't get implemented - it was because they don't bill for Council Tax - their district council's do. So they had no power to implement a discount.

3. Legality. Kent discovered the legislation that makes this possible. As someone else pointed out, any Council can legally offer a discount to a group (or groups) of people. I suppose that could be any specified group of people - but they need to be easily identifiable. There is no issue with legality it has been checked out - that's not to say it won't change or be challenged.

4. Why pensioners? Well they are reasonably easy to identify and as someone else pointed out we do not have too many. They have suffered with excessive Council Tax increases in Kirklees (as have others). When applying for a discount they will be encouraged to apply for benefit instead - many won't because they don't like means testing - but some will. And yes, as someone suggested, they may well be being targeted for votes.

To sum up. Council Tax is an unfair tax which local government is stuck with. But Council's aren't stuck with implementing massive increases if they choose not to be. Under Liberal Democrat control since 2001 Kirklees Council Taxpayers have had the pleasure of 40% increases whilst inflation has been around 13%. That isn't fair to anyone - pensioners, Thatchers children, or the local transexuals. It just isn't accetable. Last year it went up by the maximum the Government would allow - 5%. At the same time they announced that the next three years would also be 5%. So along came the Tories and said 'Oh no it won't', and in less than nine months they have reshaped the Council's finances and pledged only a 3% increase. That's a 2% cut for everyone. 'And on top of that we're going to give the pensioners an even lower increase through a discount.'

So everyone up here wins. Moan about taxation all you like - change the system all you like when we get in power. But until then let the Conservatives in local government get on and do the best they can for their communities and sections of their communities. Whilst trying to look after our old uns we are also trying to implement some brilliant initiatives for our young uns both in and out of school. How many of the people moaning about this scheme have kids in education or parents hitting 65. I have both, so even though I may pay through the nose I can at least see some benefits.

[numan]

STOP COMPLAINING. The tories with 21/69 Cllrs control the council for the first time in a long time on these policies they can only do so much as councillors and certainly not abolish council tax.

[Emma]

would like to aks if you know where I can find out how to reduce my living cost. I am currenty out at the moment and I am looking for work that will pay enough to cover my mortgage and council to ax that as a single person will amount 600 per month so with living exspenses I would need at least to earn another 300. If I take a job that will pay me this do I still have to pay council tax what I mean is would I be able to earn a little bit more then the jobseeker amount I have at the moment. n my last job I took home 1000 per month but with 80 per month petrol to Mancheste I found it made me feel a bit stressed and ill, before taking a job I would like to understand ways of coping on low income better

If you have any leaflets or know where I could seek some counselling about this th.
at would be great
Thanks for your help