So thats an average of £90 a year apparently and obviously the wealthier you are the more you pay as you like in a more expensive house.

So why the outcry? it seems a perfectly reasonable plan to me, I have no problem with handing over a couple of quid a week.

Put in in NI or Tax .. it's fairer ..Also gets away from blaming "the council" ..

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Some things are worth paying more for and health and education are the two worth paying the most..

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

agree with increase in income tax and/or national insurance. might not like the government but wouldn,t give councils droppings off my you know what if i could help it no matter where i live.

I must be more cynical than everyone else.

I would be prepared to give a bit more forthe reasons above, but only if the government could prove that thats where the cash had gone.

And I have no faith that they would be able to prove or audit it.

All money goes into a black hole tobe used to cover whatever fuck up governments make.

If it was council tax, then I want to know ehere exactly my contribution goes now. I am sure more than 6% of that goes on things I would rather not pay for. Somethings I shouldnt have to contribute to.

Its far too easy for officials to say "we are going to raise your council tax by 6% to pay for elderly care".

Yes yes, of course it is.

And I guarantee in 2/3 years time we will all be wondering whatever happened to that promise.

Im out.

If they stopped force-feeding the elderly so much unnecessary medication the care package would cost a whole lot less. The minute an elderly person goes into a care home, s/he is mysteriously reassessed, and prescribed a cocktail of pills they somehow didn't need before.

Pharmaceuticals are a nice little earner for some.

Totally agree with The Colonel. This additional contribution could go anywhere to make up for this Government's shit finance management

I can't see why they need to single-out old people's care as being different from other people's care unless the plan is to allow people to vote on whether to have tax increases or cuts. If they can do that they can avoid being blamed for the gradual collapse of care systems in some areas because the local population will have voted to do it.

Complete bollocks of course. Most local spending comes from national budgets anyway so if they're going to start giving explanations and choices about some areas of spending why not do it about all of them?

they could start with:

We'd like to increase taxes by 5%and cut spending on the NHS by 10% because we have to ensure that we play a full role in any future nuclear armageddon. Is this OK with you?

And a good way to keep them under control.

As opposed to the glory years of Gordon Brown?

I still cannot understand the logic in spending mega billions on Trident. We'll never ever use them.

Hope not.

It could be argued that's the point of Trident though, purely a deterrent. A hugely overpriced deterrent that some ex officer no doubt signed off on before becoming a consultant to Lockheed Martin on a hefty wage.

You and I probably shouldn't get onto the subject of Brexit, we haven't spoken for six months.

Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."
Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
Jim Hacker: "They probably do."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."