York council tax to rise 1.9 per cent as city leaders reveal budget plans

York Press: City of York Council leader James Alexander, left, chairs a budget meeting with the council’s chief executive, Kirsten England, and Ian Floyd, the council’s director of customer and business support City of York Council leader James Alexander, left, chairs a budget meeting with the council’s chief executive, Kirsten England, and Ian Floyd, the council’s director of customer and business support

COUNCIL tax will rise by 1.9 per cent, parks will be left unlocked and parking charges will increase under budget plans unveiled by York’s city leaders.

City of York Council yesterday revealed proposals to save £20 million over the next two years, including 242 jobs facing the axe and funding for streetlights and road-sweeping being cut.

The Labour cabinet plans to reject a Government grant to freeze council tax next year, saying it would mean the council having to save a further £1.3 million by 2015. It said the rise - the second in a row for York, following last year's 2.9 per cent increase - would equate to 38p a week for the average York resident and provide an extra £1.5 million in 2013/14 towards adult social care, which will receive an extra £6 million over two years.

If the proposals are passed at a full council meeting this month, fees for car parks will rise by 20p for residents and 10p for non-residents in April. Parks will not be locked and weekend working will stop to save £122,000.

One street-cleaning machine will be axed in a £48,000 cost-cutting move and the streetlighting budget will be cut by £60,000.

The council has pledged extra investment of £48.4 million over five years for 18 schemes, including helping elderly and disabled people to continue to live at home, an additional £500,000 for telecare health systems, £6 million for new council houses and £1.28 million to reduce overcrowding in council properties through loft conversions and extensions.

More alleygates will be installed, funding will be provided for repairs to roads, riverbanks and the Bar Walls and £1 million over five years devoted to highway drainage.

Council leader James Alexander said library, swimming pool and children’s centre closures had been avoided, but these and other options had been considered.

Coun Alexander said: “Every year, it becomes more and more difficult to save services put in jeopardy by the Government’s cuts programme.

“Local government has been targeted more than other parts of the public sector, so we need to be responsive to public priorities at a time when some services simply cannot continue. Our proposals show we are being responsive and will protect the most vulnerable, through the planned council tax increase being dedicated solely to investment in adult social care, while continuing to bring jobs and investment from the private sector to York.”

Conservative leader Ian Gillies said rising council tax would “hit hardworking families”, while increased parking charges showed Labour had made “empty promises” of supporting city-centre businesses.

Coun Gillies said: “Good local government is all about choices, and rather than channel what discretionary funding is available into schemes for a small minority, we believe the large majority deserve support in the form of decent services. Which would residents rather have – universal 20mph speed limits or potholes filled?”

Liberal Democrat leader Carol Runciman said the council tax rise was “hugely disappointing” and Labour had sacrificed frontline services for “wasteful spending”. Green leader Andy D’Agorne said he feared Government cuts would “bite further into core services for the most vulnerable”.

Comments (67)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:03pm Mon 4 Feb 13

MouseHouse says...

The cost of repairing damage caused by vandals in unlocked parks will more than account for any savings made in not locking them in the first place. What a misguided policy. If this is the limited thought that has gone into budget planning then I suggest the officials think again.
The cost of repairing damage caused by vandals in unlocked parks will more than account for any savings made in not locking them in the first place. What a misguided policy. If this is the limited thought that has gone into budget planning then I suggest the officials think again. MouseHouse
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Mon 4 Feb 13

yorkborn66 says...

If the proposals are voted through at a full meeting of the authority later this month, fees for council-run car parks will rise by 20p for residents and 10p for non-residents from April. Parks will not be locked and weekend working will stop to save £122,000.

Council leader James Alexander are you not sure you are not related to that idiot David Cameron.

If you get clowns to run a show you end up with a circus .
If the proposals are voted through at a full meeting of the authority later this month, fees for council-run car parks will rise by 20p for residents and 10p for non-residents from April. Parks will not be locked and weekend working will stop to save £122,000. Council leader James Alexander are you not sure you are not related to that idiot David Cameron. If you get clowns to run a show you end up with a circus . yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Mon 4 Feb 13

dodgydavereturns says...

And in other news, the council have decided not to lock the doors on any of its buildings, in order to save cost on wearing out keys!
James Alexander has also decoded to have all locks on toilet doors removed in order for it to be easier for him and his staff to continue to take the P**s!
And in other news, the council have decided not to lock the doors on any of its buildings, in order to save cost on wearing out keys! James Alexander has also decoded to have all locks on toilet doors removed in order for it to be easier for him and his staff to continue to take the P**s! dodgydavereturns
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Micklegate says...

dodgydavereturns wrote:
And in other news, the council have decided not to lock the doors on any of its buildings, in order to save cost on wearing out keys!
James Alexander has also decoded to have all locks on toilet doors removed in order for it to be easier for him and his staff to continue to take the P**s!
Please don't give them ideas
[quote][p][bold]dodgydavereturns[/bold] wrote: And in other news, the council have decided not to lock the doors on any of its buildings, in order to save cost on wearing out keys! James Alexander has also decoded to have all locks on toilet doors removed in order for it to be easier for him and his staff to continue to take the P**s![/p][/quote]Please don't give them ideas Micklegate
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Mon 4 Feb 13

only human says...

mmmmm.interesting budget in thoery lets see how it pans out in practice.
i am pleased to hear the voice of reason over the children and adult services but this is just taking back from a service which suffered cuts in past budgets so its just a bit like robbing peter to pay back peter later on.
Allowing more disabled people to remain in their own homes is fine so long as the support and equipment is there to facilitate this venture.
I would air on the side of caution with the provision of these services and ensure that the most vulnerable of these groups receive the services from dedicated LA staff with robust policies and procedures in place and a guarantee that continuity of care and standards can be made.
mmmmm.interesting budget in thoery lets see how it pans out in practice. i am pleased to hear the voice of reason over the children and adult services but this is just taking back from a service which suffered cuts in past budgets so its just a bit like robbing peter to pay back peter later on. Allowing more disabled people to remain in their own homes is fine so long as the support and equipment is there to facilitate this venture. I would air on the side of caution with the provision of these services and ensure that the most vulnerable of these groups receive the services from dedicated LA staff with robust policies and procedures in place and a guarantee that continuity of care and standards can be made. only human
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Mon 4 Feb 13

only human says...

mmmmm.interesting budget in thoery lets see how it pans out in practice.
i am pleased to hear the voice of reason over the children and adult services but this is just taking back from a service which suffered cuts in past budgets so its just a bit like robbing peter to pay back peter later on.
Allowing more disabled people to remain in their own homes is fine so long as the support and equipment is there to facilitate this venture.
I would air on the side of caution with the provision of these services and ensure that the most vulnerable of these groups receive the services from dedicated LA staff with robust policies and procedures in place and a guarantee that continuity of care and standards can be made.
mmmmm.interesting budget in thoery lets see how it pans out in practice. i am pleased to hear the voice of reason over the children and adult services but this is just taking back from a service which suffered cuts in past budgets so its just a bit like robbing peter to pay back peter later on. Allowing more disabled people to remain in their own homes is fine so long as the support and equipment is there to facilitate this venture. I would air on the side of caution with the provision of these services and ensure that the most vulnerable of these groups receive the services from dedicated LA staff with robust policies and procedures in place and a guarantee that continuity of care and standards can be made. only human
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Dr Brian says...

Is it too late to pull out of the community stadium and use the money for something the majority of York rate payers want and not just the 2500 (many of whom do not pay council tax to CoY Council) who support York City and 700 who support York City Knights?
Is it too late to pull out of the community stadium and use the money for something the majority of York rate payers want and not just the 2500 (many of whom do not pay council tax to CoY Council) who support York City and 700 who support York City Knights? Dr Brian
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Mon 4 Feb 13

JC42 says...

looks like the courts are going to be very busy next year then as people are struggling now god help us all next year.
when is this nightmare going to end.
looks like the courts are going to be very busy next year then as people are struggling now god help us all next year. when is this nightmare going to end. JC42
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Mon 4 Feb 13

johnabostock says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Is it too late to pull out of the community stadium and use the money for something the majority of York rate payers want and not just the 2500 (many of whom do not pay council tax to CoY Council) who support York City and 700 who support York City Knights?
Excuse me Dr Brian! My wife and myself are both York City supporters, holding Season Tickets AND we both live in the City of York and pay CoYC Council Tax. On top of that my own father was born and brought up in York, as I was.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Is it too late to pull out of the community stadium and use the money for something the majority of York rate payers want and not just the 2500 (many of whom do not pay council tax to CoY Council) who support York City and 700 who support York City Knights?[/p][/quote]Excuse me Dr Brian! My wife and myself are both York City supporters, holding Season Tickets AND we both live in the City of York and pay CoYC Council Tax. On top of that my own father was born and brought up in York, as I was. johnabostock
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Mon 4 Feb 13

timcore says...

£500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
£500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that? timcore
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Mon 4 Feb 13

thecairnman says...

Last year the council decided to stop supplying refuse bags discriminating against those of us that do not have bins.Yet still waste money giving out new bins to those that want them its about time that the council started to charge for delivery and claw back a bit of money that way.
Last year the council decided to stop supplying refuse bags discriminating against those of us that do not have bins.Yet still waste money giving out new bins to those that want them its about time that the council started to charge for delivery and claw back a bit of money that way. thecairnman
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Mon 4 Feb 13

JHardacre says...

Since when has been a council responsibility to fund the Tour de France?
Since when has been a council responsibility to fund the Tour de France? JHardacre
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Garden Giant says...

Im sorry but refusing another freeze grant is making a political point not what is doing best for the residents of COY. Only when certain people walk away from York into a safe seat elsewhere will we see the mess left behind. career politicians dont care about York just their own profile..
Im sorry but refusing another freeze grant is making a political point not what is doing best for the residents of COY. Only when certain people walk away from York into a safe seat elsewhere will we see the mess left behind. career politicians dont care about York just their own profile.. Garden Giant
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Mon 4 Feb 13

leont says...

Cuts to local services made worse by central government diktat (such as moving Council Tax Benefit to local councils). We should not let them get away with it.
.
It's not CYC's fault. Our local services are being cut because the Tory Etonians are giving tax breaks to themselves and their rich friends ... and because the likes of Starbucks and other corporate fatcats don't pay anything like their fair share ... and because the banksters have no moral compunction in stealing from the rest of us ordinary people and lining their own pockets. We all know this, but it's easy to forget what's causing local government austerity.
.
I'm happy to pay my fair share to live in a civilised city in a civilised country. And I want people richer than me also to pay their share. That's not happening at present. But CYC don't have the power to change things - central government just make it look as if it's their fault.
.
Remember this at next election time!
.
(And no, I'm not a member of any political party.)
Cuts to local services made worse by central government diktat (such as moving Council Tax Benefit to local councils). We should not let them get away with it. . It's not CYC's fault. Our local services are being cut because the Tory Etonians are giving tax breaks to themselves and their rich friends ... and because the likes of Starbucks and other corporate fatcats don't pay anything like their fair share ... and because the banksters have no moral compunction in stealing from the rest of us ordinary people and lining their own pockets. We all know this, but it's easy to forget what's causing local government austerity. . I'm happy to pay my fair share to live in a civilised city in a civilised country. And I want people richer than me also to pay their share. That's not happening at present. But CYC don't have the power to change things - central government just make it look as if it's their fault. . Remember this at next election time! . (And no, I'm not a member of any political party.) leont
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Guy Fawkes says...

The cost of repairing damage caused by vandals in unlocked parks will more than account for any savings made in not locking them in the first place.


And lawsuits from rape/assault victims.
[quote]The cost of repairing damage caused by vandals in unlocked parks will more than account for any savings made in not locking them in the first place.[/quote] And lawsuits from rape/assault victims. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Madasanibbotson says...

Easy Answer
Cancel your direct debit. Set up a standing order with your bank for the council tax sum less 1.9%. If JA and his gang take legal action explain to the Judge that JA turned down the Government Grant, if he hadn't the monthly amount paid would be correct.
If enough of us do it JA will have to take notice.
JA- I know bank accounts aren't your strong point, so to help you out- A Direct Debits lets a council take what they want from your account-a standing order is you telling your bank how much you wish them to pay.
When you get lots of people paying amount due less 1.9% your computer sends lots of letters to us via leeds then wakefield then Leeman Road, and we ignore them. After you have sent 3 to each of us you have spent around £3 on each of us and caused a lot of pollution and trees to be turned into paper. Then you face the prospect of lots of legal fees and trying to defend why you want us to pay instead of the Government-can't see that one being easy.
Easy Answer Cancel your direct debit. Set up a standing order with your bank for the council tax sum less 1.9%. If JA and his gang take legal action explain to the Judge that JA turned down the Government Grant, if he hadn't the monthly amount paid would be correct. If enough of us do it JA will have to take notice. JA- I know bank accounts aren't your strong point, so to help you out- A Direct Debits lets a council take what they want from your account-a standing order is you telling your bank how much you wish them to pay. When you get lots of people paying amount due less 1.9% your computer sends lots of letters to us via leeds then wakefield then Leeman Road, and we ignore them. After you have sent 3 to each of us you have spent around £3 on each of us and caused a lot of pollution and trees to be turned into paper. Then you face the prospect of lots of legal fees and trying to defend why you want us to pay instead of the Government-can't see that one being easy. Madasanibbotson
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13

meme says...

while councillors who are members of the committees will no longer be provided with minibuses and other transport for site visits.
HARDLY ANY TURN UP NOW SO ITS NOT GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE!
while councillors who are members of the committees will no longer be provided with minibuses and other transport for site visits. HARDLY ANY TURN UP NOW SO ITS NOT GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE! meme
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Mon 4 Feb 13

JC42 says...

Madasanibbotson wrote:
Easy Answer Cancel your direct debit. Set up a standing order with your bank for the council tax sum less 1.9%. If JA and his gang take legal action explain to the Judge that JA turned down the Government Grant, if he hadn't the monthly amount paid would be correct. If enough of us do it JA will have to take notice. JA- I know bank accounts aren't your strong point, so to help you out- A Direct Debits lets a council take what they want from your account-a standing order is you telling your bank how much you wish them to pay. When you get lots of people paying amount due less 1.9% your computer sends lots of letters to us via leeds then wakefield then Leeman Road, and we ignore them. After you have sent 3 to each of us you have spent around £3 on each of us and caused a lot of pollution and trees to be turned into paper. Then you face the prospect of lots of legal fees and trying to defend why you want us to pay instead of the Government-can't see that one being easy.
Thanks for that information I will do that when the new bill drops on the mat. We should be paying far less as well as the majority of the services are of have been cut. They certainly dont keep the streets tidy if the bin men spill or drop anything its just left to blow away.
[quote][p][bold]Madasanibbotson[/bold] wrote: Easy Answer Cancel your direct debit. Set up a standing order with your bank for the council tax sum less 1.9%. If JA and his gang take legal action explain to the Judge that JA turned down the Government Grant, if he hadn't the monthly amount paid would be correct. If enough of us do it JA will have to take notice. JA- I know bank accounts aren't your strong point, so to help you out- A Direct Debits lets a council take what they want from your account-a standing order is you telling your bank how much you wish them to pay. When you get lots of people paying amount due less 1.9% your computer sends lots of letters to us via leeds then wakefield then Leeman Road, and we ignore them. After you have sent 3 to each of us you have spent around £3 on each of us and caused a lot of pollution and trees to be turned into paper. Then you face the prospect of lots of legal fees and trying to defend why you want us to pay instead of the Government-can't see that one being easy.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that information I will do that when the new bill drops on the mat. We should be paying far less as well as the majority of the services are of have been cut. They certainly dont keep the streets tidy if the bin men spill or drop anything its just left to blow away. JC42
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Dukeofpork says...

I would air on the side of caution with the provision of these services and ensure that the most vulnerable of these groups receive the services from dedicated LA staff with robust policies and procedures in place and a guarantee that continuity of care and standards can be made.

NO, Only Human! One errs on the side of caution, not "airs"!!!!!
I would air on the side of caution with the provision of these services and ensure that the most vulnerable of these groups receive the services from dedicated LA staff with robust policies and procedures in place and a guarantee that continuity of care and standards can be made. NO, Only Human! One errs on the side of caution, not "airs"!!!!! Dukeofpork
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Mon 4 Feb 13

meme says...

Why are we spending money on the community stadium
arts barge £300K plus
putting in a 20 MPH limit
Over £1 million on new furnituure for the new £43 million council offices
Huge salaries for chief exec etc
when we are in the c..p?
It does not take a genius to work out the UK is bust due to Labours policies in the past so we have to spend money on essentials not luxuries. Or does this administration intend to take us on the same route as the last labour Government to prove a political point?
It canot be difficult to decide what is crucial and essential and what is laudable but not essential
Why are we spending money on the community stadium [£4 million I believe] arts barge £300K plus putting in a 20 MPH limit [no idea of cost] Over £1 million on new furnituure for the new £43 million council offices Huge salaries for chief exec etc when we are in the c..p? It does not take a genius to work out the UK is bust due to Labours policies in the past so we have to spend money on essentials not luxuries. Or does this administration intend to take us on the same route as the last labour Government to prove a political point? It canot be difficult to decide what is crucial and essential and what is laudable but not essential meme
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

After all the expense of putting barriers on the bar Walls by Lendal bridge, the morons who installed them will now leave them unlocked. A stupid idea in the first place, installed by idiots - with our money.
After all the expense of putting barriers on the bar Walls by Lendal bridge, the morons who installed them will now leave them unlocked. A stupid idea in the first place, installed by idiots - with our money. Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

After all the expense of putting barriers on the bar Walls by Lendal bridge, the morons who installed them will now leave them unlocked. A stupid idea in the first place, installed by idiots - with our money.
After all the expense of putting barriers on the bar Walls by Lendal bridge, the morons who installed them will now leave them unlocked. A stupid idea in the first place, installed by idiots - with our money. Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

And the answer to the unlocked parks problem? Easy! Alleygate them!
And the answer to the unlocked parks problem? Easy! Alleygate them! Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Mon 4 Feb 13

BertieBrompton says...

johnabostock wrote:
Dr Brian wrote:
Is it too late to pull out of the community stadium and use the money for something the majority of York rate payers want and not just the 2500 (many of whom do not pay council tax to CoY Council) who support York City and 700 who support York City Knights?
Excuse me Dr Brian! My wife and myself are both York City supporters, holding Season Tickets AND we both live in the City of York and pay CoYC Council Tax. On top of that my own father was born and brought up in York, as I was.
That makes 2503 supporters then I guess!
[quote][p][bold]johnabostock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Is it too late to pull out of the community stadium and use the money for something the majority of York rate payers want and not just the 2500 (many of whom do not pay council tax to CoY Council) who support York City and 700 who support York City Knights?[/p][/quote]Excuse me Dr Brian! My wife and myself are both York City supporters, holding Season Tickets AND we both live in the City of York and pay CoYC Council Tax. On top of that my own father was born and brought up in York, as I was.[/p][/quote]That makes 2503 supporters then I guess! BertieBrompton
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Mon 4 Feb 13

bob the builder says...

... it might be 1.9% on the core tax, but the precepts are all going up by far more making the total 20% for a lot of people.
... it might be 1.9% on the core tax, but the precepts are all going up by far more making the total 20% for a lot of people. bob the builder
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Mon 4 Feb 13

fear your government says...

im not sure about the saving money by not locking the gates.
i know the lad who walks round locking them and he is far from on a good wage.
what will it save 500 pound a month?(its a part time job).
rises every year, thats what we have all got to look forward to and you know WE DESERVE IT thats right every one of us deserve all the sh.t they throw and we will still roll over and ask for more...
im not sure about the saving money by not locking the gates. i know the lad who walks round locking them and he is far from on a good wage. what will it save 500 pound a month?(its a part time job). rises every year, thats what we have all got to look forward to and you know WE DESERVE IT thats right every one of us deserve all the sh.t they throw and we will still roll over and ask for more... fear your government
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Guy Fawkes says...

Anyway, nice to see a below-inflation rise. Effectively, it's a cut.


From the taxpayer's perspective, whether it's a cut or not depends on how much of a pay rise you got last year. I don't know what the official wage inflation figure is for the last complete financial year, but I'd be surprised if it's as much as 1.9%. My last pay rise was 0.5.

This reflects the bigger picture: only state pensioners, benefit claimants, some relatively low-paid public sector workers and a tiny proportion of the elite on mega-salaries have seen pay rises that keep up with inflation over the last 3-4 years. I would guess that almost everyone making roughly £20-70k have seen big, real terms falls in their standard of living, caused by a perfect storm of real terms pay cuts, tax hikes (not least the year-on-year lowering of the higher rate income tax threshold) and above inflation rises in non-discretionary bills (food, fuel etc.).
[quote]Anyway, nice to see a below-inflation rise. Effectively, it's a cut.[/quote] From the taxpayer's perspective, whether it's a cut or not depends on how much of a pay rise you got last year. I don't know what the official wage inflation figure is for the last complete financial year, but I'd be surprised if it's as much as 1.9%. My last pay rise was 0.5. This reflects the bigger picture: only state pensioners, benefit claimants, some relatively low-paid public sector workers and a tiny proportion of the elite on mega-salaries have seen pay rises that keep up with inflation over the last 3-4 years. I would guess that almost everyone making roughly £20-70k have seen big, real terms falls in their standard of living, caused by a perfect storm of real terms pay cuts, tax hikes (not least the year-on-year lowering of the higher rate income tax threshold) and above inflation rises in non-discretionary bills (food, fuel etc.). Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Mon 4 Feb 13

keepitshut says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
After all the expense of putting barriers on the bar Walls by Lendal bridge, the morons who installed them will now leave them unlocked. A stupid idea in the first place, installed by idiots - with our money.
Dont think it means the Bar Walls, think it means the Parks.
I also think none of the proposals are "set in stone" as such.
I really cannot see CYC leaving, for example, Rowntrees Park or West Bank Park open 24/7, too much damage, vandalism etc will occur etc.
These are all proposals only, the debate by cllrs is 3 weeks away, some will be thrown out.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: After all the expense of putting barriers on the bar Walls by Lendal bridge, the morons who installed them will now leave them unlocked. A stupid idea in the first place, installed by idiots - with our money.[/p][/quote]Dont think it means the Bar Walls, think it means the Parks. I also think none of the proposals are "set in stone" as such. I really cannot see CYC leaving, for example, Rowntrees Park or West Bank Park open 24/7, too much damage, vandalism etc will occur etc. These are all proposals only, the debate by cllrs is 3 weeks away, some will be thrown out. keepitshut
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Lunatic says...

timcore wrote:
£500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
[quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing. Lunatic
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Lunatic says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
Anyway, nice to see a below-inflation rise. Effectively, it's a cut.


From the taxpayer's perspective, whether it's a cut or not depends on how much of a pay rise you got last year. I don't know what the official wage inflation figure is for the last complete financial year, but I'd be surprised if it's as much as 1.9%. My last pay rise was 0.5.

This reflects the bigger picture: only state pensioners, benefit claimants, some relatively low-paid public sector workers and a tiny proportion of the elite on mega-salaries have seen pay rises that keep up with inflation over the last 3-4 years. I would guess that almost everyone making roughly £20-70k have seen big, real terms falls in their standard of living, caused by a perfect storm of real terms pay cuts, tax hikes (not least the year-on-year lowering of the higher rate income tax threshold) and above inflation rises in non-discretionary bills (food, fuel etc.).
Well, i can't speak for everybody, but I know one of the major supermarkets gave a 2% pay rise to its staff last year, in line with union input and other businesses in the sector. So, you know... It's a mixed bag for everyone.

Below inflation is still an effective cut. Whether it represents value for money is yet to be seen.
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]Anyway, nice to see a below-inflation rise. Effectively, it's a cut.[/quote] From the taxpayer's perspective, whether it's a cut or not depends on how much of a pay rise you got last year. I don't know what the official wage inflation figure is for the last complete financial year, but I'd be surprised if it's as much as 1.9%. My last pay rise was 0.5. This reflects the bigger picture: only state pensioners, benefit claimants, some relatively low-paid public sector workers and a tiny proportion of the elite on mega-salaries have seen pay rises that keep up with inflation over the last 3-4 years. I would guess that almost everyone making roughly £20-70k have seen big, real terms falls in their standard of living, caused by a perfect storm of real terms pay cuts, tax hikes (not least the year-on-year lowering of the higher rate income tax threshold) and above inflation rises in non-discretionary bills (food, fuel etc.).[/p][/quote]Well, i can't speak for everybody, but I know one of the major supermarkets gave a 2% pay rise to its staff last year, in line with union input and other businesses in the sector. So, you know... It's a mixed bag for everyone. Below inflation is still an effective cut. Whether it represents value for money is yet to be seen. Lunatic
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Mon 4 Feb 13

SaywhatIthink says...

What a set of robbing gets this council are. Take more money, give less back to those who pay. As for the Tour de France, give it a rest, send it to Scotland, do we really want it here? we get enough tourists, we live in a beautiful city, it always has been but if the council carry on like this we will be a city with streets of closed shops, dirty streets and overflowing bins, residential areas shot to s*$t and full of gang ridden parks......seriously
??
What a set of robbing gets this council are. Take more money, give less back to those who pay. As for the Tour de France, give it a rest, send it to Scotland, do we really want it here? we get enough tourists, we live in a beautiful city, it always has been but if the council carry on like this we will be a city with streets of closed shops, dirty streets and overflowing bins, residential areas shot to s*$t and full of gang ridden parks......seriously ?? SaywhatIthink
  • Score: 0

8:03pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Whistlejacket says...

I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne.
Obviously all this comes at a price,
difficult decisions have to be made.
A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.
I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected. Whistlejacket
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Mon 4 Feb 13

JHardacre says...

Lunatic wrote:
timcore wrote:
£500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right.
Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them!
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.[/p][/quote]So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right. Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them! JHardacre
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Mon 4 Feb 13

pedalling paul says...

Whistlejacket wrote:
I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne.
Obviously all this comes at a price,
difficult decisions have to be made.
A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.
I went one better and called in during Residents First weekend. Once the unsatisfactory mix of premises around the City are relinquished, there will be an overall financial gain. And I was very impressed with the staff cycle parking under the relocated victorian section of the old station roof........
[quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.[/p][/quote]I went one better and called in during Residents First weekend. Once the unsatisfactory mix of premises around the City are relinquished, there will be an overall financial gain. And I was very impressed with the staff cycle parking under the relocated victorian section of the old station roof........ pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Mon 4 Feb 13

MouseHouse says...

1.9% rise is a cut V inflation if you got a pay rise to suit. I didn't. No pay rise in five years now - so I'm about 18%-20% down in real terms over that term.

As for subsidising capitalists - we always have done, that's the beast that is capitalism. They sponge up money from any source, some argue directors are legally obliged too as they must put the interests of the shareholders first. I agree with that argument.
1.9% rise is a cut V inflation if you got a pay rise to suit. I didn't. No pay rise in five years now - so I'm about 18%-20% down in real terms over that term. As for subsidising capitalists - we always have done, that's the beast that is capitalism. They sponge up money from any source, some argue directors are legally obliged too as they must put the interests of the shareholders first. I agree with that argument. MouseHouse
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jgycfc says...

Careful now WhistleJacket, comments like that are seemingly becoming subject to censorship. What I can't work out is this: Is it York Press working for JA and the council, or have they (JA & Council) filled the Press offices with cronies.

Don't mention either the shocking accounting the "Savings" the new offices will give. clearly written on a damp beer mat after much of it was consumed.

As with most of the comments above, the money "saved" (actual) in direct costs of leaving parks unlocked is going to have much greater costs to the tax-payer, yet to be realised. A very short-sighted move.
Careful now WhistleJacket, comments like that are seemingly becoming subject to censorship. What I can't work out is this: Is it York Press working for JA and the council, or have they (JA & Council) filled the Press offices with cronies. Don't mention either the shocking accounting the "Savings" the new offices will give. clearly written on a damp beer mat after much of it was consumed. As with most of the comments above, the money "saved" (actual) in direct costs of leaving parks unlocked is going to have much greater costs to the tax-payer, yet to be realised. A very short-sighted move. jgycfc
  • Score: 0

11:33pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Guy Fawkes says...

The other thing Alexander isn't taking into account is that if you take more of people's money in tax, then that's money they're not going to spend on other things. 38p a week (his figure) x 52 is £19.76 a year. Let's say for argument's sake that half the 197,800 residents of York (figure from Wikipedia) pay council tax, after you take out children and those who are exempt from it for one reason or another. Assuming the average figure per council taxpayer, that's £1,954,264 he's just sucked out of the local economy a year at a stroke.

Now consider York's local economy. With the exception of the market and two or three pound shops, almost every retail outlet inside the city walls sells discretionary goods and services - all those restaurants, posh clothes shops, pubs, cinemas, theatres, places that sell tourist gifts and so on. A good proportion of that £1.95m that Alexander has just sucked out of the local economy would have been spent in those places, and now won't be. That will eventually trickle through into reduced business rate income, empty retail units, jobs lost (and so fewer council taxpayers) and cascading economic effects that will probably cost a lot more than the £1.9m that will be raised through this hike.

Pursuing Denis Healey economics - squeezing the middle class until the pips squeak - only works until you've squeezed as much as you can and the pips are already squeaking.
The other thing Alexander isn't taking into account is that if you take more of people's money in tax, then that's money they're not going to spend on other things. 38p a week (his figure) x 52 is £19.76 a year. Let's say for argument's sake that half the 197,800 residents of York (figure from Wikipedia) pay council tax, after you take out children and those who are exempt from it for one reason or another. Assuming the average figure per council taxpayer, that's £1,954,264 he's just sucked out of the local economy a year at a stroke. Now consider York's local economy. With the exception of the market and two or three pound shops, almost every retail outlet inside the city walls sells discretionary goods and services - all those restaurants, posh clothes shops, pubs, cinemas, theatres, places that sell tourist gifts and so on. A good proportion of that £1.95m that Alexander has just sucked out of the local economy would have been spent in those places, and now won't be. That will eventually trickle through into reduced business rate income, empty retail units, jobs lost (and so fewer council taxpayers) and cascading economic effects that will probably cost a lot more than the £1.9m that will be raised through this hike. Pursuing Denis Healey economics - squeezing the middle class until the pips squeak - only works until you've squeezed as much as you can and the pips are already squeaking. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

1:34am Tue 5 Feb 13

Magicman! says...

JC42 wrote:
looks like the courts are going to be very busy next year then as people are struggling now god help us all next year.
when is this nightmare going to end.
It'll probably ease in 2 and a half years once voters go to the polls to get the Eaton Ar$ewipe Cameron out of Number 10 and get somebody else there instead.

--

Which would residents rather have - universal 20mph speed limits and an arts barge, or potholes filled and salt bins?

And this is from a Tory councillor... quite possibly the only Tory in the country who actually makes any sense!!
[quote][p][bold]JC42[/bold] wrote: looks like the courts are going to be very busy next year then as people are struggling now god help us all next year. when is this nightmare going to end.[/p][/quote]It'll probably ease in 2 and a half years once voters go to the polls to get the Eaton Ar$ewipe Cameron out of Number 10 and get somebody else there instead. -- [quote]Which would residents rather have - universal 20mph speed limits and an arts barge, or potholes filled and salt bins?[/quote] And this is from a Tory councillor... quite possibly the only Tory in the country who actually makes any sense!! Magicman!
  • Score: 0

1:39am Tue 5 Feb 13

Magicman! says...

leont wrote:
Cuts to local services made worse by central government diktat (such as moving Council Tax Benefit to local councils). We should not let them get away with it.
.
It's not CYC's fault. Our local services are being cut because the Tory Etonians are giving tax breaks to themselves and their rich friends ... and because the likes of Starbucks and other corporate fatcats don't pay anything like their fair share ... and because the banksters have no moral compunction in stealing from the rest of us ordinary people and lining their own pockets. We all know this, but it's easy to forget what's causing local government austerity.
.
I'm happy to pay my fair share to live in a civilised city in a civilised country. And I want people richer than me also to pay their share. That's not happening at present. But CYC don't have the power to change things - central government just make it look as if it's their fault.
.
Remember this at next election time!
.
(And no, I'm not a member of any political party.)
Indeed. But the Etonians all keep stating that if they increased tax on the wealthiest and big corporations then they'd just shift papers round to make it look like they ahd less money - such as Starbucks working out their finances to state that they made zero profit. The answer there is to audit the finances of such companies by a government organisation, and anything which looks dodgy send out an ultimatum to either tell the truth or face a huge fine of something like £10million. Any company which is international would be kept under the "guilty unless proven innocent" mantra so that very accurate records have to be kept....
[quote][p][bold]leont[/bold] wrote: Cuts to local services made worse by central government diktat (such as moving Council Tax Benefit to local councils). We should not let them get away with it. . It's not CYC's fault. Our local services are being cut because the Tory Etonians are giving tax breaks to themselves and their rich friends ... and because the likes of Starbucks and other corporate fatcats don't pay anything like their fair share ... and because the banksters have no moral compunction in stealing from the rest of us ordinary people and lining their own pockets. We all know this, but it's easy to forget what's causing local government austerity. . I'm happy to pay my fair share to live in a civilised city in a civilised country. And I want people richer than me also to pay their share. That's not happening at present. But CYC don't have the power to change things - central government just make it look as if it's their fault. . Remember this at next election time! . (And no, I'm not a member of any political party.)[/p][/quote]Indeed. But the Etonians all keep stating that if they increased tax on the wealthiest and big corporations then they'd just shift papers round to make it look like they ahd less money - such as Starbucks working out their finances to state that they made zero profit. The answer there is to audit the finances of such companies by a government organisation, and anything which looks dodgy send out an ultimatum to either tell the truth or face a huge fine of something like £10million. Any company which is international would be kept under the "guilty unless proven innocent" mantra so that very accurate records have to be kept.... Magicman!
  • Score: 0

7:41am Tue 5 Feb 13

Buzz Light-year says...

@ Lunatic.
A rise is not a cut. Not effectively. Not ever.
Stop it!
@ Lunatic. A rise is not a cut. Not effectively. Not ever. Stop it! Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:44am Tue 5 Feb 13

capt spaulding says...

York press will put the incident of a few kids throwing snowballs at a hearse above the utter scandal of the Paris 2 claiming £400.00 each for fares that were already paid for by Yorkshire forward.

Reminds me of something a scottish friend said to me some time ago.
The old adage goes,

You can work out whats happening when you find out ~
"Whos up who ? and whos paying"
York press will put the incident of a few kids throwing snowballs at a hearse above the utter scandal of the Paris 2 claiming £400.00 each for fares that were already paid for by Yorkshire forward. Reminds me of something a scottish friend said to me some time ago. The old adage goes, You can work out whats happening when you find out ~ "Whos up who ? and whos paying" capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

9:22am Tue 5 Feb 13

roskoboskovic says...

after all the fuss about the monks cross development and it s perceived impact on the city centres shops the council are doing their damndest to push city shoppers away with another parking increase.leeds,donny
,hull etc all have reasonable parking charges and then there are the likes of white rose.saw ms england on tv last night and she even got her facts about richard 3rd wrong.we are governed by idiots.
after all the fuss about the monks cross development and it s perceived impact on the city centres shops the council are doing their damndest to push city shoppers away with another parking increase.leeds,donny ,hull etc all have reasonable parking charges and then there are the likes of white rose.saw ms england on tv last night and she even got her facts about richard 3rd wrong.we are governed by idiots. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 0

9:24am Tue 5 Feb 13

elliehick says...

I AM DISGUSTED!

Car parking is already over inflated and you wonder why city centre shops are suffering?!?!?! Take a trip to Doncaster where parking is cheap and city centre retail is flourishing....

Council tax going up?!?!?! We seem to be getting shafted every day by our lovely government.

You should be ashamed of yourselves!
I AM DISGUSTED! Car parking is already over inflated and you wonder why city centre shops are suffering?!?!?! Take a trip to Doncaster where parking is cheap and city centre retail is flourishing.... Council tax going up?!?!?! We seem to be getting shafted every day by our lovely government. You should be ashamed of yourselves! elliehick
  • Score: 0

10:04am Tue 5 Feb 13

ReginaldBiscuit says...

Looking at the top of this picture, I see at least two individuals in payment of the public purse who are not required and should face a bit of austerity clipping of their own. Both on 6 figure salaries. Disgraceful. However, in this watered-down autocratic version of democracy, you aren't given the choice of where you think the cuts should be. You are told where they will be by a bunch of on the face of it, overpaid fools and clowns.

We're at the stage with global austerity now where the poverty division in western nations is become more apparent and wider. The politicians, those puppets of business, those mortgage-flippers and false expense-claimers, whores of the financial corporates, seem incapable of sorting it out. In this context, a 1.9% council tax rise on those who are earning above the poverty wage isn't that bad. However, York has many workers who are poorly paid and certainly receive pay well below the national average. Throw in the pensioners who have seen their savings decimated by quantitive easing and low interest rates and you have a potentially explosive melting pot. This rise will be seen as a big kick in the teeth with a size 10 DM for many York citizens.

We're 5 years on now from the start of this financial chaos and a solution is no nearer. Our contemptible and spineless leaders lurch from one crisis meeting to the next. Nobody has really penalised the banks. They the institutions who have wrecked it for all of us. While people can still just about afford to eat, things will grind on. However, there are tipping-points. When you have food-kitchens supplying food for people to live on, he writing is on the wall (not on Chris Steward's wall mind). Rather than choosing aggression as an option and for some in the coming years, it may well be the only option, a well-organised campaign of civil disobedience may be a good choice of making local authorities and central government listen which they so obviously do not. Pensioners could withdraw child-support for a couple of days a week, people could start driving to work at 10mph, mass-numbers of us could withdraw our savings and simply refuse to pay council tax. Things like this would make them sit up and take notice. Everything is going up in price but it doesn't need to yet our 'masters' seem incapable of grasping this fact.

Caveat: 'None of the above' on voting slips at elections please which is ironic given that it would appear that 'none of the above' in the picture are worth more than a menial position in any organisation. Self-aggrandising brown-nosing apes sucking vast tracts of your hard-earned council tax payments into their current accounts and pensions.

Rant over. Kirk out.
Looking at the top of this picture, I see at least two individuals in payment of the public purse who are not required and should face a bit of austerity clipping of their own. Both on 6 figure salaries. Disgraceful. However, in this watered-down autocratic version of democracy, you aren't given the choice of where you think the cuts should be. You are told where they will be by a bunch of on the face of it, overpaid fools and clowns. We're at the stage with global austerity now where the poverty division in western nations is become more apparent and wider. The politicians, those puppets of business, those mortgage-flippers and false expense-claimers, whores of the financial corporates, seem incapable of sorting it out. In this context, a 1.9% council tax rise on those who are earning above the poverty wage isn't that bad. However, York has many workers who are poorly paid and certainly receive pay well below the national average. Throw in the pensioners who have seen their savings decimated by quantitive easing and low interest rates and you have a potentially explosive melting pot. This rise will be seen as a big kick in the teeth with a size 10 DM for many York citizens. We're 5 years on now from the start of this financial chaos and a solution is no nearer. Our contemptible and spineless leaders lurch from one crisis meeting to the next. Nobody has really penalised the banks. They the institutions who have wrecked it for all of us. While people can still just about afford to eat, things will grind on. However, there are tipping-points. When you have food-kitchens supplying food for people to live on, he writing is on the wall (not on Chris Steward's wall mind). Rather than choosing aggression as an option and for some in the coming years, it may well be the only option, a well-organised campaign of civil disobedience may be a good choice of making local authorities and central government listen which they so obviously do not. Pensioners could withdraw child-support for a couple of days a week, people could start driving to work at 10mph, mass-numbers of us could withdraw our savings and simply refuse to pay council tax. Things like this would make them sit up and take notice. Everything is going up in price but it doesn't need to yet our 'masters' seem incapable of grasping this fact. Caveat: 'None of the above' on voting slips at elections please which is ironic given that it would appear that 'none of the above' in the picture are worth more than a menial position in any organisation. Self-aggrandising brown-nosing apes sucking vast tracts of your hard-earned council tax payments into their current accounts and pensions. Rant over. Kirk out. ReginaldBiscuit
  • Score: 0

10:11am Tue 5 Feb 13

Candy Cupcake says...

Great proposal... charge more for the already over inflated car park charges, pushing more people to out off town shopping! I whole heartedly support leaving parks open all night, save the council money by passing the problem on to the Police when Youths start congregating and causing havoc... love it that they have the citizens safety at heart of their budget! YCC should be commended for putting their citizens and businesses first! Maybe I am wrong here, if they did more to support local city centre businesses, would that not equate to less vacant shops and more Business rates paid, maybe I got that wrong as it seems a bit too easy!
Great proposal... charge more for the already over inflated car park charges, pushing more people to out off town shopping! I whole heartedly support leaving parks open all night, save the council money by passing the problem on to the Police when Youths start congregating and causing havoc... love it that they have the citizens safety at heart of their budget! YCC should be commended for putting their citizens and businesses first! Maybe I am wrong here, if they did more to support local city centre businesses, would that not equate to less vacant shops and more Business rates paid, maybe I got that wrong as it seems a bit too easy! Candy Cupcake
  • Score: 0

10:15am Tue 5 Feb 13

Candy Cupcake says...

Oh I have just heard the exciting news that YCC are asking for Richard III remains to be buried in York? glad to see you have found some money for that, but to pay a park keeper to lock the parks at night!
Oh I have just heard the exciting news that YCC are asking for Richard III remains to be buried in York? glad to see you have found some money for that, but to pay a park keeper to lock the parks at night! Candy Cupcake
  • Score: 0

11:05am Tue 5 Feb 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Lunatic wrote:
timcore wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
The £11m came from the government, not out of our pockets !

The millions it brings in will benefit tourism operators, not residents. Why should WE subsidise tourism ?
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.[/p][/quote]The £11m came from the government, not out of our pockets ! The millions it brings in will benefit tourism operators, not residents. Why should WE subsidise tourism ? Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

11:06am Tue 5 Feb 13

peter123456 says...

Instead of York City council putting up council tax at 1.5% for all council tax payers who also pay for those who dont pay council tax what so ever. Why dont the council just take from those who dont pay at all. This would more than cover the 1.5% increase on all good paying citizens of York. Maybe then would the none payers start looking for a job and make them feel part of society. Hey this would be part of the big society program would it not. Bring bit on.
Instead of York City council putting up council tax at 1.5% for all council tax payers who also pay for those who dont pay council tax what so ever. Why dont the council just take from those who dont pay at all. This would more than cover the 1.5% increase on all good paying citizens of York. Maybe then would the none payers start looking for a job and make them feel part of society. Hey this would be part of the big society program would it not. Bring bit on. peter123456
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Tue 5 Feb 13

invisibleman says...

If a property is rented out to students and students do not pay council tax, does that mean that each of those properties do not contribute to the council tax purse? Would it not make more sence to charge the owners of that property a nominal fee - lets say as if it were a second home? It would be interesting to know what percentage of properties are occupied by students in York. NOT that I am having a go at students of course.
If a property is rented out to students and students do not pay council tax, does that mean that each of those properties do not contribute to the council tax purse? Would it not make more sence to charge the owners of that property a nominal fee - lets say as if it were a second home? It would be interesting to know what percentage of properties are occupied by students in York. NOT that I am having a go at students of course. invisibleman
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Lunatic says...

JHardacre wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
timcore wrote:
£500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right.
Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them!
Now that's just asinine.

The Tour de France will bring tourists to York, who will stay in locally-run hotels and shop in locally-run shops in the city centre. Those businesses will make more profit, just as they did during Ascot, and the council will take more than the £500k it invested in return.

Jeeze, I can't believe I have to explain simple economics to an adult...
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.[/p][/quote]So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right. Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them![/p][/quote]Now that's just asinine. The Tour de France will bring tourists to York, who will stay in locally-run hotels and shop in locally-run shops in the city centre. Those businesses will make more profit, just as they did during Ascot, and the council will take more than the £500k it invested in return. Jeeze, I can't believe I have to explain simple economics to an adult... Lunatic
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Tue 5 Feb 13

invisibleman says...

Sorry I have not read stories in chronological order and did not see the thread on paying for the bins, but does go to show that a few of us have the same thinking
Sorry I have not read stories in chronological order and did not see the thread on paying for the bins, but does go to show that a few of us have the same thinking invisibleman
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Tue 5 Feb 13

kenyona says...

Whistlejacket wrote:
I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.
Errr that is a hotel not the council offices.
[quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.[/p][/quote]Errr that is a hotel not the council offices. kenyona
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Lunatic says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
timcore wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
The £11m came from the government, not out of our pockets !

The millions it brings in will benefit tourism operators, not residents. Why should WE subsidise tourism ?
You do know the government gets its revenues from taxes, right? If that's not our pockets, I don't know what is...

So your argument would be that the local economy of York in no way benefits from the millions of tourists we get each and every year, staying in local hotels and using local businesses? Did you even think before you wrote that?
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.[/p][/quote]The £11m came from the government, not out of our pockets ! The millions it brings in will benefit tourism operators, not residents. Why should WE subsidise tourism ?[/p][/quote]You do know the government gets its revenues from taxes, right? If that's not our pockets, I don't know what is... So your argument would be that the local economy of York in no way benefits from the millions of tourists we get each and every year, staying in local hotels and using local businesses? Did you even think before you wrote that? Lunatic
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Tue 5 Feb 13

JHardacre says...

Lunatic wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
timcore wrote:
£500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right.
Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them!
Now that's just asinine.

The Tour de France will bring tourists to York, who will stay in locally-run hotels and shop in locally-run shops in the city centre. Those businesses will make more profit, just as they did during Ascot, and the council will take more than the £500k it invested in return.

Jeeze, I can't believe I have to explain simple economics to an adult...
Exactly where and how does the council get back it's £500K (and lets hope it's more otherwise it's a pointless investment).
From what you say it's the local hotels and local shops that will benefit. Since they will be paying the same council taxes with or without the race (and THAT money goes to Government anyway) I repeat - How exactly does the council get a return?
BTW my degree was in Economics -was yours?
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.[/p][/quote]So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right. Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them![/p][/quote]Now that's just asinine. The Tour de France will bring tourists to York, who will stay in locally-run hotels and shop in locally-run shops in the city centre. Those businesses will make more profit, just as they did during Ascot, and the council will take more than the £500k it invested in return. Jeeze, I can't believe I have to explain simple economics to an adult...[/p][/quote]Exactly where and how does the council get back it's £500K (and lets hope it's more otherwise it's a pointless investment). From what you say it's the local hotels and local shops that will benefit. Since they will be paying the same council taxes with or without the race (and THAT money goes to Government anyway) I repeat - How exactly does the council get a return? BTW my degree was in Economics -was yours? JHardacre
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Mork says...

If the proposals are passed at a full council meeting this month, fees for car parks will rise by 20p for residents and 10p for non-residents in April.
Thats right further clobber the poor resident
If the proposals are passed at a full council meeting this month, fees for car parks will rise by 20p for residents and 10p for non-residents in April. Thats right further clobber the poor resident Mork
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Whistlejacket says...

kenyona wrote:
Whistlejacket wrote:
I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.
Errr that is a hotel not the council offices.
Err, I'm afraid not, Kenyona.
I'm aware that there is a new hotel next door to the council's pleasure palace, but go and take a look if you don't believe me.
Make it fast, I'm sure the curtains will be going up soon to protect those in the gilded circle from the gaze of the plebians outside.
[quote][p][bold]kenyona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.[/p][/quote]Errr that is a hotel not the council offices.[/p][/quote]Err, I'm afraid not, Kenyona. I'm aware that there is a new hotel next door to the council's pleasure palace, but go and take a look if you don't believe me. Make it fast, I'm sure the curtains will be going up soon to protect those in the gilded circle from the gaze of the plebians outside. Whistlejacket
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Tue 5 Feb 13

kenyona says...

Whistlejacket wrote:
kenyona wrote:
Whistlejacket wrote: I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.
Errr that is a hotel not the council offices.
Err, I'm afraid not, Kenyona. I'm aware that there is a new hotel next door to the council's pleasure palace, but go and take a look if you don't believe me. Make it fast, I'm sure the curtains will be going up soon to protect those in the gilded circle from the gaze of the plebians outside.
Well if that is the case i stand corrected.
[quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kenyona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.[/p][/quote]Errr that is a hotel not the council offices.[/p][/quote]Err, I'm afraid not, Kenyona. I'm aware that there is a new hotel next door to the council's pleasure palace, but go and take a look if you don't believe me. Make it fast, I'm sure the curtains will be going up soon to protect those in the gilded circle from the gaze of the plebians outside.[/p][/quote]Well if that is the case i stand corrected. kenyona
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Tue 5 Feb 13

TheTruthHurts says...

Is it not KERSTEN England york press?
Is it not KERSTEN England york press? TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Tue 5 Feb 13

bob the builder says...

You can make this claim if you start charging for services that were previously included like waste, libraries etc
You can make this claim if you start charging for services that were previously included like waste, libraries etc bob the builder
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Lunatic wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
timcore wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right. Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them!
Now that's just asinine. The Tour de France will bring tourists to York, who will stay in locally-run hotels and shop in locally-run shops in the city centre. Those businesses will make more profit, just as they did during Ascot, and the council will take more than the £500k it invested in return. Jeeze, I can't believe I have to explain simple economics to an adult...
Explain how the Council 'will take more than the £500k' (of our money) 'it invested in return' ?

Detail precisely how they will recover this money, and where from ?

I don't think you understand the simple economics, actually !
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.[/p][/quote]So the council should pay out so that others can make a profit. That can't be right. Tesco's makes a profit in York but I don't see the council subsidising them![/p][/quote]Now that's just asinine. The Tour de France will bring tourists to York, who will stay in locally-run hotels and shop in locally-run shops in the city centre. Those businesses will make more profit, just as they did during Ascot, and the council will take more than the £500k it invested in return. Jeeze, I can't believe I have to explain simple economics to an adult...[/p][/quote]Explain how the Council 'will take more than the £500k' (of our money) 'it invested in return' ? Detail precisely how they will recover this money, and where from ? I don't think you understand the simple economics, actually ! Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Lunatic wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
timcore wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?
Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.
The £11m came from the government, not out of our pockets ! The millions it brings in will benefit tourism operators, not residents. Why should WE subsidise tourism ?
You do know the government gets its revenues from taxes, right? If that's not our pockets, I don't know what is... So your argument would be that the local economy of York in no way benefits from the millions of tourists we get each and every year, staying in local hotels and using local businesses? Did you even think before you wrote that?
The government takes tax from the whole of the UK. COYC takes council tax from York residents.

The £11m costs all UK taxpayers.

The £500k costs York residents !!!!

Yes, I thought about it, but, you clearly didn't !

You should get a job at the council or become a councillor with your towering intellect and understanding of government funding.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: £500,000 for the Tour de France? Regardless of what it does for the region, why should we pay for that?[/p][/quote]Well, how about the fact it will bring millions of pounds to the local economy in tourism alone? I don't recall people complaining as much when Ascot came to York, and they spent £11m on one of the A64's junctions alone! £500k is nothing.[/p][/quote]The £11m came from the government, not out of our pockets ! The millions it brings in will benefit tourism operators, not residents. Why should WE subsidise tourism ?[/p][/quote]You do know the government gets its revenues from taxes, right? If that's not our pockets, I don't know what is... So your argument would be that the local economy of York in no way benefits from the millions of tourists we get each and every year, staying in local hotels and using local businesses? Did you even think before you wrote that?[/p][/quote]The government takes tax from the whole of the UK. COYC takes council tax from York residents. The £11m costs all UK taxpayers. The £500k costs York residents !!!! Yes, I thought about it, but, you clearly didn't ! You should get a job at the council or become a councillor with your towering intellect and understanding of government funding. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Tue 5 Feb 13

oi oi savaloy says...

they should set a rosta up for locking the park gates

week 1 kersten england

week 2 king james of alexandria

week 3 red sonja

week 4 simpson-laing

and then back to the start of the rosta..

about time they did something usefull
they should set a rosta up for locking the park gates week 1 kersten england week 2 king james of alexandria week 3 red sonja week 4 simpson-laing and then back to the start of the rosta.. about time they did something usefull oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 0

2:43am Wed 6 Feb 13

Magicman! says...

peter123456 wrote:
Instead of York City council putting up council tax at 1.5% for all council tax payers who also pay for those who dont pay council tax what so ever. Why dont the council just take from those who dont pay at all. This would more than cover the 1.5% increase on all good paying citizens of York. Maybe then would the none payers start looking for a job and make them feel part of society. Hey this would be part of the big society program would it not. Bring bit on.
Well if you took your head out of the Daily Mail you might find out that York ARE doing this... as the government has washed it's hands of the council tax benefit scheme and handed it down to local councils, effectively making a massive cut to the money it is paying councils, local authorites have had a choice as to whether to continue to subsidise those who do not have enough income to pay council tax... York has decided that just because you have no money coming in doesn't mean you should not pay council tax - so now jobseekers, in addition to having a cap on benefit rise to just 1% over the next 3 years (a below inflation rise that essentially in real terms is a benefit cut, compared to, for example, rail fares rising at Inflation +3%), will now be forced to pay council tax, so what little money they have will now be pulled away by even more people.
[quote][p][bold]peter123456[/bold] wrote: Instead of York City council putting up council tax at 1.5% for all council tax payers who also pay for those who dont pay council tax what so ever. Why dont the council just take from those who dont pay at all. This would more than cover the 1.5% increase on all good paying citizens of York. Maybe then would the none payers start looking for a job and make them feel part of society. Hey this would be part of the big society program would it not. Bring bit on.[/p][/quote]Well if you took your head out of the Daily Mail you might find out that York ARE doing this... as the government has washed it's hands of the council tax benefit scheme and handed it down to local councils, effectively making a massive cut to the money it is paying councils, local authorites have had a choice as to whether to continue to subsidise those who do not have enough income to pay council tax... York has decided that just because you have no money coming in doesn't mean you should not pay council tax - so now jobseekers, in addition to having a cap on benefit rise to just 1% over the next 3 years (a below inflation rise that essentially in real terms is a benefit cut, compared to, for example, rail fares rising at Inflation +3%), will now be forced to pay council tax, so what little money they have will now be pulled away by even more people. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

9:47am Wed 6 Feb 13

keepitshut says...

Whistlejacket wrote:
kenyona wrote:
Whistlejacket wrote: I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.
Errr that is a hotel not the council offices.
Err, I'm afraid not, Kenyona. I'm aware that there is a new hotel next door to the council's pleasure palace, but go and take a look if you don't believe me. Make it fast, I'm sure the curtains will be going up soon to protect those in the gilded circle from the gaze of the plebians outside.
I have been for a look, the bar is the hotel next door.
[quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kenyona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: I walked past the new council HQ at the weekend. The bar on the ground floor looks very pleasant: comfy sofas, Boddingtons, Becks and Stella on draught and a selection of wine and champagne. Obviously all this comes at a price, difficult decisions have to be made. A rise in council tax and a cut in services is only to be expected.[/p][/quote]Errr that is a hotel not the council offices.[/p][/quote]Err, I'm afraid not, Kenyona. I'm aware that there is a new hotel next door to the council's pleasure palace, but go and take a look if you don't believe me. Make it fast, I'm sure the curtains will be going up soon to protect those in the gilded circle from the gaze of the plebians outside.[/p][/quote]I have been for a look, the bar is the hotel next door. keepitshut
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Thu 7 Feb 13

anistasia says...

Nobody as asked us the paying public how we want our money spent.some post above got it right if you don't lock up parks they will get vandalised then council will turn round say it's too expensive to repair then sell it off to build on.someone on benefits as more to pay each year.from this year they pay so much rent, council tax, hike in prices for gas, electric, water, and now green bin tax where do the council think these people are getting the money from.this is my personal view but I think a lot of people will agree with me.I agree everyone should pay something but all in the same financial year.I think homeless and mental health cases will rise.
Nobody as asked us the paying public how we want our money spent.some post above got it right if you don't lock up parks they will get vandalised then council will turn round say it's too expensive to repair then sell it off to build on.someone on benefits as more to pay each year.from this year they pay so much rent, council tax, hike in prices for gas, electric, water, and now green bin tax where do the council think these people are getting the money from.this is my personal view but I think a lot of people will agree with me.I agree everyone should pay something but all in the same financial year.I think homeless and mental health cases will rise. anistasia
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Thu 7 Feb 13

chelk says...

I blame all the people who voted them in you elect a bunch of Muppets you get the Muppet show people should have learnt from seeing the last Labour government and what they did with our money
I blame all the people who voted them in you elect a bunch of Muppets you get the Muppet show people should have learnt from seeing the last Labour government and what they did with our money chelk
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Thu 7 Feb 13

jgycfc says...

Chelk, the problems are many, to name a few:
No one wanted the last lot (Lib Dem) in York... Even their main guys lost their seats;
the Out of Touch, or probably now better known "you're in it. we're together" Party thankfully only got a couple in;
The Greens know little about anything other than being green

So it was a vote of attrition.

You have a choice: Career politicians who are clueless to the real world, or people with baggage.

We've gone from a baggage carrier to a career politician. And no one was to know how this one would act. This lot will be judged on their actions at local level next time around. (When is that?)
Chelk, the problems are many, to name a few: No one wanted the last lot (Lib Dem) in York... Even their main guys lost their seats; the Out of Touch, or probably now better known "you're in it. we're together" Party thankfully only got a couple in; The Greens know little about anything other than being green So it was a vote of attrition. You have a choice: Career politicians who are clueless to the real world, or people with baggage. We've gone from a baggage carrier to a career politician. And no one was to know how this one would act. This lot will be judged on their actions at local level next time around. (When is that?) jgycfc
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree