Near Miss of the Day 453: Punishment pass on two-abreast cyclists

On 17/08/2020 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2020 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/2020 03:40, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2020 19:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 16:46, JNugent wrote:

My LA also has to pay tax on the profit of its business
activities.

What "tax" would that be?

I just threw it in to illustrate that the LA is a net contributor.

*Most* unlikely.

Local authorities count their government grants in tens of millions
of pounds per annum.

"In 2019/20, due to a special
increase to the business rates tariff payments which we must pay, we
will have a negative grant of £7.1million, meaning we will be
subsidising other local authorities."

That's a traduction (AKA a falsehood). Someone is deceitfully playing
with words, probably taking up the position that the central government
receipt of business rate revenue is "theirs".

Some years ago, the LA used to send out a sheet in plain font showing
straightforward input and output. Now, it looks as though they have
recruited media studies graduates that have been taught to use whizzy
features of presentation tools without any understanding of the
information they are supposed to present. And it requires trawling
through many documents to get any view at all. I agree there is a lot of
obfuscation.

But you appear to be "playing with words" by calling money retained from
business rates a "grant".

Please state which British local authority got no central taxpayers'
grant and had to pay money into the Treasury instead.

Wokingham.

By the way, there's nothing wrong in principle with certain LAs
subsidising other LAs. The City of London Corporation is the best
example of that.

In government there is often a big difference between principle and
execution.

On 17/08/2020 12:46, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/08/2020 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2020 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/2020 03:40, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2020 19:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 16:46, JNugent wrote:

My LA also has to pay tax on the profit of its business
activities.

What "tax" would that be?

I just threw it in to illustrate that the LA is a net contributor.

*Most* unlikely.

Local authorities count their government grants in tens of millions
of pounds per annum.

"In 2019/20, due to a special
increase to the business rates tariff payments which we must pay, we
will have a negative grant of £7.1million, meaning we will be
subsidising other local authorities."

That's a traduction (AKA a falsehood). Someone is deceitfully playing
with words, probably taking up the position that the central
government receipt of business rate revenue is "theirs".

Some years ago, the LA used to send out a sheet in plain font showing
straightforward input and output. Now, it looks as though they have
recruited media studies graduates that have been taught to use whizzy
features of presentation tools without any understanding of the
information they are supposed to present. And it requires trawling
through many documents to get any view at all. I agree there is a lot of
obfuscation.

But you appear to be "playing with words" by calling money retained from
business rates a "grant".

I have not done that. I entered the conversation only on the subject of
the allegation that some LAs "pay tax". They don't. They all receive
tax, from various sources especially including Treasury funds.

Please state which British local authority got no central taxpayers'
grant and had to pay money into the Treasury instead.

Wokingham.

Do you mean it had to collect Council Tax and give some of it to the
Treasury, with the amount being greater than the funds passing from the
Treasury to Wokingham in the same municipal year?

A citation would be useful.

By the way, there's nothing wrong in principle with certain LAs
subsidising other LAs. The City of London Corporation is the best
example of that.

In government there is often a big difference between principle and
execution.

The City of London is a net payer.

On 17/08/2020 15:13, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2020 12:46, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/08/2020 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2020 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/2020 03:40, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2020 19:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 16:46, JNugent wrote:

My LA also has to pay tax on the profit of its business
activities.

What "tax" would that be?

I just threw it in to illustrate that the LA is a net contributor.

*Most* unlikely.

Local authorities count their government grants in tens of millions
of pounds per annum.

"In 2019/20, due to a special
increase to the business rates tariff payments which we must pay, we
will have a negative grant of £7.1million, meaning we will be
subsidising other local authorities."

That's a traduction (AKA a falsehood). Someone is deceitfully playing
with words, probably taking up the position that the central
government receipt of business rate revenue is "theirs".

Some years ago, the LA used to send out a sheet in plain font showing
straightforward input and output. Now, it looks as though they have
recruited media studies graduates that have been taught to use whizzy
features of presentation tools without any understanding of the
information they are supposed to present. And it requires trawling
through many documents to get any view at all. I agree there is a lot
of obfuscation.

But you appear to be "playing with words" by calling money retained
from business rates a "grant".

I have not done that. I entered the conversation only on the subject of
the allegation that some LAs "pay tax". They don't. They all receive
tax, from various sources especially including Treasury funds.

Please state which British local authority got no central taxpayers'
grant and had to pay money into the Treasury instead.

Wokingham.

Do you mean it had to collect Council Tax and give some of it to the
Treasury, with the amount being greater than the funds passing from the
Treasury to Wokingham in the same municipal year?

A citation would be useful.

By the way, there's nothing wrong in principle with certain LAs
subsidising other LAs. The City of London Corporation is the best
example of that.

In government there is often a big difference between principle and
execution.

The City of London is a net payer.

I found the Wokingham 2019-2020 information in a downloadable pdf file:

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/445164.pdf

Wokingham's own figures in one part of the document seem to indicate
that at least 22% of the council's income comes from "general support"
(their term for the total of money from taxpayers*, not all of whom live
in Wokingham or even in Berkshire).

I say "seem to" and "at least 22%" only because it the figures are
provided in the form of a histogram marked off only at with 10%
gradations. It looks like 22% on the chart.

A big pie chart near the beginning of the article points out that this
"general fund" receipt amounts to £112,000,000 in the relevant year.

There is also a general complaint to the effect that some other councils
get more then they do. They give the example of Blackpool. I wonder how
many tax-paying Wokingham residents would willingly move to the Fylde coast?

On 17/08/2020 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2020 15:13, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2020 12:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/2020 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2020 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/2020 03:40, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2020 19:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 16:46, JNugent wrote:

My LA also has to pay tax on the profit of its
business activities.

What "tax" would that be?

I just threw it in to illustrate that the LA is a net
contributor.

*Most* unlikely.

Local authorities count their government grants in tens of
millions of pounds per annum.

"In 2019/20, due to a special increase to the business rates
tariff payments which we must pay, we will have a negative
grant of £7.1million, meaning we will be subsidising other
local authorities."

That's a traduction (AKA a falsehood). Someone is deceitfully
playing with words, probably taking up the position that the
central government receipt of business rate revenue is
"theirs".

Some years ago, the LA used to send out a sheet in plain font
showing straightforward input and output. Now, it looks as
though they have recruited media studies graduates that have been
taught to use whizzy features of presentation tools without any
understanding of the information they are supposed to present.
And it requires trawling through many documents to get any view
at all. I agree there is a lot of obfuscation.

But you appear to be "playing with words" by calling money
retained from business rates a "grant".

I have not done that. I entered the conversation only on the
subject of the allegation that some LAs "pay tax". They don't.
They all receive tax, from various sources especially including
Treasury funds.

Obviously the businesses councils run have to be taxed just like any
other concern. I just threw it in as an aside to a discussion about road
funding but as a sum it's probably of similar size to the stationary
budget. Don't get hung up about it.

I found the Wokingham 2019-2020 information in a downloadable pdf
file:

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/445164.pdf


I have already seen this one.

Wokingham's own figures in one part of the document seem to indicate
that at least 22% of the council's income comes from "general
support" (their term for the total of money from taxpayers*, not all
of whom live in Wokingham or even in Berkshire).

I say "seem to" and "at least 22%" only because it the figures are
provided in the form of a histogram marked off only at with 10%
gradations. It looks like 22% on the chart.

A big pie chart near the beginning of the article points out that
this "general fund" receipt amounts to £112,000,000 in the relevant
year.

In their words, the "general fund" "Includes council tax, retained
business rates and revenue support grant, along with other specific
grants" RSG is zero.

There is also a general complaint to the effect that some other
councils get more then they do. They give the example of Blackpool.
I wonder how many tax-paying Wokingham residents would willingly
move to the Fylde coast?

Well, Wokingham and Reading sit in the middle of a generally benign
microclimate... Though some people probably leave to swap their
semi for a mansion.

Blackpool has fewer taxpayers and higher welfare obligations. This is
the primary cost to outside taxpayers.