Another boot in the stones for the SNP tax plans

[Therapist]

It's difficult to take the fiscal plans of these bozos seriously. Are they incapable of subjecting ideas to even a basic level of examination and scrutiny?

 

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Financial-experts-tell-SNP-Local.4283949.jp

[deesidejambo]

Too right mate. Labour is much better at handling taxation. They got away with the tax on pension funds and I prefer Council tax anyway cos I don't like to be taxed on my ability to pay. They made a little slip with the 10% banding so a lot of poorer people will end up worse off but apart from that they are excellent at fiscal income generation.

[Therapist]

I prefer Council tax anyway cos I don't like to be taxed on my ability to pay.

 

Me too.

[Mister Dee]

When was the last time an SNP leader had to resign in disgrace?

[Riccarton 3]

Over all the SNP are doing a pretty good job and it has to be said a much better job than the pro union parties. They waited along time to get a chance and its now Labours worst nightmare as the SNP are proving to be very capable of government in Scotland.

[I P Knightley]

Over all the SNP are doing a pretty good job and it has to be said a much better job than the pro union parties. They waited along time to get a chance and its now Labours worst nightmare as the SNP are proving to be very capable of government in Scotland.

 

When the true scale of the incompetence in this Local Income Tax proposal come to light, I'm not sure that that claim would be allowed to pass without comment.

 

They've assumed that everyone who earns money in Scotland earns a salary. There's no allowance for the self emplyed folk who don't pay tax until 18 months or so after it's earned. That's quite a massive hole in cashflow.

 

They've also failed to plan for issues of residence & domicile. Someone could earn all their money in Scotland but easily set themselves up as resident or domiciled in Berwick.

 

Rather than looking at 3%, the true figure needs to be nearer to 9-10%.

[Craig_]

It's difficult to take the fiscal plans of these bozos seriously. Are they incapable of subjecting ideas to even a basic level of examination and scrutiny?

 

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Financial-experts-tell-SNP-Local.4283949.jp

 

Sorry, but it's difficult to take your posts seriously when your only point of reference seems to be the Scotsman, which has reduced itself to little more than a comic over the last few years!

[Coco]

When the true scale of the incompetence in this Local Income Tax proposal come to light, I'm not sure that that claim would be allowed to pass without comment.

 

They've assumed that everyone who earns money in Scotland earns a salary. There's no allowance for the self emplyed folk who don't pay tax until 18 months or so after it's earned. That's quite a massive hole in cashflow.

 

They've also failed to plan for issues of residence & domicile. Someone could earn all their money in Scotland but easily set themselves up as resident or domiciled in Berwick.

 

Rather than looking at 3%, the true figure needs to be nearer to 9-10%.

 

Putting your other valid points aside:

 

Perhaps the true figure should be 3% and local authority spending cut by 50-60%? It has gone up by at least that much in the past few years - anyone seen any improved services?

[I P Knightley]

Putting your other valid points aside:

 

Perhaps the true figure should be 3% and local authority spending cut by 50-60%? It has gone up by at least that much in the past few years - anyone seen any improved services?

 

Aha!

 

That's a whole different 'nother argument.

 

The first question whould be 'how much needs to be raised to support local government spending?'

 

That's one I'd love to see properly tackled before the moving on to the second:

 

'What's a fair and efficient way of raising that amount.' The 3% might be achievable if they ever work out how to raise it efficiently - but they haven't even begun to do that.

 

But will they listen to me?

 

Will they heck.

[Coco]

Aha!

 

That's a whole different 'nother argument.

 

The first question whould be 'how much needs to be raised to support local government spending?'

 

That's one I'd love to see properly tackled before the moving on to the second:

 

'What's a fair and efficient way of raising that amount.' The 3% might be achievable if they ever work out how to raise it efficiently - but they haven't even begun to do that.

 

But will they listen to me?

 

Will they heck.

 

How much of Council spending does the Council Tax raise at the moment? 10%?

 

So if all of the bill for the Council's spending were shifted to income tax - it could see 30-100% (on the 3-10% income tax rate estimates above) of the entire income tax take spent by Councils. Do we get value for money on that?

[Jarhead]

Just a thought, as LIT would be a national tax would this not leave areas doing well, like Edinburgh or Aberdeen, being used to subsidise other areas of the country. Kind of like what happens with business rates at the moment.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that it is just a form of council welfare state and it reduces the incentive for poorer performing councils to get themselves sorted out.