How much Council Tax gets collected from people in Glasgow
The latest report shows the city lagging behind the Scotland average and the third lowest in the country.
Only Orkney and Aberdeen City councils had a lower rate.
READ NEXT:Celtic and Rangers in top level meeting to tackle football related disorder
The city collected 93.4% of council tax last year 2024/25, down slightly from 93.8 the year before.
This year Council Tax in Glasgow was increased by 7.5% as increasing costs including inflation and pay deals put more pressure on the budget for services.
Across Scotland all 32 local authorities collected 95.5% of Council Tax due.
Earlier this year, in an interview with the Glasgow Times, City Treasurer Ricky Bell said Council Tax doesn't work for Glasgow.
An example of the limitations of council tax is a 1% rise in Council Tax raises £2.8m for the council, so the local authority has to impose a big rise for it to translate into significant sums.
One of the issues is Glasgow has a lower proportion of properties in the higher bands who pay more in Council Tax.
READ NEXT: Police officers slam Green Brigade Sheku Bayoh sign at Kelvingrove as biased
The band with the highest number of homes is B, with 81,879.
There is a split of 83% in band A-D - the lowest - and 17% in band E to H - the highest.
In East Renfrewshire, which includes Newton Mearns, Giffnock and Clarkston, the split is 43% in the four lower bands and 57% in the higher.
This year's 7.5% increase in Glasgow will bring in £21m.
Collection rates increased in 2022/23 to 94.5 in Glasgow and also across the country.
One explanation was the higher collection rate in 2022-23 may be due, in part at least, to the £150 Cost of Living payments made by local authorities that year on behalf of the Scottish Government.
For most eligible households, these payments were made as a credit to Council Tax accounts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
25 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Applications open for Inclusion Scotland Access to Office fund
East Dunbartonshire Council announced on Facebook that Inclusion Scotland's Access to Elected Office fund, backed by the Scottish Government, is now available to disabled people in Scotland. The initiative aims to help disabled individuals overcome barriers by offering practical support and reasonable adjustments. Read more: Meet the full-time dad who won over £120K at a Glasgow casino Rangers transfer target previously praised Russell Martin's 'aura' Kim Woodburn sadly dies, 83, after battle with illness Inclusion Scotland said the fund is open for those intending to stand in the 2026 Scottish Parliament election as well as those planning to participate in the Scottish Parliament and local council by-elections. The charity posted on Facebook: "The launch event was a fantastic day filled with insightful presentations, a special video message from the Minister for Equalities, Kaukab Stewart, and collaborative workshop sessions where we explored priorities for Inclusion Scotland's upcoming Manifesto. "To find out more about the Fund, how to apply, and to access information in accessible formats, visit our website:
The Herald Scotland
44 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
What a waste this SNP Government has proved itself to be
Here we are less than six months away from the start of the ban and yet again we are seeing the SNP modus operandi. Make a big announcement of some grand idea, claim to be virtuous by saving the planet, yet don't put the effort in to actually put all the systems in place. It's just like the ferries all over again, although this time it's not the islanders who will be impacted but the English. As Scotland will not have enough incinerators for the next two years according to Ms Martin, 80-100 lorries every day will be heading south to England to go into their landfill. Imagine the impact on the roads, the environment and the cost at doing this, all because the SNP did not make sure that the structures were in place. I can't picture 600,000 tonnes of waste which is how much this will be annually. What I do know is that suddenly our neighbour is of use to the divisive SNP. The minister actually said in the interview that the 'landfill ban is a good thing in terms of reducing emissions, particularly potent methane emissions'. Does she believe that having a landfill ban in Scotland, sending our waste to England to their landfills reduces emissions? Is she really expecting us to believe that? Apparently she also believes the 'positive environmental impact of stopping landfill far outweighs any impact of temporary measures' (ie sending lorries to England). Her spin doctors were working hard when they came up with that line. We will have heavy lorries on the roads, Scottish waste going to landfill in England polluting the environment and the cost of this to the Scottish taxpayer, which she does not mention, all because the SNP has not done the hard graft to get enough capacity to deal with our waste. It's had 14 years to get this right and failed. Jane Lax, Aberlour. • Plans to send waste to England for disposal remind me of the old car sticker that said: 'Keep Scotland tidy, dump your rubbish in England'. This is an area in which we have some considerable skill, in offshoring manufacturing industry to exclude the emissions from our own statistics. Scott Simpson, Bearsden. Read more letters Another problem is looming Despite the fact it has taken the BBC some time to appreciate and understand the effects of the Scottish Parliament's (already-postponed) ban on the landfill of untreated municipal waste at the end of this year, the Disclosure programme on Monday (June 16) highlighted the nub of the problem: in January 2026, Scotland will be generating 600,000-700,000 tonnes of waste that will have to be trucked to England (or further) for disposal. We won't have enough Energy from Waste (EFW) plants to cope, and the prospects of increasing our recycling rates (that have stagnated since 2012) are pretty poor. It was disappointing that the programme makers didn't do some further research into the reasons for this inertia. The options are either to thole umpteen trucks taking Scottish waste to England (or the ports), or postpone the implementation date for the ban (again). If the latter, is that fair on the companies who are currently investing (or have already have invested) heavily in EFW technology in anticipation of the ban? It's yet another example of policy being made up on the hoof with either the waste industry not being consulted or (if it was) its advice being ignored. But there's another problem looming. The Westminster Government is presently consulting on a proposal to unify landfill tax by 2030 by removing the lower rate for inert wastes (soil, rubble etc) that's currently less than 4% of the higher rate (£126.15/tonne). If that happens and Scotland doesn't follow suit, it would create a situation where it could be economically viable to establish new landfills just north of the border for English waste being trucked up here. Cynics might welcome the idea on the grounds that the trucks hauling Scottish municipal waste to England for disposal would then have the opportunity to backload inert waste for the return journey. John Crawford, Preston. Priorities are all mixed up You report that a Treasury Minister, Emma Reynolds, was unable to give either the precise location or the total cost of yet another project in the south-east of England, a dual tunnel under the Thames linking Essex and Kent ("Minister struggles when questioned over new Thames crossing as costs mount", The Herald, June 17). The cost, it seems, will be between £9.2 billion and £10.2bn. This is a cost being borne by all of us, on top of HS2 (now stopping at Birmingham, not Edinburgh), the incredibly expensive nuclear power stations being built in the south, the aircraft carriers and more. Yet, as a nation, we struggle to keep people warm, people housed and children born into families on benefits fed and clothed. We have certainly gone wrong somewhere. Patricia Fort, Glasgow. This pledge is not believable Back in 2007 one of the first things new First Minister Alex Salmond promised was a focus on more efficient government and reform of nine departments of the "executive", 27 executive agencies and the 152 quangos. He added: "I'm not sure we need that complexity for a nation of five million. If you're going to have joined-up government you need less bits to join up." Eighteen years later and one of the relics, or should I say ruins, of that hopeful regime, John Swinney appeared on stage in a gaslit fug of smoke and mirrors to swear he's going to finish the job ("Ministers in plan to save £1bn a year by cutbacks on 'waste'", The Herald, June 17). Where's he getting his inspiration from? The spirit of Alex Salmond or the spectre of Trump, Farage, Reform and DOGE? One thing we can be sure of: it ain't gonna happen on John Swinney's watch. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven. • I was almost amused to read that, after 18 years in power, the SNP has decided to save £1 billion a year by cutbacks on "waste". A picture of John Swinney with a newly-grown centre parting would have been even more believable. Duncan Graham, Stirling. Sir Lindsay Hoyle (Image: PA) It's time for Hoyle to go I read with incredulity the letter (June 16) from Jackie Storer, Press Secretary to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons. Only a lackey on the Speaker's payroll could write such drivel. Your readers would have to be 'soft in the head" to believe that Sir Lindsay Hoyle has any 'soft power' as an international peace-keeper. He cannot even keep order in the House of Commons and is an international embarrassment. During over a quarter of a century's membership of the House of Commons, I experienced five Speakers: Selwyn Lloyd, George Thomas, Bernard Weatherill, Betty Boothroyd and Michael Martin. The best by far was the only woman to have held that high office, the formidable Betty Boothroyd, who managed to keep order and chair debates with an admirable combination of professionalism, firmness and humour, while ensuring that even the most humble backbencher got a fair kick of the ball. The current Speaker has none of these attributes. I have never met Sir Lindsay Hoyle but I literally kent his faither, Douglas, who began his Westminster career as an extreme left-wing MP but later transmogrified into an Establishment Member of the House of Lords, where his son will no doubt follow him. Since my retirement, I have more than occasionally watched Parliamentary debates on TV and read reports of the current Speaker's conduct at home and abroad. I have come to the conclusion that Sir Lindsay Hoyle is not only incompetent. He is pretentious and profligate: a perfect example of someone who has been promoted above his abilities. In short, he is not fit to lace Betty Boothroyd's boots and it is time for him to go. Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
If we want better public services, the NHS will have to take a hit
Undeterred, spinners claimed that tough decisions had created the fiscal headroom to restore the payment – despite the arithmetic suggesting otherwise. Removing the benefit may have been economically sound, if politically naïve; restoring it is undoubtedly the opposite. Defence was always going to be a 'winner', as Donald Trump's jaggy stick on the need to up the shekels is being felt in Whitehall, as it is in all other Nato nations. And the predictable sacred cow of the NHS was also on the positive side of the messaging as there is no sum of money big enough to be poured into this national institution, regardless of the actual cost of doing so. As with all things Treasury, there are consequentials for Scotland – and the scale of these demands a whole new set of messages. You can guarantee that whatever colour the UK government happens to be, it will hammer home the 'record settlement and the biggest of the devolved era' set of soundbites – knowing full well that an increase of a mere pound would sustain that argument. The more careful analysts take time to scrutinise the numbers against previous promises, inflation, and projected income prior to the Chancellor taking to her feet. Read more by Calum Steele In this case – as indeed in so many of the recent past – the SNP has legitimate cause to cry foul. Respected independent bodies like the Fraser of Allander Institute, which are equally capable of causing headaches for the SNP as they are of giving power to their arguments, set their boffins on to Rachel Reeves's sums and found they didn't quite add up in the way they were packaged. The trouble the Scottish Government now faces is a direct contradiction of the one faced by Rachel Reeves: it is much more economic than presentational. It can be certain that in the areas the UK Government has decided to prioritise, it will face almost unanimous calls to match the funding for relevant departments here in Scotland. On top of that, it will face the generic 'record funding' heckle from opponents demanding support for the areas ignored by the occupant of No 11 Downing Street. With an election less than 12 months away, it may be tempting for the SNP to follow suit with the increase in funding for the NHS (defence doesn't deliver any Barnett bonus) and hope that framing cuts elsewhere as the result of Westminster-imposed austerity carries the day. Despite having been found to be strategically wanting in the recent Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, it's difficult to imagine the SNP has much appetite for a wholesale change of direction. If it – and indeed any of the main parties – is serious about tackling the challenges facing this country, it will need to swallow hard and be prepared to take a pound of flesh from the sacred cow all parties have hitherto revered: the NHS. Now, I'm not suggesting for a minute that Scotland should go it alone and abandon one of our most beloved institutions – for even in the most pragmatic of worlds, even I can see that's a stonewall vote loser. But – and bear with me here – if we look at the consequential impact of the singularly unique protection afforded to the NHS by consecutive governments (United Kingdom and devolved), we can see that the effect of doing so on the other services we need for a functioning, harmonious, and prosperous society has been catastrophic. Everyone loves the feel-good factor of announcing more money, doctors, nurses, and midwives. Everyone loves to celebrate pay settlements when they trump those of our neighbours, and everyone throws their arms up to praise the NHS gods whenever an extra pound goes into it. And if the NHS existed in splendid isolation, I'm pretty sure I would be among the loudest voices doing so. But it doesn't. The slow strangulation of local government and services on both sides of the border – particularly since the 2008–09 financial crisis – has been a direct consequence of the refusal to share austerity pain across departments. As all parts of the public sector grew in the good times, they should have equally shared the burden of cuts in the bad. Rachel Reeves delivers her Government's spending review to MPs last Wednesday (Image: PA) While the NHS has hardly glistened, its position is far better than those of local services like housing, education, social care, and policing. As a result, it has largely escaped structural reform and grown into a bloated, managerial-heavy behemoth that consumes all before it. By comparison, local government has taken a scythe to essential services, causing almost irreparable harm to those who rely on them. It is almost unarguable that the dogma surrounding NHS funding has actually made us all unhealthier – as the local services we all need have declined to such an extent as to render those NHS headlines irrelevant. The increase in societal tensions has its roots firmly embedded in the scunner factor associated with that decline, and the loss of trust in both the institutions themselves and the governments who indirectly oversee them can hardly be a price worth paying. We can have cleaner pavements, better roads, schools, child and social services – along with a police service that actually investigates crime, and a legal, court, and penal system that works – as well as money for infrastructure and investment. Or we can keep pouring money into an NHS monolith. But we can't have both. The question for the SNP is the same as the one for us all. When do we accept that fact and do something about it? Calum Steele is a former General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, and former general secretary of the International Council of Police Representative Associations. He remains an advisor to both.
