SNP's tax plans destroyed

[Toggie88]

Ah, it's the Togster.

 

Do you not think it was both foolish and naive for Salmond and his lackeys to make assumptions about the ?400 million subsidy, particularly with the issue being such a sensitive one.

 

I'll ignore the unionist wording.

 

I don't think it was wrong. Scotland are still entitled to the cash, regardless on how it's calculated.

 

It's just the Westminster Govt trying to be awkward - it will undoubtedly back fire on them.

[Therapist]

Why should Scotland lose a subsisdy they have been calculated to be entitled to

 

Scotland is not "entitled" to it. It is part of the current way of funding local government via Council Tax. If the SNP decides it doesn't like Council Tax and wants to replace it, it's only right that the ?400 million disappears with it.

[coppercrutch]

Why should Scotland lose a subsisdy they have been calculated to be entitled to, just because the Scottish Parliament - the elected representatives of the Scottish public - decide to spend said money in a different manner?

 

It's nothing more than petty semantics and will backfire spectacularly on an already less than credible Labour government.

 

The SNP are just trying to do anything they can to be different to England. In a campaign to increase hostility. It is pretty obvious really.

[felix]

Some people see the ?400 million "subsidy" differently.

 

When Westminster scrapped the rates, it didn't abolish rates reliefs; when the poll tax was scrapped, local government subsidies were transferred intact to underwrite its successor, the council tax.

 

It is not for UK ministers to make arbitrary rulings about how Scottish taxpayers' money should be used in Scotland. The ?400m that currently goes in council tax benefits is part of the overall structure of local government finance - which already mostly comes from recycled income tax, since council tax raises only a small proportion of what councils actually spend.

 

 

The proposal to scrap the council tax was a major vote winner for the SNP and is backed by the Lib. Dems. There's some doubt whether Labour in Scotland is really prepared to get another election bashing in order to save an unloved tax.

 

The more they dig their heels in on this one, the better for the SNP imho.

[The White Cockade]

The SNP are just trying to do anything they can to be different to England. In a campaign to increase hostility. It is pretty obvious really.

 

Sorry but that is wrong

Being pro Scottish is not being anti English

If the Scottish Parliament votes to replace the Council Tax with some other method of funding how can you construe that as being hostile to England?

 

Thatcher foisting the Council Tax on Scotland prior to it being introduced in England was obviously her being hostile to Scotland

but thats another story

[coppercrutch]

Sorry but that is wrong

Being pro Scottish is not being anti English

If the Scottish Parliament votes to replace the Council Tax with some other method of funding how can you construe that as being hostile to England?

 

Thatcher foisting the Council Tax on Scotland prior to it being introduced in England was obviously her being hostile to Scotland

but thats another story

 

How many 'fights' has Salmond spoiled for already ? Is this all him just 'sticking up for Scotland' ?

 

How do you explain his abuse of the amount Scotland got from the budget, BEFORE it was even announced................

 

That was spoiling for a fight. End of. FACT.

[Professor.Arturo]

Question for Mr Therapist.

 

Under the current regulations.

 

Mr Smith the eminent plastic surgeon lives in a snazzy house (almost as huge as Therapist towers) and pays ?300 a month from his pocket change in council tax.

 

Old granny jones who lived next door, left her house to her only grandson, he moved in with his wife and kids, he earns ?6 per hour delivering fruit and veg, now, on top of his bills he now has to also find ?300 a month to pay the council tax.

 

Is that fair?

 

I agree with you that no tax is perfect or fair. But surely an income based tax is preferable to the above scenario? Lets be honest, proffesionals do earn good money, but ordinary Joe Punter (the majority of us) get ?5-?10 an hour or there abouts.

 

If someone earns minimum wage, this unfare tax can take a sizeable chunk out their wages each week.

[Therapist]

Question for Mr Therapist.

 

Under the current regulations.

 

Mr Smith the eminent plastic surgeon lives in a snazzy house (almost as huge as Therapist towers) and pays ?300 a month from his pocket change in council tax.

 

Old granny jones who lived next door, left her house to her only grandson, he moved in with his wife and kids, he earns ?6 per hour delivering fruit and veg, now, on top of his bills he now has to also find ?300 a month to pay the council tax.

 

Is that fair?

 

Yes.

 

The answer is that Grandson Jones should downsize to a property he can afford and not have ideas above his station. He can sell the property, move to a smaller one, and trouser the difference. Job done.

[Toggie88]

The SNP are just trying to do anything they can to be different to England.

 

That sounds like A comment George Foulkes. Last week he said:

 

George Foulkes: "What Salmond is trying to do is create a system whereby all services are much better in Scotland than in England."

 

Presenter: "Is that a bad thing?"

 

GF: "No. But he's doing it deliberately."

 

ahaha

[IronJambo]

I for one hope that we never see an income based council tax system down here. Ideas like that make me glad i've moved away.

 

replacing council tax with an income tax of 3% would increase my council tax by more than a third. we don't live outwith our means but our flat aint cheap and we live in an expensive city. a change like that would have a major impact on our lives. the SNP don't seem to be taking that sort of thing into account.

 

what about all the people in Scotland that've bought properties that they're only just comfortable in maintaining and they manage because they're careful with their money and carefully calculated their costs before they bought. a change like this could financially break thousands of people.

 

i've got my tin hat on because the vast majority on here seem to be in favour. ask yourselves...

 

1) do you think you currently pay too much? if so, have you added up your complete household income and done the math? would you be better off or is the moral high ground just being taken here?

 

2) are there kids in your house? how will you feel if they're still living at home when they get their first full time job and your ctax essentially goes up by ?300 pa?

[Toggie88]

I for one hope that we never see an income based council tax system down here. Ideas like that make me glad i've moved away.

 

replacing council tax with an income tax of 3% would increase my council tax by more than a third. we don't live outwith our means but our flat aint cheap and we live in an expensive city. a change like that would have a major impact on our lives. the SNP don't seem to be taking that sort of thing into account.

 

what about all the people in Scotland that've bought properties that they're only just comfortable in maintaining and they manage because they're careful with their money and carefully calculated their costs before they bought. a change like this could financially break thousands of people.

 

i've got my tin hat on because the vast majority on here seem to be in favour. ask yourselves...

 

1) do you think you currently pay too much? if so, have you added up your complete household income and done the math? would you be better off or is the moral high ground just being taken here?

 

2) are there kids in your house? how will you feel if they're still living at home when they get their first full time job and your ctax essentially goes up by ?300 pa?

 

We're not all selfish.

[The White Cockade]

How many 'fights' has Salmond spoiled for already ? Is this all him just 'sticking up for Scotland' ?

 

How do you explain his abuse of the amount Scotland got from the budget, BEFORE it was even announced................

 

That was spoiling for a fight. End of. FACT.

 

Spoiling for a fight?

I think not

Whats the point of the Scotish Parliament if it doesn't think and act for itself?

All this anti SNP stuff in the Daily Record is purely a smokescreen to hide the inadequacies of the pathetic Scottish Labour Party who can't even sort themselves out let alone the country

[IronJambo]

We're not all selfish.

 

whats selfish got to do with it?

 

did you read my post? i'm looking at the bigger picture (not just my own circumstances). For me and my partner both sitting on fixed incomes a change like that would be quite dramatic. it wouldn't push us over the edge but many more wouldn't be so lucky.

[mitch41]

Hate to say I told you so, but....

 

This is great news. The SNP's plans were ridiculous and unfair. Well done Mr Brown and Mr Darling.

 

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Salmond-tax-plan-in-tatters.3834253.jp

 

brown, darling and all the other anti scottish muppets will learn that the SNP will win the day as they are only interested in what is right and fair for the people of scotland unlike new labour who put their party first before the people. new labour steal the food out our bairns mouths, kill our old people and help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. they take back handers for their own gain and take illegal donations from the rich who are only interested in personel gain and honours. new labour's time is running out and they know it. time for this greedy lot to feather their beds and get what they can out of the system while they can.

[blairdin]

The proposed local income tax seems perfectly fair to me.

 

I live myself so I get a 25% discount on my council tax. It comes in at about ?950 a year.

 

Across the landing lives a middle aged couple and their two children - both of who are past school leaving age and working full time. I'm guessing thier council tax bill is around ?1,150. Four times the refuse to be collected. In theory they would each get access to a social worker if they needed to. Four times the people to be policed.

 

Why shouldn't they all contribute?

 

Let's wait and see what the Nats and the Lib Dems come up with. I think at the moment there is alot of Labour scaremongering going on.

[IronJambo]

The proposed local income tax seems perfectly fair to me.

 

I live myself so I get a 25% discount on my council tax. It comes in at about ?950 a year.

 

Across the landing lives a middle aged couple and their two children - both of who are past school leaving age and working full time. I'm guessing thier council tax bill is around ?1,150. Four times the refuse to be collected. In theory they would each get access to a social worker if they needed to. Four times the people to be policed.

 

Why shouldn't they all contribute?

 

Let's wait and see what the Nats and the Lib Dems come up with. I think at the moment there is alot of Labour scaremongering going on.

 

i'd say it would be fairer if you were to be recieving a larger discount. Its far from correct to say that 4 people means 4x the waste though is it? define how much waste one person produces. a family of four has to manage with one wheely bin the same as a single person household.

 

are social workers funded from council tax? if they are, by that theory does that mean that council tenants should pay more because they're using more council resources than private home owners?

 

where does it end?

[Das Root]

First of all, I'm loving the ad just above the QR box..."seekingmillionaire.com - exclusively for wealthy or beautiful singles". That's us sorted for Saturday night then eh (Therapist excepted of course)

 

I can see the value in the tax, really can, will help the less affluent, OAPs, general population. However not so much those in larger shared flats who are not exactly targeted by the above ad but aren't low income.

 

In Glasgow we pay 33% more than Edinburgh in CT and that's already way too much. With this new LIT those living in say 3 bed or more and earning a decent wage could very easily see what they pay rise sharply. And what about students working part time to fund studies, will they face the tax or still be fully rebated?

 

The idea is good but only if it was accompanied by sweeping changes to how the councils are run as mentioned in an earlier post. They pish money away each year and in Glasgow our rates rose simply to plug the massive gap in their pension schemes.

 

LIT sure, much much fairer, but councils need ripped to shreds first and all the freeloaders and waste currently found has to be addressed first so at least the additional money paid by those is used correctly.

[Therapist]

That's us sorted for Saturday night then eh (Therapist excepted of course)

 

What's wrong with me like?

[The Mighty Thor]

Hate to say I told you so, but....

 

This is great news. The SNP's plans were ridiculous and unfair. Well done Mr Brown and Mr Darling.

 

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Salmond-tax-plan-in-tatters.3834253.jp

 

Two issues at play here for me, The current Westminster regime is in it's death throes and as is usually the case when one party has been in for a long period the dodgy deals and corruption catches them up at the end (Thatcher era tories anyone?)

 

Secondly Salmond is point scoring and politicking like crazy just now, it's all new and it's all about grabbing the headlines and the perceptions of the voters. Wait until year 3 or 4 and then see if they've delivered anything of value.

 

Mind you looking around the Scottish political landscape the SNP aren't up against much, The Labour party is led by a corrupt, power hungry bint and the Scottish Conservatives and Unionists are about as prolific as a Saudi Arabian downhill skier.

 

Anyway as has been pointed out in the thread, I wouldn't trust Brown or Darling to manage my wee boy's pocket money, The Northern Rock debacle is one of the biggest financial scandals of our time and the UK taxpayer will not get a sniff of the ?110 billion wasted to prop up corporate and government incompetence.

[felix]

[quote name=

Anyway as has been pointed out in the thread' date=' I wouldn't trust Brown or Darling to manage my wee boy's pocket money, The Northern Rock debacle is one of the biggest financial scandals of our time and the UK taxpayer will not get a sniff of the ?110 billion wasted to prop up corporate and government incompetence.

 

Brown and Darling didn't lead Nothern Rock's investment strategy nor did they have anything to do with Nothern Rock's core Business Model so how is it their fault when investment goes tits up ?

[Guest casper]

The proposed local income tax seems perfectly fair to me.

 

I live myself so I get a 25% discount on my council tax. It comes in at about ?950 a year.

 

Across the landing lives a middle aged couple and their two children - both of who are past school leaving age and working full time. I'm guessing thier council tax bill is around ?1,150. Four times the refuse to be collected. In theory they would each get access to a social worker if they needed to. Four times the people to be policed.

 

Why shouldn't they all contribute?

 

Let's wait and see what the Nats and the Lib Dems come up with. I think at the moment there is alot of Labour scaremongering going on.

 

Sound like you are advocating some thing like the community charge where everybody pays. I remember Mrs Thatcher introduced that into Scotland a while back. Didn't go down too well if I remember right.

[Das Root]

Brown and Darling didn't lead Nothern Rock's investment strategy nor did they have anything to do with Nothern Rock's core Business Model so how is it their fault when investment goes tits up ?

 

 

Northern Rock should've been left for a takeover just like any other failing company, not bailed out by the treasury. Private company, making private money, why the need for the public purse to ensure the private investors don't lose out?

[The Mighty Thor]

Brown and Darling didn't lead Nothern Rock's investment strategy nor did they have anything to do with Nothern Rock's core Business Model so how is it their fault when investment goes tits up ?

 

It's not their fault the market overtook what was a fundamentally flawed business model.

 

what is their fault is sitting on their hands for 6 months whilst the whole thing unravelled, allowing the time for optimum public investment to pass and then finally agreeing to prop it up with the public purse to the level of 5 or 6 times what they are ever likely to see in a return. That's criminal fiscal negligence on a scale never seen in this country.

 

They should have let it go bust and then told the investors that when you invest in a company it can go down as well as up.

 

As i said, they cannot be trusted to set the fiscal policy for this country against a background of volatile financial conditions. They are either inept or corrupt at best and both at worst.

[felix]

Northern Rock should've been left for a takeover just like any other failing company, not bailed out by the treasury. Private company, making private money, why the need for the public purse to ensure the private investors don't lose out?

 

Exactly..

and to make matters worse, the people who were actually responsible for the Nothern Rock fiasco - those who borrowed short and lent long - will be up for big bonuses very soon.

 

Gambling with other peoples money is an easy game.

[felix]

It's not their fault the market overtook what was a fundamentally flawed business model.

 

what is their fault is sitting on their hands for 6 months whilst the whole thing unravelled, allowing the time for optimum public investment to pass and then finally agreeing to prop it up with the public purse to the level of 5 or 6 times what they are ever likely to see in a return. That's criminal fiscal negligence on a scale never seen in this country.

 

They should have let it go bust and then told the investors that when you invest in a company it can go down as well as up.

 

As i said, they cannot be trusted to set the fiscal policy for this country against a background of volatile financial conditions. They are either inept or corrupt at best and both at worst.

 

I thought you were blaming Brown & Darling for "one of the biggest financial scandals of our time" ..and whilst the subprime crisis and it's aftermath is indeed a scandal, I was just pointing out it's not really Labour's fault.

 

As the crisis unfolded they can hardly be blamed for sitting on their hands..and what were they to do after assessing two takeover bids which didn't promise to repay the taxpayer - nationalising the Nothern Rock was the only option, unless you know of another that would guarantee the savings of millions.

 

Brown (and Darling's) ineptitude is questionable...to suggest they're corrupt in all of this is ridiculous.

[Ogi fae Gorgie]

When someone says "END OF" does that mean the story is right? they are right? or I'm not saying anymore cause I am not interested in your opinion? Quite rude really IMHO its like putting your hand up in someones face and saying "talk to the hand not the face" know what I mean.

[The Mighty Thor]

I thought you were blaming Brown & Darling for "one of the biggest financial scandals of our time" ..and whilst the subprime crisis and it's aftermath is indeed a scandal, I was just pointing out it's not really Labour's fault.

 

As the crisis unfolded they can hardly be blamed for sitting on their hands..and what were they to do after assessing two takeover bids which didn't promise to repay the taxpayer - nationalising the Nothern Rock was the only option, unless you know of another that would guarantee the savings of millions.

 

Brown (and Darling's) ineptitude is questionable...to suggest they're corrupt in all of this is ridiculous.

 

I'm not even thinking about the sub-prime situation in America. That's just pure corporate greed overtaking common sense and all the banks implicated in that fully deserve all that's coming their way.

 

On Northern Rock.....make no mistake, The ?110 billion pumped in so far is the biggest financial scandal of our time. The UK Tax Payer (you me and probably most on here) has just been royally fisted to the tune of ?3,500 each, with absolutely no chance of any more than 15% of that ever being recovered regardless of who takes it over.

 

Brown and Darling are both guilty as sin on this one. The whole financial difficulty that NR faced didn't just appear overnight, in reality it's been an ongoing situation for almost 12 months now. It came to light in Sept/Oct once the media got a sniff and then the treasury sat around for 6 months before finally 'nationalising' it. They could have stepped in with under ?10 billion 8/9 months ago and stabilised it. They didn't and have now ploughed in 11 times that. Good work fellas.

 

Yes there was another option. Let it fold. Most of NR's customers (95%+) are mortgage based and their debt is easily sold on, savers are guaranteed a % of their money regardless and shareholders are entitled to sweet FA (investing is like betting the horses), but no, dumb and dumber decide to prop it up to 'save face' in the midst of an international banking crisis.

 

Lets put it another way, they aren't so bloody quick of the mark sorting out everyone's pensions that will be worth F-all in 30 years time.

 

As I say, criminal negligence and the inappropriate use of public money.

[felix]

If NR had folded, savers would have lost their money which in turn would have sparked widespread panic in the High St. with even worse ramifications than exist at present and besides Alistair Darling is on record saying every penny of taxpayers cash invested in NR, will be repaid.

 

Once NR is sold off....he may just manage it.

[The Mighty Thor]

If NR had folded, savers would have lost their money which in turn would have sparked widespread panic in the High St. with even worse ramifications than exist at present and besides Alistair Darling is on record saying every penny of taxpayers cash invested in NR, will be repaid.

 

Once NR is sold off....he may just manage it.

 

Once NR is sold off the money he gets for it might just cover the lost interest on the ?110 billion and rising that's been pumped into it.

 

Never mind though we'll all pay for the shortfall in direct and indirect taxation on top of what we've all already ploughed in.

 

Darling is like a rabbit caught in the headlights of on-rushing reality.

[davemclaren]

Once NR is sold off the money he gets for it might just cover the lost interest on the ?110 billion and rising that's been pumped into it.

 

Never mind though we'll all pay for the shortfall in direct and indirect taxation on top of what we've all already ploughed in.

 

Darling is like a rabbit caught in the headlights of on-rushing reality.

 

As far as I'm aware the Government hasn't pumped in as much as 110m just guaranteed it. It's only a contingent liability.

[The Mighty Thor]

As far as I'm aware the Government hasn't pumped in as much as 110m just guaranteed it. It's only a contingent liability.

 

since 1st December 07 the direct loan element of the funding in place has risen from ?11 billion to the current figure (as much as can be ascertained given that it's now nationalised) of ?32 billion.

 

They do not know what they are doing and most of the senior management that put them in the merde are now playing with Public money.

 

All with governmental blessing of course.

[mac]

So basically, two Scots in charge of the British Government make a fuster-cluck - no wonder they don't want those pesky SNP types to get ideas above their station - maybe they're trying to protect the rebellious Scots from themselves, as they're obviously not up to the job!

[Big D]

That belter of an arguement again. The Scots are the unique nation on earth, as they are the only ones incapable of running their own affairs. I sincerely hope you were being fascetious and don't actually believe that dribble.

[doctor jambo]

Another income based tax?

NO thanks

Another dis-incentive to work hard and reap the ?rewards

Last thing this country needs

Perhaps the issue is one of massive council financial profilgacy instead?

And I'm afraid that mounting bills on all fronts are squeezing the workers hard at all levels

Is the problem one of too few people paying enough , rather than the higher earners ?

[I P Knightley]

Another income based tax?

NO thanks

Another dis-incentive to work hard and reap the ?rewards

Last thing this country needs

Perhaps the issue is one of massive council financial profilgacy instead?

And I'm afraid that mounting bills on all fronts are squeezing the workers hard at all levels

Is the problem one of too few people paying enough , rather than the higher earners ?

 

Whatever way it goes, it strikes me that the politicians are simply concerned with the income to support a hugely inefficient spending spree.

 

What's needed is a complete review of services offered, drastic cutting back of those that are pointless, niche or inefficient and the putting together of a lower cost proposition.

 

Once that's done, few would worry whether funding it is income-based, property-based or per-head because it would be cheaper in any regard.

 

That, however, is pie-in-the-sky. Politicians & civil "servants" get away with an inefficient public sector because they always have.

 

Property tax has its flaws, principally in that the size/value of a property is not directly proportionate to the usage of the public services funded through the tax. Were Therapist a flamboyant bachelor, living on his own in Terapist Towers, it would be quite wrong if his neighbours, in an identical property, were a family of six consuming six times (some of) the services.

 

Income tax, as the good Doctor points out, encourages the idle. "Never mind getting off your arse to pay for the services you need to get by - there's a hard-working chap down the road, paid attention at school, does overtime and everything; he'll cover for you. Where is the justice in that? Folk earlier have implied that that wealthy should support the poor without thinking about the incentive. Sorry, given the choice, I'll help the needy, not the "poor".

 

Per capita tax? Well - I know it wasn't too popular, possibly because of the person at the helm, possibly because of poor planning around its introduction but there has to be something said for each paying the same amount for the same service or product, surely? Yes, there ought to be assistance and allowance in the case where folk are needy & unable to pay.

[Toggie88]

The main aim of a local income tax is not to tax more people, it's not the same as the poll tax (which was just plain stupid). The aim is to tax people what they can afford to pay.

 

If someone has a family of 5, earning ?18k - they shouldn't have to pay the same amount as the unmarried couple next door earning ?50k+.

 

Those with more money should pay more.

 

(I believe that the only people who will see a rise in their council tax are those in the top 30%)

[felix]

Income Tax, as the good Doctor points out, encourages the idle.

 

An Income-based Tax is generally reckoned to be a fairer system than one based on property.

 

It would work especially well if the 85% of persons in the UK earning over ?10 Million per year actually paid ANY income tax in the first place

 

10 per cent of the population control more than half the wealth of the UK, with 1 per cent of the elite controlling no less than 21 per cent.

 

A re-distribution of this wealth makes for a fairer society and would reduce the widening gap between rich and poor, which in turn would help resolve other related problems in our society .

[doctor jambo]

The main aim of a local income tax is not to tax more people, it's not the same as the poll tax (which was just plain stupid). The aim is to tax people what they can afford to pay.

 

If someone has a family of 5, earning ?18k - they shouldn't have to pay the same amount as the unmarried couple next door earning ?50k+.

 

Those with more money should pay more.

 

(I believe that the only people who will see a rise in their council tax are those in the top 30%)

 

 

Sorry TOggie- it is that kind of thinking that has created this mess i nthe first place

If you have earnings of ?18k per annum what the hell made you think you could afford 5 kids and a ?200k house in the first place.

This is merely encouraging people to live outwith their means even more, as it is fine- those better off will subsidise you and your expanding brood- dont worry, the less you do the more the state will give you

And the last thing this country needs is to make the better off (the grafters, the professionals, the job CREATORS) leave the country

Encourage hard work, and properly reward those that go the extra mile and ALREADY support a bloated, soft touch benefits system

You do not solve social inequality by breeding resentment amongst the workers and professionals and even things up by taxing the better off until they are broke

Because the higher earners are not dumb- they see what is done with their tax money- and frankly I dont see why it should be used to allow the idle to smoke, drink, get heroin adn go on holiday

My kids should take a drop in standard of living to improve someone elses kids?

If someone wants their kid to have better things, damn it go out and work harder

[Big D]

That is one view Doc, but it doesn't negate the same inherent unfairness in the Council Tax. I get a 25% single occupant rebate. Not 50% as would be reasonable. I am therefore initially penalised for working hard and paying my own way as that is the only benefit I am entitled to. The tax goes to pay for schools, home helps, police, fire services, cleansing, parks, libraries, lighting, social workers, council works depts. Apart from the library, lights and cleansing I am subsidising everybody else again, as I rarely or never use the other services. The Council Tax penalises people like me too, and the proven arguement is that a locally based income tax would bring a fairer assesment to the majority of people in Scotland. Yes 20 - 30 % of the richest in the country would be worse off, however, I and many, many others would be paying a realistic rate for the services we actually use, and are less likely to moan about the social responsibility of funding those in the poorest quartile who genuinely need help from these services.

[Nelly Terraces]

I think a local income tax will pay fair if I pay less under it. If it's more then it's unfair.

 

End of.

[I P Knightley]

 

Those with more money should pay more.

 

 

 

Why?

 

I'm in the queue at Tesco. I have a box of Frosties. It gets swiped through the reader and I am asked to pay ?1.94 which I do.

 

Next person in the queue has an identical box of Frosties and is asked to pay ?1.94 which (s)he does equally willingly.

 

No one asked either of us how much we earn and no one complained about the injustice of it all.

 

When that analogy is followed to its logical conclusion on the provision of public services, we come back to the poll tax. The Poll tax is/was many things wrong but 'plain stupid' is not one of them.

 

An Income-based Tax is generally reckoned to be a fairer system than one based on property. Reckoned by who?

 

It would work especially well if the 85% of persons in the UK earning over ?10 Million per year actually paid ANY income tax in the first place

 

10 per cent of the population control more than half the wealth of the UK, with 1 per cent of the elite controlling no less than 21 per cent.

 

A re-distribution of this wealth makes for a fairer society and would reduce the widening gap between rich and poor, which in turn would help resolve other related problems in our society .

 

Hodge - I agree on the bold point. However, what happens is that those people will always get away without paying any significant tax. The result, therefore, of any further attempt to penalise the 'wealthy' through punitive income taxes is that you hit the more honest among us who (press rewind & play) paid attention at school/university, work hard and earn a decent salary, living within our means.

 

As we've recently seen, any attempt to squeeze the pips of the super-rich results in the Govt caving in to their demands.

 

I'm not convinced that a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor would bring about a solution to society's problems, though:

[felix]

An Income-based Tax is generally reckoned to be a fairer system than one based on property. Reckoned by who?

 

Reckoned by the two parties representing the bulk of those in Scotland who voted.

 

'Think I know what you're saying via Maichael Carroll - either giving people wads of cash doesn't make them socially aware or perhaps it's a straight GIRUY..however in the main, reducing the gap between haves and have-nots is imo both achievable and desirable. The SNPs income tax policy based on ability to pay seems a step in the right direction

[Coco]

Reduce the size of the Council by 15% and there is no need for any local tax - poll, council or local income tax.

[doctor jambo]

Reckoned by the two parties representing the bulk of those in Scotland who voted.

 

'Think I know what you're saying via Maichael Carroll - either giving people wads of cash doesn't make them socially aware or perhaps it's a straight GIRUY..however in the main, reducing the gap between haves and have-nots is imo both achievable and desirable. The SNPs income tax policy based on ability to pay seems a step in the right direction

 

I agree Das, reduce the gap between the haves and have nots- that is what I would wish too

But do it by incentivising the poor, not penalising the better off .

And what is "better off" anyway? This is a misnomer.

Is better off two people working hard to provide nice holidays.

Many of those "better off" who were living within thier means are being stretched more that ever by cost of living increases etc

I fail to see how making this mythical "middle class" poorer will help everyone

I am fairly certain that the more money you pump into the worst off in society, the more you are wasting

The rich never suffer, only the middle classes as we are a soft target

[felix]

I agree Das, reduce the gap between the haves and have nots- that is what I would wish too

But do it by incentivising the poor, not penalising the better off .

And what is "better off" anyway? This is a misnomer.

Is better off two people working hard to provide nice holidays.

Many of those "better off" who were living within thier means are being stretched more that ever by cost of living increases etc

I fail to see how making this mythical "middle class" poorer will help everyone

I am fairly certain that the more money you pump into the worst off in society, the more you are wasting

The rich never suffer, only the middle classes as we are a soft target

 

Indeed..but as I understand, the SNP tax policy will hit hardest at those earning ?100,000.00 plus. That's not the middle classes.

 

As I've tried to point out in post #87, the REAL top earners in this country pay feck all in income tax . By a combination of a fairer tax based on ability to pay, and tightening of tax loopholes easily avoided by the hedge funders and speculators; we could all have a better system.

[doctor jambo]

Indeed..but as I understand, the SNP tax policy will hit hardest at those earning ?100,000.00 plus. That's not the middle classes.

 

As I've tried to point out in post #87, the REAL top earners in this country pay feck all in income tax . By a combination of a fairer tax based on ability to pay, and tightening of tax loopholes easily avoided by the hedge funders and speculators; we could all have a better system.

 

 

Sorry- ?100,000 + is not that much

Its two people with good jobs

The same people who get hit hardest EVERY time a rise happens in anything

I fall into that bracket - but only by working 70 hrs per week in two jobs

We live within our means- is it fair that we will have to live outwith our means because someone resents what we get (and work damn hard for)

This is the politics of envy

Appeal to the lowest common denominator to win votes

"look at them with their houses and cars- lets stiff them and you can have EVEN MORE of the money that THEY work for"

If the councils did something to merit taking circa ?2500 per annum off me, fair enough. That they would take even more is, frankly, galling.

I already lose 40% of my second job earnings

How much more to lose before it becomes simply not worth it?

[felix]

Sorry- ?100,000 + is not that much

Its two people with good jobs

The same people who get hit hardest EVERY time a rise happens in anything

I fall into that bracket - but only by working 70 hrs per week in two jobs

We live within our means- is it fair that we will have to live outwith our means because someone resents what we get (and work damn hard for)

This is the politics of envy

Appeal to the lowest common denominator to win votes

"look at them with their houses and cars- lets stiff them and you can have EVEN MORE of the money that THEY work for"

If the councils did something to merit taking circa ?2500 per annum off me, fair enough. That they would take even more is, frankly, galling.

I already lose 40% of my second job earnings

How much more to lose before it becomes simply not worth it?

 

Sorry but ?100 k plus; IS quite a lot.

Joint incomes on that salary can easily afford another 3p in the ?1.

 

If you earn over ?100k with two jobs you'll know how easy a financial sacrifice it would be ...you need to cut back on your hours and live within your means doc

[Toggie88]

Sorry- ?100,000 + is not that much

Its two people with good jobs

The same people who get hit hardest EVERY time a rise happens in anything

I fall into that bracket - but only by working 70 hrs per week in two jobs

We live within our means- is it fair that we will have to live outwith our means because someone resents what we get (and work damn hard for)

This is the politics of envy

Appeal to the lowest common denominator to win votes

"look at them with their houses and cars- lets stiff them and you can have EVEN MORE of the money that THEY work for"

If the councils did something to merit taking circa ?2500 per annum off me, fair enough. That they would take even more is, frankly, galling.

I already lose 40% of my second job earnings

How much more to lose before it becomes simply not worth it?

 

Are you trying to claim that those that do not earn above ?100,000 are simply work shy?

This will not be giving tax breaks to those on the dole, unemployed etc as it's unlikely they will be paying council tax anyway. This is given breaks to those earning modest salaries, earning ?20,000 - ?100,000. It's not about given those who "canny be arsed" a financial cushion.

 

Why do you need to work more hours than is advised? Are you struggling to pay your mortgage? I bet you are not. Are you worried that you are may not be able to continue to buy yourself a new car every year?

 

I do understand where you are coming from, and you have/continued to work hard to provide a good life for yourself (and your loved ones). However, I don't think you will be struggling to get by (like a lot of folk are, who also work hard and work long hours), unless you have severly mismanaged your finances.

[doctor jambo]

Sorry but ?100 k plus; IS quite a lot.

Joint incomes on that salary can easily afford another 3p in the ?1.

 

If you earn over ?100k with two jobs you'll know how easy a financial sacrifice it would be ...you need to cut back on your hours and live within your means doc

 

I DO live within my means

It is the councils and OTHERS who live outwith their means.

And for that they will screw everyone else

If everyone in this nation lived within their means tax would be negligible

[doctor jambo]

Are you trying to claim that those that do not earn above ?100,000 are simply work shy?

This will not be giving tax breaks to those on the dole, unemployed etc as it's unlikely they will be paying council tax anyway. This is given breaks to those earning modest salaries, earning ?20,000 - ?100,000. It's not about given those who "canny be arsed" a financial cushion.

 

Why do you need to work more hours than is advised? Are you struggling to pay your mortgage? I bet you are not. Are you worried that you are may not be able to continue to buy yourself a new car every year?

 

I do understand where you are coming from, and you have/continued to work hard to provide a good life for yourself (and your loved ones). However, I don't think you will be struggling to get by (like a lot of folk are, who also work hard and work long hours), unless you have severly mismanaged your finances.

 

So what you are saying is that I (and no, I'm not struggling) should give more of my income, so that those already in full time work, can live in houses they could not otherwise afford

in other words, instead of encouraging fiscal responsibility ie- live within your means, you are giving tax breaks full time workers to, well, buy votes at the expense of others

Nice

And I work two jobs so my wife can look after the kids

Not so that other people can live in a bigger house than they really should