More Tory lies

[JamboX2]

6 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 

I wouldn't be too quick to jump on the bandwagon just yet. The fact remains there are as many unanswered questions for independence as there are for Brexit. And a few new ones. The border for example... the situation Brexit throws up with Ireland / Northern Ireland is a big headache for proponents of independence now.

 

As I said before, if we could reset back to 2007/08 and do things differently that would be very much welcome.

[deesidejambo]

8 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Yeah granted.

 

I do think we both agree on the idea of a progressive tax system. I'd be surprised if anyone bar the very rich disagree that the tax system is now outdated and not fit for purpose, well, I think they know this but would be happy with the current set of affairs given they benefit the most. I'm open to suggestions going forward on tax but I do think we need to abandon our old system ideas. I wouldn't, for example, call anyone earning more than 40k but less than 50k as rich, I'd say they are doing well and I don't think they should be hammered, but I think they, like myself, can afford to pay a little more.

 

I think many people are hypocrites with taxation, on both sides of the political spectrum. You've those on the right who want to complain about the state of public services etc as a way to criticise the Scottish Government but refuse point blank to consider paying more tax, and then you have those on the left who espouse the importance of a healthy public sector but don't seem willing to actually take the steps to increase the taxation to achieve that.

 

Too many folk want their tax cake and to eat it.

 

We are in this middle ground limbo where everything suffers, we don't collect enough tax to have the services we want but people don't want to change the system through fear of paying more. The result, everything suffers. I want better public services, and I am willing to pay more tax to that end. But what I pay should be proportionate and only works if everyone signs up to the system. If the rich guy has the attitude that he shouldn't pay more tax as he doesn't need the public services, well then, the whole thing falls down. Not a single person, regardless of how rich they are, got to where they are without the state in some way or another. 

 

Maybe the way to stop the greetin is the LibDem proposal which I think is a penny increase on every rate - so no particular group feels "hard done by".  Personally I'd go with raising the tax threshold significantly to encourage more people into worthwhile (for them) work, and recoup the loss by bringing the 50% threshold well below the current 150k.    Would need to work out where it would need to be but I think Corbyn is suggesting 80k?  Not sure if thats still the case but to me, above 80k is pretty well-off and they should be able to afford the burden.

[JamboX2]

6 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Are we finally going to drop the Tories are good with the economy shit now?

 

They've been making an absolute pigs ear of the economy while breaking promise after promise. But still the hard right Unionist Scots defend them.

 

Yes. They've made a balls up of it. Massively cutting investment as they did in 2010 and it's effects are being felt now as will the huge consequences of Hard Brexit.

[SwindonJambo]

14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Labour of anyone else will fix it how?

 

Quite, JF. The financial quagmire we now find ourselves originates from when the Banks went tits up in 2007/8, which happened, unluckily for them, on Labour’s watch and the Tories use it as a convenient stick to beat them with. In reality, the banking crisis can trace its roots to the Big Bang deregulation of 1986. It revolutionised banking and blasted away the stuffy old school tie closed shop but over the course of time, greedy bankers under all governments took increasingly reckless gambles, emboldened by getting away with it. It continued even when the government changed from Tory to Labour in 1997. 

 

Once in power,  Labour were very happy for it to continue as it was generating huge tax receipts for the treasury so that it could fund its spending plans. What government of any persuasion would be opposed to a national cash cow? So it continued and continued as the gambles and lending got more and more reckless until Northern Rock, RBS & HBoS All went tits up big style.

 

During the supposed good years of banking, Scotland in general and Edinburgh in particular did very well out of the banking ‘boom’ and 2 of the banks requiring a bailout were headquartered and registered in Edinburgh.  Had Scotland been independent at the time, it would have been financially crippled by these events.  Imho, criminal charges should be faced by those responsible and  at least be banned from the banking industry. 

 

The whole thing is a mess and it will be a long slow road to clean up, regardless of who’s in power. The Government aren’t doing nearly enough to stop tax receipts leaking out to offshore havens. Many of the perpetrators are Tory party supporters so don’t expect anything other than tinkering around the edges.  I have never and will never vote Tory, but I don’t think any of the other parties offer a solution either, that doesn’t involve going even deeper into debt and making the situation even worse. Scotland might go independent in future and if it does, I hope it goes well. But don’t expect it to be a Silver bullet.

[SwindonJambo]

19 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Yeah granted.

 

I do think we both agree on the idea of a progressive tax system. I'd be surprised if anyone bar the very rich disagree that the tax system is now outdated and not fit for purpose, well, I think they know this but would be happy with the current set of affairs given they benefit the most. I'm open to suggestions going forward on tax but I do think we need to abandon our old system ideas. I wouldn't, for example, call anyone earning more than 40k but less than 50k as rich, I'd say they are doing well and I don't think they should be hammered, but I think they, like myself, can afford to pay a little more.

 

I think many people are hypocrites with taxation, on both sides of the political spectrum. You've those on the right who want to complain about the state of public services etc as a way to criticise the Scottish Government but refuse point blank to consider paying more tax, and then you have those on the left who espouse the importance of a healthy public sector but don't seem willing to actually take the steps to increase the taxation to achieve that.

 

Too many folk want their tax cake and to eat it.

 

We are in this middle ground limbo where everything suffers, we don't collect enough tax to have the services we want but people don't want to change the system through fear of paying more. The result, everything suffers. I want better public services, and I am willing to pay more tax to that end. But what I pay should be proportionate and only works if everyone signs up to the system. If the rich guy has the attitude that he shouldn't pay more tax as he doesn't need the public services, well then, the whole thing falls down. Not a single person, regardless of how rich they are, got to where they are without the state in some way or another. 

 

Excellent post. I agree with all of that.

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Tell me X2, who has more control, WM over Scotland or Brussels over WM. 

I don't care if Scotland is part of The EU or not, as long as it's independent and can chose it's own destiny. 

 

You've missed my point: much of the arguments for both Brexit and Independence are very similar, in many ways the same.

 

If you were to have some speeches read out by a third party whilst blindfolded by a Brexiteer and a Nationalist you'd hear a lot of similar themes.

 

To me, after voting Yes in 2014, the mess of Brexit is proof that throwing up barriers politically or economically is not the way forward. Even more so with Brexit. The border between Scotland and England would be a huge headache post-Brexit. Trade, citizens rights, borders would all if we secede from the UK and join the EU be governed by the deal the EU reaches with us in the UK. That is not going to be the free, open border of 2014 by noises coming from the negotiations. Much to both my annoyance and anger.

 

Nor can power be conflated like you are trying to in that manner. The EU may not directly legislate for certain issues here but it, like the Scotland Act, constrain the options open to a government or parliament.

 

Quote

The SNP are only a gateway to an independent Scotland, it's a Yes vote for independence, not an SNP dictatorship. Look at the state of the UK government and folk think that's the people to trust, ffs they're all creepy crooked frauds. In fact utter scum is more accurate. As for your BBC whiter than white compared to RT, ffs. The place makes me sick to the pit of my stomach what they've allowed to happen and then cover up. 

 

 

Someone has to negotiate the settlement for independence and shape it. That is also your vehicle to what you want. It's also the glaring flaw with independence and Scottish politics - it's too tied up in one party and it's policies. Imagine the barriers in voting habits that could happen if the SNP shattered a sunder and there were 3 or 4 main stream independence parties articulating a tory indy, a social democratic indy and a liberal indy... like Catalonia. Then the vision and the shape of independence isn't tied up in one party or movement but many.

[John Findlay]

9 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

Quite, JF. The financial quagmire we now find ourselves originates from when the Banks went tits up in 2007/8, which happened, unluckily for them, on Labour’s watch and the Tories use it as a convenient stick to beat them with. In reality, the banking crisis can trace its roots to the Big Bang deregulation of 1986. It revolutionised banking and blasted away the stuffy old school tie closed shop but over the course of time, greedy bankers under all governments took increasingly reckless gambles, emboldened by getting away with it. It continued even when the government changed from Tory to Labour in 1997. 

 

Once in power,  Labour were very happy for it to continue as it was generating huge tax receipts for the treasury so that it could fund its spending plans. What government of any persuasion would be opposed to a national cash cow? So it continued and continued as the gambles and lending got more and more reckless until Northern Rock, RBS & HBoS All went tits up big style.

 

During the supposed good years of banking, Scotland in general and Edinburgh in particular did very well out of the banking ‘boom’ and 2 of the banks requiring a bailout were headquartered and registered in Edinburgh.  Had Scotland been independent at the time, it would have been financially crippled by these events.  Imho, criminal charges should be faced by those responsible and  at least be banned from the banking industry. 

 

The whole thing is a mess and it will be a long slow road to clean up, regardless of who’s in power. The Government aren’t doing nearly enough to stop tax receipts leaking out to offshore havens. Many of the perpetrators are Tory party supporters so don’t expect anything other than tinkering around the edges.  I have never and will never vote Tory, but I don’t think any of the other parties offer a solution either, that doesn’t involve going even deeper into debt and making the situation even worse. Scotland might go independent in future and if it does, I hope it goes well. But don’t expect it to be a Silver bullet.

Good post.

[AlphonseCapone]

9 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Except the threat of economic shock to the economy. 

 

9 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I wouldn't be too quick to jump on the bandwagon just yet. The fact remains there are as many unanswered questions for independence as there are for Brexit. And a few new ones. The border for example... the situation Brexit throws up with Ireland / Northern Ireland is a big headache for proponents of independence now.

 

As I said before, if we could reset back to 2007/08 and do things differently that would be very much welcome.

 

Your second post is fine, and is all good for the debate of Scottish independence but that's different to your original post above which was a little ridiculous imo, hence why I laughed. If there was a shock to the economy, it would come from independence, not civic nationalism. The shock comes regardless of the reason or method of independence. 

 

On the bolded point, there may actually be some ways forward and potential solutions for a future independent Scotland and its relationship with the rUK that come from Brexit and the solutions required for it.

[JamboX2]

7 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 

Your second post is fine, and is all good for the debate of Scottish independence but that's different to your original post above which was a little ridiculous imo, hence why I laughed. If there was a shock to the economy, it would come from independence, not civic nationalism. The shock comes regardless of the reason or method of independence. 

 

On the bolded point, there may actually be some ways forward and potential solutions for a future independent Scotland and its relationship with the rUK that come from Brexit and the solutions required for it.

My point to HunkyDory was simply there are possible extreme impacts of civic nationalism  (if that truly is what Scotland is - I have my doubts). That being independence is the desired outcome of it and the extreme that creates is economic shock. 

 

On your second point, only if the Irish border situation is resolved well. I don't think it will be. And I think this where the hard Brexit fails. 

 

I do not necessarily fear either outcome of these competing nationalistic visions. I do think they're archaic. But I also think they are doomed to perceived failure because of the lack of honesty involved in them. Both will be achieved by a generation who may not live with or to the fruits of their votes. Both will knock a place for a generation and will cause a reassessment of our places in the world, what is achievable and what is affordable. Equally what we will need to become liable for. That to me in is not a price worth paying with either Brexit or Independence on a lack of honesty.

 

If Sturgeon was to stand up at SNP conference and say we are likely to lose out in the short to medium term and that will hurt some more than others but that the gains are x, y and z then fair enough. The lands of milk, honey and ever greater prosperity both have peddled to better their causes is not worth it.

Edited November 23, 2017 by JamboX2

[AlphonseCapone]

18 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Maybe the way to stop the greetin is the LibDem proposal which I think is a penny increase on every rate - so no particular group feels "hard done by".  Personally I'd go with raising the tax threshold significantly to encourage more people into worthwhile (for them) work, and recoup the loss by bringing the 50% threshold well below the current 150k.    Would need to work out where it would need to be but I think Corbyn is suggesting 80k?  Not sure if thats still the case but to me, above 80k is pretty well-off and they should be able to afford the burden.

 

I feel 1p on everyone is too blunt and puts a larger burden on those with lower wages.

 

I agree a 50% threshold should be below 150k. The current median income for financial year ending 2017 from a quick scan of the ONS website is £27,200 so £80k is significantly more than most people. I remember an article that claimed if you earned £70k then you were in the top 5% but I'm not sure on the source of that data. I'd certainly say over £50k and you are hitting well off.

 

[AlphonseCapone]

12 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

My point to HunkyDory was simply there are possible extreme impacts of civic nationalism  (if that truly is what Scotland is - I have my doubts). That being independence is the desired outcome of it and the extreme that creates is economic shock. 

 

On your second point, only if the Irish border situation is resolved well. I don't think it will be. And I think this where the hard Brexit fails. 

 

I do not necessarily fear either outcome of these competing nationalistic visions. I do think they're archaic. But I also think they are doomed to perceived failure because of the lack of honesty involved in them. Both will be achieved by a generation who may not live with or to the fruits of their votes. Both will knock a place for a generation and will cause a reassessment of our places in the world, what is achievable and what is affordable. Equally what we will need to become liable for. That to me in is not a price worth paying with either Brexit or Independence on a lack of honesty.

 

If Sturgeon was to stand up at SNP conference and say we are likely to lose out in the short to medium term and that will hurt some more than others but that the gains are x, y and z then fair enough. The lands of milk, honey and ever greater prosperity both have peddled to better their causes is not worth it.

 

I still feel that it's independence and not civic nationalism you mean, as civic nationalism can exist in independent and non-independent countries and doesn't necessarily need independence as its final destination, though it would seem the obvious final stop. Anyway, I think we are in the realms of semantics here, more than anything.

 

I agree about the Irish border. I can't see how it can work. The Republic and EU can only foresee it working if the North remains in the EU customs union, which the UK will never agree to because it means one part of the UK is in and the rest not, a complication in general but also opens up the gates for the Scottish Government argument that it should have a different Brexit settlement. And I can't see how an open border will work from both a customs point of view, and a "protect our borders" point of view. A hard border, I believe but willing to be corrected, is either not in keeping with the Good Friday agreement or at least not in keeping with its spirit. Either way, it would divide Irish opinion in the Republic and cause a lot of issues with Nationalist in the North. I genuinely don't see a solution. But I think it is telling the Gerry Adams is stepping down as President of Sinn Féin now, as people like him with historic ties to the provisional IRA are dwindling away in the party and younger people, not active at that time are stepping up, which makes them more appealing as a potential junior partner in an Irish government. Similarly, Michelle O'Neil has started asking for the Republic to appoint a minister for Irish Unification and to set-up a committee looking at this. There are interesting times across the Irish sea.

 

Independence doesn't need to be about nationalism though. Scotland is an ancient country, in a partnership with another group of countries. When you think that the partnership isn't working for you, then you can walk away, like in any partnership. The reason for doing so can be based on many factors and so it is with Scottish Independence. I didn't vote for it because I wanted to run around in a kilt, eating haggis, sipping whisky and baring my arse to the English across a re-built Hadrian's wall. I voted for it because I don't think this union of nations is working for me or the majority of people like me, and I think that decisions taken closer to home will benefit the people here, regardless of their nationality, better, and if not, they don't have the "blame the English" excuse. I think an independent Scotland would actually be a lot more multi-cultural than it currently is, through necessity.

 

I agree Brexit and Scottish Independence are more similar than dissimilar and who knows maybe I am far more blinkered than I think and they are exactly the same and both bad. Independence would be tough. It wouldn't be milk and honey, and for plenty of years the economy might stall at best, maybe even fall a little. That would also be as much to do with the irrationality of the world monetary system, a system that isn't as logical and sound as people expect. Scotland wouldn't collapse though, and it wouldn't become a utopia either. Anyway, this is probably way off topic so, "down with the Tories", to get us back on track. 

 

[Boris]

22 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Rools? It's the law. Kent runs fire services locally. As a local service it's VAT exempted. If it was English Fire Service it wouldn't be VAT exempted. VAT and who or what is exempt from it is the very basic issue of VAT. Baby's clothes. VAT exempt. Adults. Not. Local services.  VAT exempt. National bodies. Not. 

 

It's not hard to understand. It was an issue at merger which was ignored.

 

The Scottish Government should've considered it before merger. The UK government should have reacted sooner. Both have failed miserably over this till now. End of the day it's good it's been resolved.

 

At least it recognises Scotland as a nation!

 

 

[jack D and coke]

4 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

 

Usual nonsense from SM. Wasn't aware that John Lamont was part of the SNP government that ignored the Treasury guidance regarding VAT.

Not sure they ignored it. There was talk of them trying to work around it by doing a 50/50 split with 32 councils but they deemed that too complicated a way to organise and it still saved £100m regardless of the VAT issue. Yet with the stroke of a pen they can remove it. 

Amazing. 

[jack D and coke]

2 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

Quite, JF. The financial quagmire we now find ourselves originates from when the Banks went tits up in 2007/8, which happened, unluckily for them, on Labour’s watch and the Tories use it as a convenient stick to beat them with. In reality, the banking crisis can trace its roots to the Big Bang deregulation of 1986. It revolutionised banking and blasted away the stuffy old school tie closed shop but over the course of time, greedy bankers under all governments took increasingly reckless gambles, emboldened by getting away with it. It continued even when the government changed from Tory to Labour in 1997. 

 

Once in power,  Labour were very happy for it to continue as it was generating huge tax receipts for the treasury so that it could fund its spending plans. What government of any persuasion would be opposed to a national cash cow? So it continued and continued as the gambles and lending got more and more reckless until Northern Rock, RBS & HBoS All went tits up big style.

 

During the supposed good years of banking, Scotland in general and Edinburgh in particular did very well out of the banking ‘boom’ and 2 of the banks requiring a bailout were headquartered and registered in Edinburgh.  Had Scotland been independent at the time, it would have been financially crippled by these events.  Imho, criminal charges should be faced by those responsible and  at least be banned from the banking industry. 

 

The whole thing is a mess and it will be a long slow road to clean up, regardless of who’s in power. The Government aren’t doing nearly enough to stop tax receipts leaking out to offshore havens. Many of the perpetrators are Tory party supporters so don’t expect anything other than tinkering around the edges.  I have never and will never vote Tory, but I don’t think any of the other parties offer a solution either, that doesn’t involve going even deeper into debt and making the situation even worse. Scotland might go independent in future and if it does, I hope it goes well. But don’t expect it to be a Silver bullet.

How many times will this nonsense about Scotland having to foot the bill for the banks who domicile here be trotted out that is not the way it worked. We would’ve been on the hook for around 7% of the bail out as that is what was borrowed in Scotland. Whatever was borrowed in other countries fell on those respective governments. France bailed out Belgian banks, American fed bailed out Barclays, the uk bailed out Irish banks etc etc. 

It was a lie that the better together mob used to frighten people that we would’ve been bankrupt. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by jack D and coke

[Space Mackerel]

How come the PSNI can reclaim most their VAT then? 

Page 73. 

 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

7 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

How many times will this nonsense about Scotland having to foot the bill for the banks who domicile here be trotted out that is not the way it worked. We would’ve been on the hook for around 7% of the bail out as that is what was borrowed in Scotland. Whatever was borrowed in other countries fell on those respective governments. France bailed out Belgian banks, American fed bailed out Barclays, the uk bailed out Irish banks etc etc. 

It was a lie that the better together mob used to frighten people that we would’ve been bankrupt. 

 

Theyre brainwashed mate or just incredibly dense how the modern day banking system works. 

[jack D and coke]

10 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Theyre brainwashed mate or just incredibly dense how the modern day banking system works. 

Hard to believe people thought wee Scotland wouldve been on the hook for bad debt all over the planet  

Thats the level of deceit we get from our politicians. And I mean all of them btw I’m not missing any party out. 

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Hard to believe people thought wee Scotland wouldve been on the hook for bad debt all over the planet  

Thats the level of deceit we get from our politicians. And I mean all of them btw I’m not missing any party out. 

 

Especially since it merged with the Halifax back in 2001. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/may/04/7

 

Utter daftys. 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

This is for Tory hating! Back on track please?

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

How many times will this nonsense about Scotland having to foot the bill for the banks who domicile here be trotted out that is not the way it worked. We would’ve been on the hook for around 7% of the bail out as that is what was borrowed in Scotland. Whatever was borrowed in other countries fell on those respective governments. France bailed out Belgian banks, American fed bailed out Barclays, the uk bailed out Irish banks etc etc. 

It was a lie that the better together mob used to frighten people that we would’ve been bankrupt. 

I'd be interested to see what that % liability was in terms of cold hard cash. 

 

Certainly the bailout of Irish banks by the Irish government crippled their Treasury. 

 

Whilst it's a % share of liability.  It's going to also be a huge proportion of the national budget.

[JamboX2]

26 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

I'd be interested to see what that % liability was in terms of cold hard cash. 

 

Certainly the bailout of Irish banks by the Irish government crippled their Treasury. 

 

Whilst it's a % share of liability.  It's going to also be a huge proportion of the national budget.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/feb/27/scotland-independent-debt-deficit

 

Seems to cover both sides.

[jack D and coke]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

I'd be interested to see what that % liability was in terms of cold hard cash. 

 

Certainly the bailout of Irish banks by the Irish government crippled their Treasury. 

 

Whilst it's a % share of liability.  It's going to also be a huge proportion of the national budget.

Who’s to say we would’ve bailed them out? Iceland seemed to do alright letting their banks fail. 

But the main point is we were NOT responsible to bail out banks trading all over the world because they had a plaque on a wall in Edinburgh when their main offices were in London. 

There was even a article somewhere saying these banks would have to domicile in England anyway in the event of Indy as most of their business was there. They have Scotland in their name and that’s about it. 

 

[JamboX2]

28 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Who’s to say we would’ve bailed them out? Iceland seemed to do alright letting their banks fail. 

But the main point is we were NOT responsible to bail out banks trading all over the world because they had a plaque on a wall in Edinburgh when their main offices were in London. 

There was even a article somewhere saying these banks would have to domicile in England anyway in the event of Indy as most of their business was there. They have Scotland in their name and that’s about it. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/feb/27/scotland-independent-debt-deficit

 

That seems to provide figures. And not a full liability of all debt. 

 

As you say domicility of this is a key point. The fact is a Scottish government is responsible to protect the interests of Scottish account holders. Iceland is a nation with a population of around about the Lothians - 500,000ish. Scotland 5,000,000ish. Do you think if so many Scots savings, mortgages were at risk they'd let the banks flounder? 

 

I honestly can't see that.

 

Anyway. The link gives figures - only ones I could find. 

 

But on topic - This Tory SDLT break without increased supply will stoke a failed housing bubble rather than help people.

[Sraman]

7 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

OK so explain how to calculate what one or two standard deviations from a mean salary each year would be?

 

Be specific.

 

Step 1. Buy scientific calculator

Step 2. Read chapter on Standard Deviation button in manual.

Step 3. input data as instructed in manual

Step 4. press button for answers.

 

[deesidejambo]

8 hours ago, Sraman said:

 

Step 1. Buy scientific calculator

Step 2. Read chapter on Standard Deviation button in manual.

Step 3. input data as instructed in manual

Step 4. press button for answers.

 

What data do you input?

 

be specific.

[jack D and coke]

8 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/feb/27/scotland-independent-debt-deficit

 

That seems to provide figures. And not a full liability of all debt. 

 

As you say domicility of this is a key point. The fact is a Scottish government is responsible to protect the interests of Scottish account holders. Iceland is a nation with a population of around about the Lothians - 500,000ish. Scotland 5,000,000ish. Do you think if so many Scots savings, mortgages were at risk they'd let the banks flounder? 

 

I honestly can't see that.

 

Anyway. The link gives figures - only ones I could find. 

 

But on topic - This Tory SDLT break without increased supply will stoke a failed housing bubble rather than help people.

Honestly I don’t they would’ve either but it’s all moot points. It was all a lie and a big stick to beat people over the head with during the referendum. Even if we’d achieved Indy before the banking collapse these banks had paid taxes to the British treasury for 300 years I’d have said that was good enough reason to be bailed by Britain. 

Every government in the western world has had to deal with it and most of them seemingly haven’t seen their economies collapse apart from Greece but Scotland could never have managed it. No Scotland would’ve turned into Zimbabwe. 

Its lazy stuff and I expect better from someone like you. 

[Sraman]

2 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

What data do you input?

 

be specific.

 

 

Whatever data you wish to analyse. 

 

 

[doctor jambo]

Can I just catch up quickly

People on here are advocating  re-introducing the 50% tax band, and weighing it in somewhere between £60k and £80k?

 

Just to make clear- the biggest cost for most "public services" is staff

You start taxing your senior staff like that and I guess it will solve the "public sector" issue

as there wont be one left

People work on the absurd presumption that someone on £70 k has pots of cash swilling around

They might have if they lived in the same manner and in the same houses as someone on £26 k, but they dont

Do you really expect folks to sell their homes, and ditch their cars to deal with a tax tsunami?

 

The tax take is higher than at any time in history.

You take more tax off people and they cannot spend as much, so the economy - already not in a great position, would slam into reverse

 

( for ref- since Cameron cut corp tax rates the intake has RISEN £500 million )

 

Cut tax and people will spend, supporting jobs and the economy

 

[deesidejambo]

1 hour ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Whatever data you wish to analyse. 

 

 

So tell me, in order to calculate a standard deviation for the purposes of setting tax bands, what date you need to input?

 

You are the one suggesting its simple O-grade maths, in which case you will be able to say what it is and how to get it.

[deesidejambo]

11 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Can I just catch up quickly

People on here are advocating  re-introducing the 50% tax band, and weighing it in somewhere between £60k and £80k?

 

Just to make clear- the biggest cost for most "public services" is staff

You start taxing your senior staff like that and I guess it will solve the "public sector" issue

as there wont be one left

People work on the absurd presumption that someone on £70 k has pots of cash swilling around

They might have if they lived in the same manner and in the same houses as someone on £26 k, but they dont

Do you really expect folks to sell their homes, and ditch their cars to deal with a tax tsunami?

 

The tax take is higher than at any time in history.

You take more tax off people and they cannot spend as much, so the economy - already not in a great position, would slam into reverse

 

( for ref- since Cameron cut corp tax rates the intake has RISEN £500 million )

 

Cut tax and people will spend, supporting jobs and the economy

 

Not in this case.

 

The problem is that people at the high end of the pay scale are offshoring their money, buying holiday homes in Portugal, or simply saving it to pass on to their kids (once they have identified how to avoid inheritance tax).

 

So of course some money filters back into the ecomony, but not all of it, and an increasing proportion is either going overseas or going into savings.

 

Using your argument should the Govt reduce tax then?

 

 

[JamboX2]

4 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Honestly I don’t they would’ve either but it’s all moot points. It was all a lie and a big stick to beat people over the head with during the referendum. Even if we’d achieved Indy before the banking collapse these banks had paid taxes to the British treasury for 300 years I’d have said that was good enough reason to be bailed by Britain. 

Every government in the western world has had to deal with it and most of them seemingly haven’t seen their economies collapse apart from Greece but Scotland could never have managed it. No Scotland would’ve turned into Zimbabwe. 

Its lazy stuff and I expect better from someone like you. 

You're the one mentioning Zimbabwe. I'm not. I asked you for figures. You didn't come back with that crap.

 

The argument isn't economic collapse it's that there would be initial hard times to face. 

[Pans Jambo]

16 hours ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

This is for Tory hating! Back on track please?

LIZARD BASSAS!!! (That should do it).

[Cade]

Higher tax bands don't need adjusting.

 

Just close the avoidance/evasion loopholes. All it takes is the stroke of a pen and offshoring becomes illegal overnight.

[doctor jambo]

31 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Not in this case.

 

The problem is that people at the high end of the pay scale are offshoring their money, buying holiday homes in Portugal, or simply saving it to pass on to their kids (once they have identified how to avoid inheritance tax).

 

So of course some money filters back into the ecomony, but not all of it, and an increasing proportion is either going overseas or going into savings.

 

Using your argument should the Govt reduce tax then?

 

 

How much do you need to make to "offshore" ?

Just make sure that people cannot accept cash, and that people cannot register themselves as companies

abolish directors loans

and don't allow people to take money as dividends beyond a certain % of income without being taxed as income to prevent system abuse

[AlphonseCapone]

30 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Can I just catch up quickly

People on here are advocating  re-introducing the 50% tax band, and weighing it in somewhere between £60k and £80k?

 

Just to make clear- the biggest cost for most "public services" is staff

You start taxing your senior staff like that and I guess it will solve the "public sector" issue

as there wont be one left

People work on the absurd presumption that someone on £70 k has pots of cash swilling around

They might have if they lived in the same manner and in the same houses as someone on £26 k, but they dont

Do you really expect folks to sell their homes, and ditch their cars to deal with a tax tsunami?

 

The tax take is higher than at any time in history.

You take more tax off people and they cannot spend as much, so the economy - already not in a great position, would slam into reverse

 

( for ref- since Cameron cut corp tax rates the intake has RISEN £500 million )

 

Cut tax and people will spend, supporting jobs and the economy

 

 

And here is the problem in a nutshell, the what about me mentality.

 

Maybe 50% on those earning 80k is too much, or maybe we need to redefine what earning 80k means. But the notion that someone earning 80k doesn't necessarily have more left than someone on 26k because they spend it, shows a startling level of selfish lack of awareness. If you earn 80k and struggle to make ends meet because you've got the extra car and holidays abroad then that is no comparable to the person on 26k struggling to make ends meet because the cost of food and rent is ridiculously high. Can't actually believe you'd mention it like it is a valid point.

 

One thing beyond doubt, when the wealthy have more money, they don't spend it here, they squirrel it away offshore. We are living in a time of crazily low personal taxation and look at the state of the place, but you want to pay even less? Thatcher didn't half turn us into a bunch of selfish individuals.

 

Cutting corportion tax and saying look we took in an extra 500m completely misses the point, how much should we have taken in if all these corporations paid their dues? Because that is the crux of all this regardless of whether it is corporations or individuals; you pay what you can based on what you actually earn and you pay every penny of it.

[Victorian]

To introduce as much fairness as possible,    ideally a much more nimble and progressive scale of bands/rates could be used.     The argument in the past against it was that it would over-complicate things and increase bureaucracy costs to operate it.     In the modern world this is less relevant.         

 

VAT could and should be reformed to provide a greater degree of progressive taxation.      It's too blunt a tool as it is.     

[doctor jambo]

7 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

And here is the problem in a nutshell, the what about me mentality.

 

Maybe 50% on those earning 80k is too much, or maybe we need to redefine what earning 80k means. But the notion that someone earning 80k doesn't necessarily have more left than someone on 26k because they spend it, shows a startling level of selfish lack of awareness. If you earn 80k and struggle to make ends meet because you've got the extra car and holidays abroad then that is no comparable to the person on 26k struggling to make ends meet because the cost of food and rent is ridiculously high. Can't actually believe you'd mention it like it is a valid point.

 

One thing beyond doubt, when the wealthy have more money, they don't spend it here, they squirrel it away offshore. We are living in a time of crazily low personal taxation and look at the state of the place, but you want to pay even less? Thatcher didn't half turn us into a bunch of selfish individuals.

 

Cutting corportion tax and saying look we took in an extra 500m completely misses the point, how much should we have taken in if all these corporations paid their dues? Because that is the crux of all this regardless of whether it is corporations or individuals; you pay what you can based on what you actually earn and you pay every penny of it.

People should have the opportunity to make themselves better off,

without the success being somehow viewed as a bad, selfish thing.

I know loads of people who earn 6 figures

None have properties abroad

All have mortgages

"crazily low taxation"- once your over about £40 k you lose pretty much HALF of what you earn ( chuck pension contributions on top of this and you take home less than half!)

I don't think we should ever get to the stage where the "state" takes more of your money than you do.

 

[AlphonseCapone]

16 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

People should have the opportunity to make themselves better off,

without the success being somehow viewed as a bad, selfish thing.

I know loads of people who earn 6 figures

None have properties abroad

All have mortgages

"crazily low taxation"- once your over about £40 k you lose pretty much HALF of what you earn ( chuck pension contributions on top of this and you take home less than half!)

I don't think we should ever get to the stage where the "state" takes more of your money than you do.

 

 

I don't disagree that people should have opportunity to better themselves and I don't propose some communist state where we all earn the same regardless of job. But if you get taxed 50% on 80k, you've got 40k left. Where someone earning 26k getting taxed say 25%, 21.5k, that's still a huge gap between them but both have contributed what they can. I don't see what is wrong with that.

 

I agree about folk on 40k and I said as much on here yesterday. But that is why we need to consider what well off, rich, super rich etc mean in todays terms. I don't think that means we simply tax less.

 

Should the State ever take more of your money than your earn? I don't know actually, that is an interesting consideration I'll need to think more on. Hadn't considered it in exactly those terms before.

 

One of the areas I think people disagree on, and both have evidence to support their cases; the rich don't trust the State to spend their money wisely or well and believe they'd contribute better via spending and paying tax that way, whereas the not so rich don't trust the rich to actually spend their money here. Neither are wrong.

[Sawdust Caesar]

40 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

People should have the opportunity to make themselves better off,

without the success being somehow viewed as a bad, selfish thing.

I know loads of people who earn 6 figures

None have properties abroad

All have mortgages

"crazily low taxation"- once your over about £40 k you lose pretty much HALF of what you earn ( chuck pension contributions on top of this and you take home less than half!)

I don't think we should ever get to the stage where the "state" takes more of your money than you do.

 

No you don't, you are still entitled to the tax-free personal allowance of £11,500 and for the first £33,500 of taxable earnings taxed at 20%. You have to be on more than £45,000 to become a higher rate taxpayer. If you earn £50K this year your net pay after tax and NI will be £36,776 and if you earn £150,000 your net pay will be £90,176.

[doctor jambo]

42 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I don't disagree that people should have opportunity to better themselves and I don't propose some communist state where we all earn the same regardless of job. But if you get taxed 50% on 80k, you've got 40k left. Where someone earning 26k getting taxed say 25%, 21.5k, that's still a huge gap between them but both have contributed what they can. I don't see what is wrong with that.

 

I agree about folk on 40k and I said as much on here yesterday. But that is why we need to consider what well off, rich, super rich etc mean in todays terms. I don't think that means we simply tax less.

 

Should the State ever take more of your money than your earn? I don't know actually, that is an interesting consideration I'll need to think more on. Hadn't considered it in exactly those terms before.

 

One of the areas I think people disagree on, and both have evidence to support their cases; the rich don't trust the State to spend their money wisely or well and believe they'd contribute better via spending and paying tax that way, whereas the not so rich don't trust the rich to actually spend their money here. Neither are wrong.

ONe thing I would consider is encouraging stay at home parents- and encouraging families to stay together

 

if you have 2 people in  a house earing 40k

they have more in take home than one earning £80k

Perhaps we could look at household income

possibly with tax breaks per child too

especially is we are looking to boost birth rates- and lets face it, many limit their family size by affordability

[Space Mackerel]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

You're the one mentioning Zimbabwe. I'm not. I asked you for figures. You didn't come back with that crap.

 

The argument isn't economic collapse it's that there would be initial hard times to face. 

 

The Scottish Government could borrow money, (just like any other country including the UK) to get over the initial cost of set up.

Plenty countries have become independent recently, Czech Republic, Slovakia, all the countries that made up Former Yougoslavia and the others who peeled away from the USSR but to name a few. 

 

Why is it impossible for Scotland to do the same? Me thinks you’re scaremongering. 

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

£50bn or £50,000,000,000 - that would be a welcome boost to the public coffers, don’t you think.  

 

What is that? It is the estimate of the annual loss of UK tax revenue thanks to the “black” or “shadow” economy. 

 

That’s a hole that needs plugging and how many on here have not paid cash for a “homer” or done work for cash as a “homer”. 

 

Unlike offshore avoidance which is legal if morally questionable, the provision of, or procuring of, work on the black economy is fraud. 

 

“Homers” are almost seen as an acceptable ****** a snook at the tax man. 

 

If we are going to demand fair taxation, let’s make sure it extends to all beyond the poor mugs on PAYE. 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

ONe thing I would consider is encouraging stay at home parents- and encouraging families to stay together

 

if you have 2 people in  a house earing 40k

they have more in take home than one earning £80k

Perhaps we could look at household income

possibly with tax breaks per child too

especially is we are looking to boost birth rates- and lets face it, many limit their family size by affordability

 Thread swerve but I’ve been listening to a podcast called the butterfly effect & they believe free porn is the reason birth rates are down. Merely pointing this out doc! 

[AlphonseCapone]

18 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

£50bn or £50,000,000,000 - that would be a welcome boost to the public coffers, don’t you think.  

 

What is that? It is the estimate of the annual loss of UK tax revenue thanks to the “black” or “shadow” economy. 

 

That’s a hole that needs plugging and how many on here have not paid cash for a “homer” or done work for cash as a “homer”. 

 

Unlike offshore avoidance which is legal if morally questionable, the provision of, or procuring of, work on the black economy is fraud. 

 

“Homers” are almost seen as an acceptable ****** a snook at the tax man. 

 

If we are going to demand fair taxation, let’s make sure it extends to all beyond the poor mugs on PAYE. 

 

Be amazed if anyone disagrees tbh.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

On the raising cash front I’d start a people’s bank to compete with the. Banks where every penny that could go to the national debt does. Speaking personally I’d **** that theiving bank wank over in a heart beat. I’d close this bank after the debt was cleared & a gov pension pot was established. 

 

Its that easy.

[Sawdust Caesar]

39 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

£50bn or £50,000,000,000 - that would be a welcome boost to the public coffers, don’t you think.  

 

What is that? It is the estimate of the annual loss of UK tax revenue thanks to the “black” or “shadow” economy. 

 

That’s a hole that needs plugging and how many on here have not paid cash for a “homer” or done work for cash as a “homer”. 

 

Unlike offshore avoidance which is legal if morally questionable, the provision of, or procuring of, work on the black economy is fraud. 

 

“Homers” are almost seen as an acceptable ****** a snook at the tax man. 

 

If we are going to demand fair taxation, let’s make sure it extends to all beyond the poor mugs on PAYE. 

Totally agree. Unfortunately HMRC's leaders keep trotting out the line that the vast majority of people want to pay the correct amount of tax and that it's only a very small percentage that try and evade tax. Ask most of the HMRC frontline staff and they will tell you a different story. Nothing will get done about it though, the govt. would rather shrink HMRC's numbers and close most of the tax offices. In a few years there will be no HMRC presence further north than Edinburgh. Non compliance and evasion will increase with fewer tax officers about. On the plus side they are tackling more (and winning more) cases of avoidance schemes not deemed within the spirit of the law.

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

£50bn or £50,000,000,000 - that would be a welcome boost to the public coffers, don’t you think.  

 

What is that? It is the estimate of the annual loss of UK tax revenue thanks to the “black” or “shadow” economy. 

 

That’s a hole that needs plugging and how many on here have not paid cash for a “homer” or done work for cash as a “homer”. 

 

Unlike offshore avoidance which is legal if morally questionable, the provision of, or procuring of, work on the black economy is fraud. 

 

“Homers” are almost seen as an acceptable ****** a snook at the tax man. 

 

If we are going to demand fair taxation, let’s make sure it extends to all beyond the poor mugs on PAYE. 

Yeah let’s go after the wee man again  

[Irufushi]

20 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Yeah let’s go after the wee man again  

 

 

Rightly so, people who do homers are tax frauds. 

[Arnold Rothstein]

30 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Yeah let’s go after the wee man again  

 

So they should just get away with paying less tax than me on PAYE? No one is suggesting doing this INSTEAD of closing tax loopholes btw before you throw that back at anyone.

[Sraman]

4 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

So tell me, in order to calculate a standard deviation for the purposes of setting tax bands, what date you need to input?

 

You are the one suggesting its simple O-grade maths, in which case you will be able to say what it is and how to get it.

 

Calculating Standard Deviation is simple O Grade Mathematics. That is all I claimed but just for you the (best guess) data required is held by HMRC i.e. How many people and how much each person earns. That's it. That is all the data you need. How to get it, stand for election or study o grade maths and join the Civil Service.

 

Using standard deviation points to determine the bands is OK (to a reasonable degree) for the centre ground but there must be cut offs at either end of the scale which should be treated differently i.e. no tax and super hefty, mega, shitload tax. This is the name of the highest of the three tax bands in the top end cut off in this "perfect" scenario, the other two being super hefty and super hefty, mega. The three bands in the lower end are no, very light and light tax. There could be as many bands in the middle ground as you see fit but I would imagine 4 or 5 should do it. 

 

Should I elaborate further or does the above quench your thirst for my knowledge?