Families need to budget better for cuts, says high-ranking councillor

Councillor Hayley Eachus

Councillor Hayley Eachus

First published in News by

A SENIOR Basingstoke and Deane councillor has suggested that families facing council tax benefit cuts will need to budget better.

Councillor Hayley Eachus, Cabinet member for community services, was responding to claims by Labour councillor Paul Harvey that working families will be forced to find hundreds of pounds when cuts to state benefits come into force from next April.

Cllr Harvey said: “Can I ask you to justify for me – and this is a moral issue – a £440 cut, or rise in council tax to a family that is working? Where are you expecting people to find it? These are working people.”

In response, Cllr Eachus, said: “I think it’s just about encouraging people to budget, and there will be assistance from groups like the CAB to do that.”

The comment, at an economic prosperity and performance committee meeting, came as councillors were discussing slashing council tax benefit given to people on low incomes.

It is proposed that from April next year, council tax benefit support will decrease by 30 per cent over three years.

If agreed, the change will be phased in, with an 8.5 per cent reduction from April 2013, rising to 20 per cent the next year, and then 30 per cent from April 2015.

The change would affect 3,300 claimants in the borough – 57 per cent of the total number of people receiving council tax benefit support.

People on disabled benefits, or carers’ allowances, as well as council tax support claimants with children under five will be exempt from the cuts.

A report to the committee estimates that a couple with two children earning less than £12,000 a year could lose up to £157 a year in council tax support by April 2015.

Cllr Eachus, left, who represents Kempshott, said the phased reduction in support will allow the council to review the effects the change has on residents, and she insisted that the most vulnerable will remain protected.

“We are looking at phasing it,” she said. “And we are keeping it as small as we can, and protecting the most vulnerable – the carers, the disabled, the pensioners, and those with children under five.”

A majority of the committee voted in favour of the scheme, and the 60-strong full council will vote in January on whether to implement the three-year plan.

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:57pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Folkestone Saint says...

So the under funded CAB will say "your only option is to become un-employed, then you may find you can also afford sky t.v. and a 50" plasma to watch it"
So the under funded CAB will say "your only option is to become un-employed, then you may find you can also afford sky t.v. and a 50" plasma to watch it" Folkestone Saint
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Jo Walke says...

If only it was council tax benefit! Housing benefit is also set to change next year - local housing allowance already has.
Out of touch? - local conservatives continue to prove that they are! But it is not just them - a lot of people do not realise that it could be them that need to make use of 'out of work benefits' & just how far these benefits fail to stretch.
Something not mentioned often by the conservatives.....mo
re benefit is paid to those IN WORK than those out of it.
If only it was council tax benefit! Housing benefit is also set to change next year - local housing allowance already has. Out of touch? - local conservatives continue to prove that they are! But it is not just them - a lot of people do not realise that it could be them that need to make use of 'out of work benefits' & just how far these benefits fail to stretch. Something not mentioned often by the conservatives.....mo re benefit is paid to those IN WORK than those out of it. Jo Walke
  • Score: 0

11:18am Tue 4 Dec 12

Pacifier says...

What a stupid ignorant comment from a Cllr who shows she and her fellow tories are so out of touch with what is going on in the poorer households of Basingstoke! I hope next May that the people of Basingstoke will kick her out of office, wonder how she'll manage without her huge salary as a cabinet member ! She is a disgrace!!!!
What a stupid ignorant comment from a Cllr who shows she and her fellow tories are so out of touch with what is going on in the poorer households of Basingstoke! I hope next May that the people of Basingstoke will kick her out of office, wonder how she'll manage without her huge salary as a cabinet member ! She is a disgrace!!!! Pacifier
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Tue 4 Dec 12

jonone says...

Jo Walke wrote:
If only it was council tax benefit! Housing benefit is also set to change next year - local housing allowance already has. Out of touch? - local conservatives continue to prove that they are! But it is not just them - a lot of people do not realise that it could be them that need to make use of 'out of work benefits' & just how far these benefits fail to stretch. Something not mentioned often by the conservatives.....mo re benefit is paid to those IN WORK than those out of it.
You are right - it may be me that needs welfare support in the future. However, i would not have a subscription to Sky TV or smoke cigarettes etc. Perhaps the "out of touch" Tories see people living in social housing and wonder how they afford such luxuries.... (For clarity - Sky TV is a luxury because it is above and beyond the standard offer - Freeview)
[quote][p][bold]Jo Walke[/bold] wrote: If only it was council tax benefit! Housing benefit is also set to change next year - local housing allowance already has. Out of touch? - local conservatives continue to prove that they are! But it is not just them - a lot of people do not realise that it could be them that need to make use of 'out of work benefits' & just how far these benefits fail to stretch. Something not mentioned often by the conservatives.....mo re benefit is paid to those IN WORK than those out of it.[/p][/quote]You are right - it may be me that needs welfare support in the future. However, i would not have a subscription to Sky TV or smoke cigarettes etc. Perhaps the "out of touch" Tories see people living in social housing and wonder how they afford such luxuries.... (For clarity - Sky TV is a luxury because it is above and beyond the standard offer - Freeview) jonone
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Tue 4 Dec 12

Jo Walke says...

jonone - just because someone has a dish attached to the side of their house doesn't necessarily mean they have sky tv - they could have freesat? :/
Not all social housing tenants claim benefits and, could just possibly be earning minimum wage - which would not allow the 'luxury' of affording a mortgage which would presumably see those who do spend their later years without the worry of still having to pay rent? :/
jonone - just because someone has a dish attached to the side of their house doesn't necessarily mean they have sky tv - they could have freesat? :/ Not all social housing tenants claim benefits and, could just possibly be earning minimum wage - which would not allow the 'luxury' of affording a mortgage which would presumably see those who do spend their later years without the worry of still having to pay rent? :/ Jo Walke
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Wed 5 Dec 12

jonone says...

Jo Walke wrote:
jonone - just because someone has a dish attached to the side of their house doesn't necessarily mean they have sky tv - they could have freesat? :/ Not all social housing tenants claim benefits and, could just possibly be earning minimum wage - which would not allow the 'luxury' of affording a mortgage which would presumably see those who do spend their later years without the worry of still having to pay rent? :/
The point is that there seems to be some special exclusion for "low-income" people to have to budget or take responsibility for their actions, whenever someone suggests what Cllr Eachus has, people scream "unfair, why should they?" when everyone who works full time thinks "it's what i have to do."
[quote][p][bold]Jo Walke[/bold] wrote: jonone - just because someone has a dish attached to the side of their house doesn't necessarily mean they have sky tv - they could have freesat? :/ Not all social housing tenants claim benefits and, could just possibly be earning minimum wage - which would not allow the 'luxury' of affording a mortgage which would presumably see those who do spend their later years without the worry of still having to pay rent? :/[/p][/quote]The point is that there seems to be some special exclusion for "low-income" people to have to budget or take responsibility for their actions, whenever someone suggests what Cllr Eachus has, people scream "unfair, why should they?" when everyone who works full time thinks "it's what i have to do." jonone
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 5 Dec 12

guywithsomesense says...

Couldn't agree with you more 'jonone',..!
Couldn't agree with you more 'jonone',..! guywithsomesense
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 5 Dec 12

guywithsomesense says...

@Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,.

I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...
@Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,. I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,... guywithsomesense
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Folkestone Saint says...

guywithsomesense wrote:
@Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,.

I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...
I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]guywithsomesense[/bold] wrote: @Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,. I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...[/p][/quote]I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves. Folkestone Saint
  • Score: 0

9:31am Thu 6 Dec 12

guywithsomesense says...

Folkestone Saint wrote:
guywithsomesense wrote:
@Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,.

I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...
I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves.
...."not everone can calculate a quadratic equation"

what a random and bazaar comment???

sounds like you have a severe chip on your shoulder,..

in your eyes everyone single person who earns a lower wage is hard working,... anyone who has worked hard to become successful and built a career for themselves are slackers who think their better than the rest?....

Nice view on the world,.

the whole point is that people should live within their means,.. simple as that,

Benefits should be provided to ensure people have the basics, not encourage them to continue to expand their families and spend the money they do get on non essentials, that us slackers can't necessarily afford,
[quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]guywithsomesense[/bold] wrote: @Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,. I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...[/p][/quote]I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves.[/p][/quote]...."not everone can calculate a quadratic equation" what a random and bazaar comment??? sounds like you have a severe chip on your shoulder,.. in your eyes everyone single person who earns a lower wage is hard working,... anyone who has worked hard to become successful and built a career for themselves are slackers who think their better than the rest?.... Nice view on the world,. the whole point is that people should live within their means,.. simple as that, Benefits should be provided to ensure people have the basics, not encourage them to continue to expand their families and spend the money they do get on non essentials, that us slackers can't necessarily afford, guywithsomesense
  • Score: 0

11:02am Thu 6 Dec 12

Folkestone Saint says...

guywithsomesense wrote:
Folkestone Saint wrote:
guywithsomesense wrote:
@Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,.

I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...
I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves.
...."not everone can calculate a quadratic equation"

what a random and bazaar comment???

sounds like you have a severe chip on your shoulder,..

in your eyes everyone single person who earns a lower wage is hard working,... anyone who has worked hard to become successful and built a career for themselves are slackers who think their better than the rest?....

Nice view on the world,.

the whole point is that people should live within their means,.. simple as that,

Benefits should be provided to ensure people have the basics, not encourage them to continue to expand their families and spend the money they do get on non essentials, that us slackers can't necessarily afford,
My point is that not everyone has the same chance in life, I used the term quadratic eqution to show that some don't have the mental capacity through no fault of their own but have inherited it. Do you think it is fair that the millionaires will be £120,000 a year better off whilst the say a nusery teacher will be £429 worse off as will any one earning under £20,000, however I do agree with the support for no more than 2 children.
[quote][p][bold]guywithsomesense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]guywithsomesense[/bold] wrote: @Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,. I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...[/p][/quote]I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves.[/p][/quote]...."not everone can calculate a quadratic equation" what a random and bazaar comment??? sounds like you have a severe chip on your shoulder,.. in your eyes everyone single person who earns a lower wage is hard working,... anyone who has worked hard to become successful and built a career for themselves are slackers who think their better than the rest?.... Nice view on the world,. the whole point is that people should live within their means,.. simple as that, Benefits should be provided to ensure people have the basics, not encourage them to continue to expand their families and spend the money they do get on non essentials, that us slackers can't necessarily afford,[/p][/quote]My point is that not everyone has the same chance in life, I used the term quadratic eqution to show that some don't have the mental capacity through no fault of their own but have inherited it. Do you think it is fair that the millionaires will be £120,000 a year better off whilst the say a nusery teacher will be £429 worse off as will any one earning under £20,000, however I do agree with the support for no more than 2 children. Folkestone Saint
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Thu 6 Dec 12

GC31 says...

It's those sneaky sods with cable that worry me.
It's those sneaky sods with cable that worry me. GC31
  • Score: 0

8:10am Fri 7 Dec 12

jonone says...

Folkestone Saint wrote:
guywithsomesense wrote:
Folkestone Saint wrote:
guywithsomesense wrote: @Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,. I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...
I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves.
...."not everone can calculate a quadratic equation" what a random and bazaar comment??? sounds like you have a severe chip on your shoulder,.. in your eyes everyone single person who earns a lower wage is hard working,... anyone who has worked hard to become successful and built a career for themselves are slackers who think their better than the rest?.... Nice view on the world,. the whole point is that people should live within their means,.. simple as that, Benefits should be provided to ensure people have the basics, not encourage them to continue to expand their families and spend the money they do get on non essentials, that us slackers can't necessarily afford,
My point is that not everyone has the same chance in life, I used the term quadratic eqution to show that some don't have the mental capacity through no fault of their own but have inherited it. Do you think it is fair that the millionaires will be £120,000 a year better off whilst the say a nusery teacher will be £429 worse off as will any one earning under £20,000, however I do agree with the support for no more than 2 children.
I bet Sir Alan Sugar can't solve a quadratic equation - doesn't seem to have done him any harm...

Don't care how well off millionares are, so long as they pay their way to society through taxes. The more they earn, the more they pay.

What irritates me is the attitudes at the lower end of the scale. For example, on a recent day off work, I was in town. I walked past someone bemoaning how he and everyone was "skint" Yet, he was smoking a cigarette (£8+ a pack of 20!) Can't be that hard up then!
[quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]guywithsomesense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]guywithsomesense[/bold] wrote: @Pacifier, please don't make the mistake of thinking your views are shared by the majority of people,. I don't view tackling this benefit culture created by the previous government as out of touch,...[/p][/quote]I think you will find the attack is also on those who cannot earn a decent wage through no fault of their own, after all not everone can calculate a quadratic equation but still feel pride in doing what ever job they are able to do, and in the greater picture are as important as those who see them selves as more important as they recieve but not necessarily earn a larger wage, after all the world is in a mess due to those in power not doing what is right for all but doing right for themselves.[/p][/quote]...."not everone can calculate a quadratic equation" what a random and bazaar comment??? sounds like you have a severe chip on your shoulder,.. in your eyes everyone single person who earns a lower wage is hard working,... anyone who has worked hard to become successful and built a career for themselves are slackers who think their better than the rest?.... Nice view on the world,. the whole point is that people should live within their means,.. simple as that, Benefits should be provided to ensure people have the basics, not encourage them to continue to expand their families and spend the money they do get on non essentials, that us slackers can't necessarily afford,[/p][/quote]My point is that not everyone has the same chance in life, I used the term quadratic eqution to show that some don't have the mental capacity through no fault of their own but have inherited it. Do you think it is fair that the millionaires will be £120,000 a year better off whilst the say a nusery teacher will be £429 worse off as will any one earning under £20,000, however I do agree with the support for no more than 2 children.[/p][/quote]I bet Sir Alan Sugar can't solve a quadratic equation - doesn't seem to have done him any harm... Don't care how well off millionares are, so long as they pay their way to society through taxes. The more they earn, the more they pay. What irritates me is the attitudes at the lower end of the scale. For example, on a recent day off work, I was in town. I walked past someone bemoaning how he and everyone was "skint" Yet, he was smoking a cigarette (£8+ a pack of 20!) Can't be that hard up then! jonone
  • Score: 0

10:23am Fri 7 Dec 12

robertspet8 says...

As is often the case I can see sense in most of the views expressed above:
We should not resent millionnaires who made their money by honest, hard work. But I do resent them if they pay proportionally less tax than somebody they employ on low wages.
Vulnerable people should be cared for by society. But we should tighten the rules to prevent scroungers taking advantage of this.
What I really cannot understand is why somebody is taxed on income only to claim half of this tax back in benefits. Why take it away in the first place? All it does is create jobs for well paid civil servants who we really cannot afford to employ just to move money backwards and forwards at great cost to the nation.
As is often the case I can see sense in most of the views expressed above: We should not resent millionnaires who made their money by honest, hard work. But I do resent them if they pay proportionally less tax than somebody they employ on low wages. Vulnerable people should be cared for by society. But we should tighten the rules to prevent scroungers taking advantage of this. What I really cannot understand is why somebody is taxed on income only to claim half of this tax back in benefits. Why take it away in the first place? All it does is create jobs for well paid civil servants who we really cannot afford to employ just to move money backwards and forwards at great cost to the nation. robertspet8
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Fri 7 Dec 12

jonone says...

robertspet8 wrote:
As is often the case I can see sense in most of the views expressed above: We should not resent millionnaires who made their money by honest, hard work. But I do resent them if they pay proportionally less tax than somebody they employ on low wages. Vulnerable people should be cared for by society. But we should tighten the rules to prevent scroungers taking advantage of this. What I really cannot understand is why somebody is taxed on income only to claim half of this tax back in benefits. Why take it away in the first place? All it does is create jobs for well paid civil servants who we really cannot afford to employ just to move money backwards and forwards at great cost to the nation.
All good points. Make tax avoidance impossible and a flat rate of tax can be applied, the richer you are, the more you pay and vice versa. People forget that come next April, we'll all be paying less tax again.

You last point is very good, I assume this is in relation to the ludicrous change in child benefits. It is quite right that this should be removed from the better off, but surely by not paying in the first place!!
[quote][p][bold]robertspet8[/bold] wrote: As is often the case I can see sense in most of the views expressed above: We should not resent millionnaires who made their money by honest, hard work. But I do resent them if they pay proportionally less tax than somebody they employ on low wages. Vulnerable people should be cared for by society. But we should tighten the rules to prevent scroungers taking advantage of this. What I really cannot understand is why somebody is taxed on income only to claim half of this tax back in benefits. Why take it away in the first place? All it does is create jobs for well paid civil servants who we really cannot afford to employ just to move money backwards and forwards at great cost to the nation.[/p][/quote]All good points. Make tax avoidance impossible and a flat rate of tax can be applied, the richer you are, the more you pay and vice versa. People forget that come next April, we'll all be paying less tax again. You last point is very good, I assume this is in relation to the ludicrous change in child benefits. It is quite right that this should be removed from the better off, but surely by not paying in the first place!! jonone
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Folkestone Saint says...

jonone wrote:
robertspet8 wrote:
As is often the case I can see sense in most of the views expressed above: We should not resent millionnaires who made their money by honest, hard work. But I do resent them if they pay proportionally less tax than somebody they employ on low wages. Vulnerable people should be cared for by society. But we should tighten the rules to prevent scroungers taking advantage of this. What I really cannot understand is why somebody is taxed on income only to claim half of this tax back in benefits. Why take it away in the first place? All it does is create jobs for well paid civil servants who we really cannot afford to employ just to move money backwards and forwards at great cost to the nation.
All good points. Make tax avoidance impossible and a flat rate of tax can be applied, the richer you are, the more you pay and vice versa. People forget that come next April, we'll all be paying less tax again.

You last point is very good, I assume this is in relation to the ludicrous change in child benefits. It is quite right that this should be removed from the better off, but surely by not paying in the first place!!
Are cigaretts that much, I have to agree that the less educated and poorer the more per head smoke, but my defence was for those who do try by working hard but never get a break in life, however I hope to be one of those millionaires as I am soon to launch my own invention (pat pend) and create manufacturing job's
[quote][p][bold]jonone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robertspet8[/bold] wrote: As is often the case I can see sense in most of the views expressed above: We should not resent millionnaires who made their money by honest, hard work. But I do resent them if they pay proportionally less tax than somebody they employ on low wages. Vulnerable people should be cared for by society. But we should tighten the rules to prevent scroungers taking advantage of this. What I really cannot understand is why somebody is taxed on income only to claim half of this tax back in benefits. Why take it away in the first place? All it does is create jobs for well paid civil servants who we really cannot afford to employ just to move money backwards and forwards at great cost to the nation.[/p][/quote]All good points. Make tax avoidance impossible and a flat rate of tax can be applied, the richer you are, the more you pay and vice versa. People forget that come next April, we'll all be paying less tax again. You last point is very good, I assume this is in relation to the ludicrous change in child benefits. It is quite right that this should be removed from the better off, but surely by not paying in the first place!![/p][/quote]Are cigaretts that much, I have to agree that the less educated and poorer the more per head smoke, but my defence was for those who do try by working hard but never get a break in life, however I hope to be one of those millionaires as I am soon to launch my own invention (pat pend) and create manufacturing job's Folkestone Saint
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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