At Wednesday’s full council meeting, councillors debated and voted upon new arrangements for collecting council tax, in preparation of the abolition of the national council tax benefit scheme in April (as pointed out here On The Wight back in August last year).
Readers may have taken part in the public consultation that took place last year and know that those collecting benefits who are deemed capable of working (even if unable to find work), will be expected to contribute to their council tax bill from April.
Contribution for some equal to 2-3 meals
During previous debates in County Hall on the subject, Cllr Lumley had pointed out that for a young person on Job Seekers Allowance – living on £48 per week – having to pay £4-5 per week (towards their council tax) would be equal to two or three meals, so it was little surprise to hear him on Wednesday reject the proposal and vote against it along with four other councillors. 25 councillors voted in favour of the scheme.
Cllr Lumley told members that the Paper for the changes to council tax was one of the most technical paper he’s seen, adding “If councillors say they understand it, they’re lying.”
He said certain parts of the coalition Government had turned the discussion about unemployed people so nasty, he could not support it. If he were leading the council, he would have taken a different approach, he said.
Don’t demonise second home owners
Cllr Brown supported the scheme but remarked that second-home owners should not be demonised as they added significantly to the economy, recognising that the IWC should promote the Island as somewhere very good to live and hold out a welcoming hand to those who love the Island so much they chose to have a second home here.
So complicated
Cllr Barry said decisions such as these should be taken at Government level, not at local council level.
He added that the scheme was so complicated, one couldn’t be sure what they were voting for.
‘Tough decision’
Cllr Stewart said that this was ‘tough decision’, but that further ‘tough decisions’ would need to be made in the coming years that would not please everyone.
Cllr Welsford disagreed, saying they were not making ‘tough decisions’, these were the easy ones, he said. ‘Tough decisions’ would be be coming down harder on the financial services industry, not picking on those who can’t fight back. He said that were he in the ruling group he would look for ways of preventing harming the most vulnerable in society. He finished by saying that he wouldn’t be voting for the scheme.
“They just sit back and take the money”
Cllr Mazillius repeated an example given at PM’s question time about someone living in London receiving benefits of over £100,000 per year and paying no council tax. “They just sit back and take the money” he said. “We have people here receiving £26,000 in benefits paying no council tax and the guy next door who works for 40 hours a week and he pays.” He said it was “a very difficult idea but one that we have to grasp.”
Cllr Hutchinson pointed out that if the scheme is not voted through, the IWC would be forced to default to the national scheme, adding that the IWC scheme had a couple of safeguards that the national scheme does not.
The vote
Cllr Pugh summed up pointing out that the IWC had put specific safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable. The vote was taken with 25 votes in favour and five against.
Image: © Tax Brackets
