Author Topic: Paging Cllr Slack (again)  (Read 10366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fly

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 8,169
  • ' M8IFY '
    • View Profile
    • Taximania
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #45 on: November 12, 2012, 08:10:14 PM »
Is this the same five people benefiting from street lighting.  It's the same light. We share it  ;)
The crap we part with is dealt by the water companies. Agreed we might use more water or waste services.
Don't we already pay for that, water rates are still based on the old Rates system. Correct me, I'm probably wrong.
Water meters should have sorted this out. We've still not got one :-)

Quote
Is it not reasonable to think that five people would use five times the level of council resources as two people?

And therefore pay 5 times the price !!
Just for the record, who's idea was that, I honestly don't know.
Over 90% of all computer problems can be traced back to the interface between the keyboard and the chair

Slacker

  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 2,547
    • View Profile
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #46 on: November 12, 2012, 09:23:25 PM »
It's a tax not a payment for services. The alternative is to charge for individual things.

People without school age children could argue that they are supporting families with kids at school. People without elderly relatives could argue they are subsiding care homes that they themselves don't need.

Regarding benefits, more is paid subsidising people on low wages than those unemployed. Therefore the tax payer is in effect subsidising employers who choose not to pay a living wage.

chesterfieldchris

  • Guest
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #47 on: November 12, 2012, 11:51:10 PM »
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST

Slacker

  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 2,547
    • View Profile
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2012, 06:57:10 AM »
I am not HAPPY with any cuts, but these are being forced on us by central government so they should be open about it.

chesterfieldchris

  • Guest
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2012, 07:45:56 AM »
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST

Slacker

  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 2,547
    • View Profile
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2012, 05:54:24 PM »
If the choice was truly local an option would be to raise council tax. Some may prefer that to losing services.

chesterfieldchris

  • Guest
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2012, 06:12:28 PM »
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST

Slacker

  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 2,547
    • View Profile
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2012, 07:11:29 PM »
Doesn't efficiency savings assume things weren't already efficient?

chesterfieldchris

  • Guest
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2012, 07:34:27 PM »
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST

Slacker

  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 2,547
    • View Profile
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #54 on: November 13, 2012, 09:33:29 PM »
Is that the "planned" / "leaked" increase that the LibDems put on their leaflets?

therealjr

  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 2,148
    • View Profile
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2012, 10:02:31 PM »
if they are procuring efficiently.

Makes no odds how they are procuring.
I know I have been out of the game for 5 years but back then I ran the budgeting for a department whose budget was £1.5m per year.
Staffing budget £850k (inc all overheads)
Central costs (paying for staff in other departments) £250k
Buidling costs (you're not allowed to move out of the Town Hall) £200k
central IT costs £150k
Actual purchases £50k
I'm not an Alcoholic. They go to meetings
I'm a drunk I go to the pub

chesterfieldchris

  • Guest
Re: Paging Cllr Slack (again)
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2012, 11:46:43 PM »
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk