This is the BBC article.
---------------------------------------
A city's council tax could rise by up to 10% in 2018 but residents would need to agree.
Liverpool City Council says government funding cuts mean it will not be able to fund adult social care or children's services without raising more money.
The authority can not raise council tax by more than 3.99% without holding a local referendum.
The city's Mayor Joe Anderson said "the only solution" is to "cut services or ask for more money".
Mayor Anderson told a full council meeting on Wednesday night that it was not a question he wanted to ask.
He said: "We can ask for more money from the government, but they are not listening, or I can ask for more money from the people from the city which will help protect those services.
"We'd be saying for instance, would they support an additional 5% - so making it just under 9% council tax increase. Then we'd also be asking them would they go even further - 10%."
Consultation beginning
Between 2010 and 2017, central government funding will have been cut by £340m and a further £90m saving is required by 2020, meaning the council will have slashed its budget by about 67%, a spokesperson said.
Mayor Anderson added that any referendum would take place in May alongside the Metro Mayor election and would cost around £300,000.
In 2016, council tax in Liverpool rose by 3.99%, half of which was ring-fenced for social services, while the two previous years saw a 1.99% rise.
And this is not the largest increase the council has ever proposed - in 1994 it raised council tax by 19.5%.
A budget consultation will be launched on 17 November asking people if they would accept the proposed increase.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may sound really odd, but I'd be in favour of tax increases (preferably income tax, but the council can't do that). For me it comes down to the question, what kind of society do you want to live in? I'd like to live in a society where the weaker are supported by the stronger, and I believe the fairest and least discriminating way is if the state provides for them. Do we want a well-funded, well-staffed NHS? Do we want schools and recreation facilities accessible for all? If so, we'll have to pay for them. Yes, we could go down the American route where all of this exists and is funded by private donations, but I don't like that those in need of support are dependent on the mercy of those better off. I'd rather everyone has to pay their share, and our normal way to do this is via taxes.