THE implication of the news item on page 3 (January 27) may have passed some readers by. But a 400 per cent increase in the town council element of the rates will mean that ratepayers have to find an extra £9.80 per month (average Band D household) just for that part of the rates; we have yet to discover how much more we are going to be asked to pay to cover the other elements which make up the rates bill.
Yet pensioners are going to receive just 75 pence a week extra because in the key month of 1999 which governs such things, inflation (based on the retail price index which does not include rates or utilities) was running at 1.1 per cent.
Those on benefits will not be penalised. But those who have managed during their lifetime to save a little over the £16,000 threshold for rebate in order to supplement the state pension, will have no alternative but to eat into them.
I have singled out pensioners but there will be other categories of ratepayers who will be unable to fund this increase from income and yet do not qualify for a rebate. There may well be some who wonder why it is worth bothering to save at all when their savings have to be used to pay a legal bill for which they were not responsible.
I was under the impression that domestic rates are to pay for the services which the community receives, ie police, education, care in the community, street lighting, roads etc. How do we benefit from a legal bill and why was it incurred in the first place?
I hope that the ratepayers of West Devon will make their feelings known and campaign vigorously against this unwarranted burden.
Maureen Bridge
4 Watts Road
Tavistock
I WAS horrified on returning from a short absence abroad to find from reading your story 'Town's tax rise will hit borough' (January 27) that our new masters at the council still haven't managed to explain the full impact of Tavistock town council's quadrupled precept.
Col Howard is quoted as saying that if, having raised this huge sum partly to cover their legal expenses, the town council gets some of it back 'Councillors will decide . . . whether to bring things forward early . . or they could squirrel it away.'
I cannot believe that any responsible officer or members of the town council could even hint at the idea that once they've got the money they might as well stick to it, if they realised that the government's trap is cumulative, and the massive fine on the extra money will be paid again year after year for as long as the system lasts — to be exact, until the cumulative increase allowed by the government catches up with the cumulative overspend — not in my lifetime I think, even if parishes and town councils show markedly more restraint in future!
It is absolutely vital that the town council restrict their 'take' to the absolute minimum to meet the needs of recent follies, and that they use any chance to repay every penny they can, by reducing future precepts.
I can see absolutely no justification for their making the rest of us pay a penny more than can be avoided this year, and deliberately to make us go on paying for years ahead would be outrageous.
Nicholas Waterhouse
West Devon Borough Council Chair of policy and resources 1998/99 (Council Tax increase 2.75 per cent)
AS a new councillor who has been able to exercise my option to vote against the increased precept based on litigation costs, I feel it important that alternatives are openly discussed with rate payer participants to conform with public accountability, transparency and best value policies.
Cllr Caroline Keane