SNP's tax plans destroyed

[SlyNB]

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

 

How would an income based tax be unfair?

 

People would be paying proportionaly the same, so whats the problem.

 

It's also BS that it would encourage people not work as hard, do you seriously think people wouldn't want to become doctors, lawyers, nuclear physicists due to the tax system???

 

Total *****e.

[Toggie88]

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

 

What the local income tax would do is create a fair financial enviroment.

 

It's only fair that you pay the same amount percentage as anyone else. How is not?

 

Nobody is not want to earn more because they would get taxed more. They will still have more of an income. It's got nothing to do with the size of a house.

 

 

YOU should pay the same(percentage) as those earning less than you!

[SlyNB]

What the local income tax would do is create a fair financial enviroment.

 

It's only fair that you pay the same amount percentage as anyone else. How is not?

 

Nobody is not want to earn more because they would get taxed more. They will still have more of an income. It's got nothing to do with the size of a house.

 

 

YOU should pay the same(percentage) as those earning less than you!

 

Exactly mate.

[Drew Busby !]

I'm afraid when it comes to income exceeding 100K, then the 2 friends I have in that category now "have to" earn that much to pay for the school fees at St. Georges, Edinburgh Academy, 3 weeks in a luxurious villa in France for 3 weeks in the summer and so on.

 

Don't want the thread to go off at a tangent but there are plenty of jobs that pay less money, give people more time to live their lives, offer up less stress and less blood sweat and tears.

 

Ultimately it's a lifestyle choice and an increase in tax for my 2 friends would probably mean one of their kids not going on a rugby tour to South Africa ... or the kids not going ski-ing at Easter.

 

Tough titty and hello and welcome to the real world that 90%+ of us inhabit.

[coppercrutch]

[/u][/i][/b]

 

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

 

Exactly. This country is a haven for the super rich and the lazy low level **** who don't want to work. The Government goes after the easy people, the people in the middle. The ones who actually work and pay their taxes without argument.

 

At least the super rich will possibly add to the country by having businesses that employ people etc..

 

As for the lazy low level **** ? Exterminate them. Sorted.

[doctor jambo]

OK here is another plan-

why not tax on DISPOSABLE income to make things really fair

Start with an income based tax, but then reduce the bill per child you have

Thus not penalising working families

after all the original council tax is not about level of sevice use of the payer- as this is impossible to work out

Because a single person on ?30 000 per annum is probably better off than a married couple on double that who have two kids

So instead of a single person discount, have a child based discount

Surely that would be fairer?

To measure affluence purely on income is, frankly, stupid- it is not a measure of disposable income, which is what they really want to get thier grubby mits on

Oh, and Toggie, if our great leader gave up his daily chauffeur driven trips to the curry house we'd all pay less

[doctor jambo]

I'm afraid when it comes to income exceeding 100K, then the 2 friends I have in that category now "have to" earn that much to pay for the school fees at St. Georges, Edinburgh Academy, 3 weeks in a luxurious villa in France for 3 weeks in the summer and so on.

 

Don't want the thread to go off at a tangent but there are plenty of jobs that pay less money, give people more time to live their lives, offer up less stress and less blood sweat and tears.

 

Ultimately it's a lifestyle choice and an increase in tax for my 2 friends would probably mean one of their kids not going on a rugby tour to South Africa ... or the kids not going ski-ing at Easter.

 

Tough titty and hello and welcome to the real world that 90%+ of us inhabit.

 

Green eyed monster

Just what the SNP want

drag your friends down to make everyone feel a bit better about their own lives

[Toggie88]

OK here is another plan-

why not tax on DISPOSABLE income to make things really fair

Start with an income based tax, but then reduce the bill per child you have

Thus not penalising working families

after all the original council tax is not about level of sevice use of the payer- as this is impossible to work out

Because a single person on ?30 000 per annum is probably better off than a married couple on double that who have two kids

So instead of a single person discount, have a child based discount

Surely that would be fairer?

To measure affluence purely on income is, frankly, stupid- it is not a measure of disposable income, which is what they really want to get thier grubby mits on

Oh, and Toggie, if our great leader gave up his daily chauffeur driven trips to the curry house we'd all pay less

 

First of all, not daily. The FM has to eat, a lot of lunches are working lunches and meetings. Despite this, the usage of ministerial cars are significantly down on the previous Labour/Lib administration.

[Drew Busby !]

Green eyed monster

Just what the SNP want

drag your friends down to make everyone feel a bit better about their own lives

 

Have a word with yourself. I'm neither jealous of those who earn more than me, nor disdainful of those who earn less.

 

But if you're going to come on here greetin' about the trials and tribulations of earning 100K pa, then you can expect to draw comment.

[I P Knightley]

What the local income tax would do is create a fair financial enviroment.

 

It's only fair that you pay the same amount percentage as anyone else. How is not?

 

Nobody is not want to earn more because they would get taxed more. They will still have more of an income. It's got nothing to do with the size of a house.

 

 

YOU should pay the same(percentage) as those earning less than you!

 

Again, I have to ask, "Why?"

 

Why percentage and not absolute amount? (And you're not allowed to answer by saying "It's fair - it just is";))

 

My analogy earlier about 2 folk buying the same thing and paying the same price answers your question but you haven't given reasons on your 2 related claims that the rich should pay more and %ge is fairer.

 

The wealthier are already supporting the less well-off by (on average) having larger properties, paying more tax yet using no more of the council services (considering private schools). This is the accepted status quo.

 

Any attempt to get more cash out of them is, as implied elsewhere, just bullying of a soft target.

 

I repeat. There is absolutely no logic to an argument that people should pay different amounts for (near) identical goods and services simply depending on how much they earn.

[Coco]

Have a look at the waste Edinburgh Council have been visibly involved in during the last few years.

 

Congestion Traffic Management System roadworks etc. Millions spent and then dug up to replace it - how many people in the Council were disciplined for that?

How many times has the junction of Dublin Street and Queen Street been dug up and remodelled? Or Queensferry Street at Shandwick Place?

Digging up St Andrew's Square for a whole year.

Digging an enormous hole outside the Usher Hall.

The utter disgrace of waste on the tram line.

The 'Fastlink' at Stenhouse - cost of tens of millions, when 'digging in' the bus stops would have had the same effect.

 

And that is all visible stuff. What about the thousands of extra council employees, wardens, inspectors etc? Extra bureaucracy? Building a new HQ in one of the costliest areas of the city?

 

Cut the waste and there would be no need for extra local funding.

[Coco]

Again, I have to ask, "Why?"

 

Why percentage and not absolute amount? (And you're not allowed to answer by saying "It's fair - it just is";))

 

My analogy earlier about 2 folk buying the same thing and paying the same price answers your question but you haven't given reasons on your 2 related claims that the rich should pay more and %ge is fairer.

 

The wealthier are already supporting the less well-off by (on average) having larger properties, paying more tax yet using no more of the council services (considering private schools). This is the accepted status quo.

 

Any attempt to get more cash out of them is, as implied elsewhere, just bullying of a soft target.

 

I repeat. There is absolutely no logic to an argument that people should pay different amounts for (near) identical goods and services simply depending on how much they earn.

 

There is no public debate about what Councils should actually do. The size of Councils has been allowed to rise enormously in the past few years as part of the natural majority creation by the Governing party.

 

We would all agree that there is a role for local Government in street lights, bins collection, street sweeping, parking attendants. Beyond that there should be a debate about what Councils are for. Do we need Council employees who check the state of wallpaper in HMO registered flats? Should Councils be involved in education? Do we need 'world class' tram systems at the public expense and public risk?

 

If you don't have that debate - the size of the Council will continue to grow and demands for more cash from people will rise.

[Jambo66]

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.

 

Is your complaint the fact that you pay too much or the fact that you pay for services you don't use or need? If it is the latter, then you would have precisely the same complaint with a local income tax.

[I P Knightley]

There is no public debate about what Councils should actually do. The size of Councils has been allowed to rise enormously in the past few years as part of the natural majority creation by the Governing party.

 

We would all agree that there is a role for local Government in street lights, bins collection, street sweeping, parking attendants. Beyond that there should be a debate about what Councils are for. Do we need Council employees who check the state of wallpaper in HMO registered flats? Should Councils be involved in education? Do we need 'world class' tram systems at the public expense and public risk?

 

If you don't have that debate - the size of the Council will continue to grow and demands for more cash from people will rise.

 

I agree with both your posts absolutely and made the point in one of mine earlier that the service provision should be the focus of attention rather that the approach to funding it.

 

 

And then I side-tracked myself into the funding argument... gah!

 

The trouble with tackling the issue we agree on is that there's an element of turkeys voting for Christmas about it.

 

The government has the support of the type of people who are in these pointless jobs precisely because they've been given something do despite lack of skills or motivation to get off their arses and contribute to society in a positive way. (I generalise, I know)

 

The govvy know that any move to threaten those jobs will lose them votes. And sod what's good for the economy/society; it's all about getting in & staying in power.

[Jambo66]

OK here is another plan-

why not tax on DISPOSABLE income to make things really fair

Start with an income based tax, but then reduce the bill per child you have

Thus not penalising working families

after all the original council tax is not about level of sevice use of the payer- as this is impossible to work out

Because a single person on ?30 000 per annum is probably better off than a married couple on double that who have two kids

So instead of a single person discount, have a child based discount

Surely that would be fairer?

To measure affluence purely on income is, frankly, stupid- it is not a measure of disposable income, which is what they really want to get thier grubby mits on

Oh, and Toggie, if our great leader gave up his daily chauffeur driven trips to the curry house we'd all pay less

 

Major problem with that is that you are then encouraging people to have even more children. There are already far too many people on the planet.

[Toggie88]

Major problem with that is that you are then encouraging people to have even more children. There are already far too many people on the planet.

 

Too few are in Scotland - we need higher birth rates.

[coppercrutch]

Have a look at the waste Edinburgh Council have been visibly involved in during the last few years.

 

Congestion Traffic Management System roadworks etc. Millions spent and then dug up to replace it - how many people in the Council were disciplined for that?

How many times has the junction of Dublin Street and Queen Street been dug up and remodelled? Or Queensferry Street at Shandwick Place?

Digging up St Andrew's Square for a whole year.

Digging an enormous hole outside the Usher Hall.

The utter disgrace of waste on the tram line.

The 'Fastlink' at Stenhouse - cost of tens of millions, when 'digging in' the bus stops would have had the same effect.

 

And that is all visible stuff. What about the thousands of extra council employees, wardens, inspectors etc? Extra bureaucracy? Building a new HQ in one of the costliest areas of the city?

 

Cut the waste and there would be no need for extra local funding.

 

 

Spot on. The inefficiency is a joke. The fact that no-one seems to be responsible for it is an even bigger joke. And we all pay for it !

 

On another note taxation should be at a set single percentage rate for income. The whole point of a percentage is people pay more proportionately as they earn more. Changing the percentage amount is very unfair and illogical if you think about it.

[Toggie88]

Have a look at the waste Edinburgh Council have been visibly involved in during the last few years.

 

Congestion Traffic Management System roadworks etc. Millions spent and then dug up to replace it - how many people in the Council were disciplined for that?

How many times has the junction of Dublin Street and Queen Street been dug up and remodelled? Or Queensferry Street at Shandwick Place?

Digging up St Andrew's Square for a whole year.

Digging an enormous hole outside the Usher Hall.

The utter disgrace of waste on the tram line.

The 'Fastlink' at Stenhouse - cost of tens of millions, when 'digging in' the bus stops would have had the same effect.

 

And that is all visible stuff. What about the thousands of extra council employees, wardens, inspectors etc? Extra bureaucracy? Building a new HQ in one of the costliest areas of the city?

 

Cut the waste and there would be no need for extra local funding.

 

Your right.

 

Who is to blame for all of this?? LABOUR. They seem incapable of running any sort of administration. They had no long term plans when they were in power and were running Edinburgh Council on a serious of short term plans. Which the new council has got to try and deal with - it's a joke.

 

I can not understand voting for these useless *******s, same right wing ideas as the Tories...but can not even carry them through.

[Walter Payton]

Your right.

 

Who is to blame for all of this?? LABOUR. They seem incapable of running any sort of administration. They had no long term plans when they were in power and were running Edinburgh Council on a serious of short term plans. Which the new council has got to try and deal with - it's a joke.

 

I can not understand voting for these useless *******s, same right wing ideas as the Tories...but can not even carry them through.

 

Maybe I'm just cynical as opposed to you being (IMO) idealogical, but IMHO the fact it was Labour changes nothing (and I wouldn't vote for them in a month of Sundays). The biggest problem (again IMO) that occurs in government, be it or local or national, is career politicians, and all the parties are as guilty as each other in this regard.

 

I'm not smart enough to have done the study to find out when this happened, but somewhere down the line "Government" went from people living together in a community thinking it made sense to become more efficient by paying one or two people to do jobs that everybody needed doing to mass bureacracy, where people justify their jobs by creating things to busy themselves with, no matter the cost of the project.

 

Though the different parties might have different names and different "policies", they all share this common trait. I'd like to think of myself as a responsible citizen who takes voting seriously, but its hard to find any party respectable when they are all models of inefficiency. Can anybody tell me as a percentage of the Scottish population how many people are employed at some level of government? I'm guessing it's farcical.

[coppercrutch]

Maybe I'm just cynical as opposed to you being (IMO) idealogical, but IMHO the fact it was Labour changes nothing (and I wouldn't vote for them in a month of Sundays). The biggest problem (again IMO) that occurs in government, be it or local or national, is career politicians, and all the parties are as guilty as each other in this regard.

 

I'm not smart enough to have done the study to find out when this happened, but somewhere down the line "Government" went from people living together in a community thinking it made sense to become more efficient by paying one or two people to do jobs that everybody needed doing to mass bureacracy, where people justify their jobs by creating things to busy themselves with, no matter the cost of the project.

 

Though the different parties might have different names and different "policies", they all share this common trait. I'd like to think of myself as a responsible citizen who takes voting seriously, but its hard to find any party respectable when they are all models of inefficiency. Can anybody tell me as a percentage of the Scottish population how many people are employed at some level of government? I'm guessing it's farcical.

 

It is more than 50% of the working population. IIRC we have the highest ratio of any country in the entire EU. (Correct me if I am wrong)

 

I think a lot of the problem is you vote in or out a 'council' every four years. They only think so far ahead. Then the next lot come in and think 'What can we do differently'. Never going to end up with a nice sensible ongoing improvement in services. There must be a better way to do it.

 

How about they all get together. No-one votes, and they try to put in changes planning ahead for 10 or more years. Is that such a crazy idea...

[Walter Payton]

It is more than 50% of the working population. IIRC we have the highest ratio of any country in the entire EU. (Correct me if I am wrong)

 

I think a lot of the problem is you vote in or out a 'council' every four years. They only think so far ahead. Then the next lot come in and think 'What can we do differently'. Never going to end up with a nice sensible ongoing improvement in services. There must be a better way to do it.

 

How about they all get together. No-one votes, and they try to put in changes planning ahead for 10 or more years. Is that such a crazy idea...

 

I guess the obvious drawback would be if we got stuck with somebody that after being elected showed themselves to be not fit for purpose- currently we're stuck with them for 4 years, imagine being stuck with them for 10? Power corrupts and all that...

[Therapist]

Now HMRC are putting the boot into the SNP's hare-brained scheme. Hilarious.

 

One wonders whether Salmond & Co have thought about this at all as they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot at every opportunity.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7285326.stm

[Toggie88]

It's playing right into our hand, Therapist.

[Therapist]

2 hours and 9 minutes. You're slipping Toggie.