A 'very bad thing indeed'
Regarding this matter of the economy, politicians have two roles. To do things which make the economy better - and to shun things which make it worse.
In truth, we learned little today at FMQs as to things which might ameliorate the situation.
Perhaps understandably, the debate centred on competing visions of what might prove a problem.
Labour's Iain Gray pursued the first minister over the SNP's plans for a Local Income Tax.
It was, averred Mr Gray, A Bad Thing. A Very Bad Thing indeed. It would penalise hard-working people.
It would be a tax on jobs. Business loathed the notion. Dump it now.
Alex Salmond dismissed this. LIT was fair and popular. By contrast, he was keen to talk about the consequences for Scotland of the pre-Budget report.
Mutual strength
In particular, the sting in the tail: the prospect of spending cuts in 2010.
It was a test of mutual strength. So who won on the day? Alex Salmond, in my view.
Firstly, he was on rather good form generally, plainly recovered from his illness.
Secondly, Mr Gray suffered from sundry weak points. Chief among these is that Labour has yet to set out its alternative to the council tax, its proposed reforms.
Presumably that is why the party did not submit evidence to the consultation over LIT. It is, however, fundamentally weak to rail against a proposal without being in a position to set out your own views.
Mr Salmond reminded Mr Gray that the Labour leader had decried his own party's efforts on the topic during the last Holyrood election.
Another problem for Mr Gray on the day was that he inadvertenly opened up an opportunity for the first minister.
Lit questions
Mr Salmond talked of £500m Scottish spending cuts due in 2010 as a result of efficiency savings to be pressed in Whitehall.
Barnett consequentials, you understand.
Instead of dismissing this on the day - and inviting the FM to answer the questions about LIT - Mr Gray entered momentarily into a discussion of the point, suggesting that the sum might be lower than £500m.
This merely allowed Mr Salmond to pursue the point more vigorously still. A debate about LIT duly became a debate about the PBR and "spending cuts."
More generally, it still seems likely that LIT will be thwarted by a combination of opposition from rival parties - and disquiet from business and others.
At which point, Mr Salmond will lament pitiably - and will set about blaming Labour for preventing him from effecting reform.
This will be on the not unreasonable grounds that people hate the tax that is in place - and long for the green fields of alternative taxation over the hill.
The impact of the PBR and the recession, however, will still be in place.
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~36~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ah, Alex Salmond. One has to admire his resilience and rhetoric. A joy to listen to him at FMQs. A master of his art and something to look forward to every Thursday. Call my a sycophant, I don't care!
Complain about this comment
London Labour have just announced a policy of tax hikes on those who earn over £20,000 as well as increasing the upper tax band to 45%.
This, we are told is to lessen the tax burden on the low paid.
LIT seeks to do the same in principle by basing the amount paid on income, however Iain Gray still continues to bark much like a dog who doesn't know why it is barking.
As Swinney said yesterday, Scotland's contribution to the treasury is at an all time high, we are in fiscal surplus. Yet we are actually being penalised by being part of this Union.
There is no Union dividend at all, the Union hasn't ameliorated Scotland's suffering at the hands of the global crisis, it has excacerbated it.
Independence is the way forward, no doubt about it.
Complain about this comment
"Mr Gray entered momentarily into a discussion of the point, suggesting that the sum might be lower than GBP500m."
Seems a rather dangerous argument for Gray to get into.
Depending on where the UK Government decides to apply its cuts - evenly across its UK and English budgets, or dis-proportionally towards its English budget, the sum might be higher than 500m.
Complain about this comment
Can the moderators do anything about the swamping of comments from single posters?
The poster calling him/herself Reluctant-Expat posted 16 out of 71 comments on the previous thread. Towards the end the comments took on a provocative, insulting and slightly abusive tone.
This flooding of onine comments completely skews a thread and often results in 'flaming'. It is a Unionist phenomena and probably a result of the fact that the overwhelming majority of online comment is pro-independence.
The threads will deteriorate if something is not done, and of course that is the intention of this type of poster.
They have won on The Scotsman, not surprising since the paper is itself the newspaper equivalent of the internet 'troll'.
The Herald's comments have been destroyed too. I am certain that we are about to see the same thing happen here, as those who can put a stop to it probably won't.
Complain about this comment
Now lets have a look at who's against LIT -
1 - the CBI.
2 - the BUSINESS BOSSES.
3 - the CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
4 - the LABOUR PARTY.
5 - the UNION BOSSES.
It all appears to be the fatcat society on high earnings who may have to pay more.
Now lets have a look at who's for LIT -
1 - the pensioners.
2 - the low paid.
3 - the middle class on average earnings.
it appear to be the poorer members of society who will benefit from LIT.
Now can someone tell me which group in society that labour and unions say they represent as it appears that something is wrong above.
Complain about this comment
Police step up hospital inquiry.
Now this is getting really interesting.
Is it possible that the C - DIFF. contarmination was deliberate, and who could possibly gain from deliberately contarminating a hospital with C - DIFF.
Complain about this comment
I thought Salmond was poor today - he got increasingly red in the face as the exchanges went on and started stumbling over his words like "500 million counds".
Were you not listening Brian?
Complain about this comment
#6 OWN-GOAL
I presume this BBC story is what you are referring to.
Interesting to see what comes out of this.
It seems likely that the Health Secretary had been given some information at the time of the review, which led her to refer the matter to the Lord Advocate.
Delaying the public inquiry makes more sense now.
Complain about this comment
A LIT is not so fair.
Where are these higher earners with the inconvenient excess cash? Has anyone ever met one?
The hard-working person who has, after years of input, achieved a higher paying job, has bought a house, a car and is paying the associated costs of these - has not bought a palace or a porsche, but managed to secure a decent standard of living (i.e. not obscene, not blatently more than they need).
The reason for acquiring the above in the majority of cases is to provide for a family (which leads to a whole other set of penalising expenses).
Any supporters of LIT would not deliberately forsake these things if they earned the same. Of course, obviously, they would seek to obtain them and gain that same standard of living - and that chance, rightly, should be everyone's (through their efforts).
All this spare cash just isn't there.
Yet, these earners are expected to subsidise everyone else.
Complain about this comment
NO. 7 - simon7-0: And what are your thoughts on Mr. Gray's performance today?
Complain about this comment
Anything is better than allowing the numpties that run councils to have the ability to use the community charge payers as a money cow . They are totally unaccountable. ( don't say they can be voted off ) , this makes no difference, because the councillors have no real say in how money is raised or spent. These decisions are made by chief execs., finance directors and council leaders, woe betide any councillor who opposes them, he'll find himself excluded from all the wee committees and perks. Everybody uses council services so everybody should pay a share ; then just maybe the taxpayer's army will be big enough to make life hot for both councillors and the nameless civil servants who run our councils.
Complain about this comment
No. 9 aye_write
The council tax was a tory idea aimed at saving the high earners ( larger houses )from paying a fairer percentage of their earnings to council services.
The NU labour have carried on the council tax for 11 years, even though they know it is a dis-proportionate tax on the low paid and pensioners, and now after 11 years IAIN GRAY agrees that it is unfair, but he has no proposals to put forward on behalf of the NU labour party.
ALEX SALMOND is a prime example of someone who will pay more, but he believes in social justice, and it seems that you do not.
? are you a ME ME ME person who only cares about herself, and not about others in society, who are probably the ones that were paid low wages so that you or your partner could be paid high wages.
I also presume that your total taxable household income is over 64k a year, as below that your LIT would approximately be no different from your council tax.
Complain about this comment
#9 aye_write
No tax is completely fair - how fair is a tobacco duty to pay for the NHS and limiting smokers' access to health care at the same time, for example?
What surely is fair is any income related tax, since the rich can clearly afford to pay more than the poor. What's odd is that the "people's party" are now so far to the right that they're virtually indistinguishable from the "official" Tories.
This is one area where the LibDems and the SNP need to agree on the mechanism to ensure that the two unionist parties are punished.
Complain about this comment
#9 - There's winners and losers in every tax system. Do you level a flat rate tax where everyone pays the same rate or do you have tax bands where high earners pay a larger percentage than low earners?
What you fail to point out in your nice wee example is that a high earner will almost invariably buy a higher band house than a low earner. However, under the council tax system, if that high earner in his high band house becomes a lower earner, i.e. retires, loses his job, etc. he still pays the same tax as when he was a high earner. Surely a system where that actually looks at current means is fairer, no? Of course, that ex-high earner can reduce their council tax by moving to a lower band house but do we really want to tell our pensioners that the should move to smaller homes just so current high earners pay a little less tax?
Complain about this comment
#9 aye_write
I'm not a great fan of LIT - nor of the Council Tax.
However, every point that you make in your post about LIT would apply equally to the Income Tax we already have.
Complain about this comment
"Labour has yet to set out its alternative to the council tax, its proposed reforms."
Surely this is the nub of Labour's problem.
UK Labour will allow Gray to rubbish alternatives to the Council Tax, because Labour in England are desperate to hold on to enough of the "Middle England" vote to let them scrape home at the next GE.
However, any reform of the Council Tax in Scotland, proposed by Labour, would immediately raise the demand in England that it be applied there as well.
Therefore, Gray would not be allowed to come up with a distinctive Scottish reform of Council Tax.
Doesn't leave him in a very strong position!
Complain about this comment
15. oldnat
"However, every point that you make in your post about LIT would apply equally to the Income Tax we already have."
(Quick reply to oldnat:)
Yes, I don't like it much either.... :-)
(Basically, my point is that families in our situation have an unfair tax burden, which is daft when we our focus is on our four future tax payers...)
Complain about this comment
The UK Tories seem to have a problem.
The Telegraph has the following report
Complain about this comment
#15 oldnat, again!
Example: Why should we pay (much) more than a family we neighbour who have plenty cash & capital (more than us)? They pay substantially less income tax as he has a small job and she a part time one. They use the same services as us. They jolly about. We pay for them to do that.
Complain about this comment
#19 For another example, explain why a family of 5, all in full-time employment, should collectively pay the same tax as a single pension living next door. The family of 5 obviously consume more services but they are subsidised by the poor pensioner who has to choose between heating her home, eating and paying the council tax.
As everyone has pointed out, there are winners and losers in every tax system, the ideal is minimise the losers and maximise the winners. Can you suggest an alternative that does so?
Complain about this comment
#18 oldnat
It's now on this website's Tory frontbencher Green arrested, linked to on the News Front Page. Interestingly, it adds: "It is believed to be connected to the arrest 10 days ago of a man suspected of being a whistleblower in the Home Office."
Should an make interesting case if it comes to court, with an obvious "public interest" defence, but I wonder if NuLab really want all the bad publicity it's bound to bring.
Complain about this comment
#12 OWN_GOAL
"? are you a ME ME ME person who only cares about herself, and not about others in society, who are probably the ones that were paid low wages so that you or your partner could be paid high wages.
I also presume that your total taxable household income is over 64k a year, as below that your LIT would approximately be no different from your council tax.
"
Well, sorry to disappoint but I am not (a me, me, me...).
I agree with social justice. We don't mind paying our way, we are happy to pay our share, a large amount thought it is.
But because we do, I object to those who do not pay there's.
Examples:
A self-employed person, say Pipeline Engineer (with degree, maybe Masters and experience, driving new Mercedes), paying him/herself minimum wage, then benefitting from their company's big dividends at the end of the year.
Those nominally in low paid occupations but who don't declare a significant bulk of their earnings, as it comes from buying and selling things they've 'acquired' from work or it's cash in handers all over the place.
As a result they have a lovely big house (again, bigger than mine). The Council Tax gets them at the moment, but not so for LIT.
To answer your final point, I think we would be much the same or slightly worse off under LIT, and although my husband wasn't for it, I've always said I'd swallow that bitter pill if it was part of the road to independence - like the Greenlanders, I'd accept the potential short term hit for the important long term goal.
I don't earn a penny as it is more important to us that I stay at home to see to the children - some would say a sacrifice (I don't, it's not the money I consider here.)
Am I still so cold?
Complain about this comment
#19 aye_write
I hope you don't expect me to draft a complete new taxation policy on this thread :-)
I think I've been where you are (though we only had two future taxpayers), and we didn't pay off the debts of bringing them up as we wanted till we retired - be warned!
However, some ideas about creating a "fairer" system would include
1. abolishing NIC and adding it to income tax, so that I would be paying more now, than I did while bringing up my children (I've posted on this before). I don't understand why those who are working should pay more tax compared with those who don't (given similar earnings).
2. increasing income tax levels, but massively increase the child allowance that's set against tax. While I have great sympathy with those who want children, but can't have them, I've never understood why those who don't have children should benefit from the economic production of our children.
3. Not all taxes should be progressive. VAT doesn't penalise buying essentials, so it's perfectly reasonable that it should act as a tax on consumption. I would raise it to the European average.
4. Property should be taxed, and I rather like the idea of the Land Value Tax, as proposed by the Greens. I see no reason why inherited property should not be taxed.
All of these would currently penalise me, but if they had been applicable throughout my life, they would be fiscally neutral. I'd have had the money when I needed it, however.
Consequently, when I rule the world, I'd give a supplementary tax break to those (like me and Mrs Nat) who brought up children without the advantages I'm suggesting for you.
OK That's tax sorted. Do you want me to solve any other world problems? :-)
Complain about this comment
#13 Brownedov
"No tax is completely fair"
No, but it feels like we are being played for fools when we compare our situation to those I mention in earlier post #22.
"What surely is fair is any income related tax, since the rich can clearly afford to pay more than the poor. "
Well, sounds simple, but not so I'm afraid, as how much you earn does not translate automatically to how rich you are.
"What's odd is that the "people's party" are now so far to the right that they're virtually indistinguishable from the "official" Tories.
This is one area where the LibDems and the SNP need to agree on the mechanism to ensure that the two unionist parties are punished."
Well, naturally (as #22 again) I'd always favour getting one over the the Unionist parties!
Complain about this comment
No. 19 aye_write
Its a fact that life is not fair.
Why should someone earn 100k a year for working a 40 hr week and someone else earn 12k for working the same 40 hrs.
Its just the way it is in society, and to bring it a little more into balance the 100k earner pays more of various taxes.
If your neighbour has the same size of house as you at this moment, then he pays the same as you in council tax, but as you have 4 children you use more of the council services than he does ( i am assuming that he has no children or they are grown up ).
It could be that you send your children to a private school like i did, but that was my choice, and i still had to pay my share to the public sector schools.
another good part of LIT that i keep on forgeting about, is that it would be particulary helpful to lots people who have been made redundant, instant reduction of what they contribute to council services, instead of having to fill in various forms for benefit, and as soon as they get employment again, they start paying again.
Complain about this comment
#21 Brownedov
Further - from the Orange Party site -
The Conservative Party has confirmed the MP was questioned under the Official Secrets Act in connection with alleged leaks of information from the home office.
In a statement the Conservative Party said:
"We can confirm that Damian Green was arrested ... As shadow immigration minister, Mr Green has, on a number of occasions, legitimately revealed information which the Home Office chose not to make public ... Disclosure of this information was manifestly in the public interest. Mr Green denies any wrongdoing and stands by his actions."
Your assumption of a public interest defence seems appropriate.
No doubt the media will be trawling for every statement that Green made that could be attributable to the mole.
I'm always happy to see the Tories embarrassed, especially on immigration!
Complain about this comment
#14 ForteanJo
"What you fail to point out in your nice wee example is that a high earner will almost invariably buy a higher band house than a low earner. However, under the council tax system, if that high earner in his high band house becomes a lower earner, i.e. retires, loses his job, etc. he still pays the same tax as when he was a high earner. Surely a system where that actually looks at current means is fairer, no? Of course, that ex-high earner can reduce their council tax by moving to a lower band house but do we really want to tell our pensioners that the should move to smaller homes just so current high earners pay a little less tax?"
Quite, but as a remedy you cannot apply the simple 'earn more, have more; earn less, have less' criterion blanketedly.
It's far from nearly fair, unless of course you don't earn much and take particular bitter offence to those who, audaciously, do.)
Personally I also disagree with the Council Tax. We pay a band higher than nearly all our neighbours, down to the flawed and hurried initial system where house values were not determined accurately - my neighbour opposite pays a lower band but has a larger house (one bedroom more) and a garden several times bigger.
And it does add up to being penalised for providing a bigger home for your family, just when you are already paying out more expanding your family.
Complain about this comment
12. At 7:34pm on 27 Nov 2008, OWN-GOAL wrote:
No. 9 aye_write
The council tax was a tory idea aimed at saving the high earners ( larger houses )from paying a fairer percentage of their earnings to council services.
------------
Codswallop. You tell me how someone who is single uses more council services than a family of five.
I lived outside Oxford when the poll tax was introduced. The bill for me and my wife amounted to 10% of my GROSS earnings at the time. I was a low earner. When council tax was brought in it reduced this to a fairer amount.
I object to LIT not on the principle of it, but that my local council will end up charging more than necessary, and waste a lot or cut services. Council tax isn't perfect, but then no local tax ever will be. I don't like it, but LIT needs to be more carefully considered.
The problem in my opinion is tying it to earnings. What about casual workers and contractors? And how will those who are woking on the side be caught?
As I said, the principle is good, but to me it is not going to be practical.
Complain about this comment
#27 aye_write
Sounds like you should have a look at Martin Lewis' Money Saving Expert guide to how you can have your council tax band adjusted.
It includes links to Scottish authorities.
Well worth a look!
Complain about this comment
#23 oldnat
I'd go along pretty much with your 4 main points, and especially with your: "I don't understand why those who are working should pay more tax compared with those who don't".
I remember the 15% "unearned income surcharge", which struck me as excessive in producing the 98% tax rate under the last Labour government, but the "earned income surcharge" which NuLab introduced on salaries & pensions struck me as ludicrous and making tax on dividends non-reclaimable pernicious.
Re VAT, it's essential to have something like it to collect anything from tourists.
Complain about this comment
No. 22 aye_write
I believe that the SNP are looking to see if it is possible to apply the LIT to other sources of income, but are handicapped by the devolution settlement ( terms ).
I certainly see your point about the undeclared earnings, but unfortunatly that has gone on for 100s of years and i see no end to it, as the payer and worker both gain, with the government and society in general losing.
Complain about this comment
#28 - "Codswallop. You tell me how someone who is single uses more council services than a family of five."
Let's start with what are "council services". If we're saying that the 5 are in remunerative work , by & large we can exclude education. Health? Well, a single pensioner will possibly, on average, use the health service as much as 5 generally healthy adults. So let's concentrate on other services:
If there's a house fire, do the family of 5 get 5 more fire appliances sent to their home?
If there's a break-in, do 5 times the number of police turn up to take the report?
Do the family of 5 have 5 times the number of bin collections each fortnight?
Do they absord 5 times the amount of street lighting?
Okay, the 5 MAY use more services than a single person but it's difficult to argue that they use 5 times the amount.
Complain about this comment
#24 aye_write
I agree that the examples you quote in your #22 are plain wrong, but that's more because of the loopholes in the system and the different rates of taxation on different types of income than the principle per se.
If we could get the entire income and corporation tax system running on a common set of rates many of those injustices would disappear.
Governments in general, and Labour ones in particular seem to revel in the complexity and opacity of their taxation systems.
Complain about this comment
"Another problem for Mr Gray on the day was that he inadvertently opened up an opportunity for the first minister."
I think Mr Gray probably thought he was being clever, actually. My impression as I saw him opening up the said opportunity was that he thought he was spiking the FM's guns by mentioning the embarrassing subject of the 500-million-pound spending cuts for 2010 first. So Mr Gray adroitly avoided stepping into any trap of Mr Salmond's by setting one up for himself to stride into. Original if ill-advised.
A fair assessment of today's proceedings by Mr Taylor, I think. He had better watch his step, or the creature from the black lagoon will be after him.
On the subject of the said individual, with reference to greenockboy's #4, I do not see how the BBC can afford to allow this discussion forum to be sabotaged by anyone in the way described. The poster in question has been given a certain amount of leeway but has demonstrated to the satisfaction of quite a few people, I think, that he/she is intent upon disrupting debate.
Complain about this comment
#25 OWN-GOAL (not '_'!)
"Its a fact that life is not fair."
Correct (rather glaringly!).
"Why should someone earn 100k a year for working a 40 hr week and someone else earn 12k for working the same 40 hrs."
Because the person earning 100k has not only the education, experience and time served, but much more crucially, the skills to perform the (usually very demanding) role that pays it.
For example, Mr aye_right, has become a manager and is now a deputy manager, having worked his career as a metallurgical engineer. There is a distinct minority of people out there who can 'manage' - it's a skill. He has it. Some probably, by the time they are adults, aren't likely to be able to learn it. Plenty don't want to.
It commands a high wage. Every penny is earned, though. He works harder than those under him (has to - the job demands it) - he's been there.
Perhaps, though I know not representatively, a 12k job demands comparitavely less than the 100k job - maybe just the ability to carry an item from a conveyer belt and match it's number to the identical number on a receipt. How foolish would existing 100k employees feel if this job were also paid 100k?
The other reason is economics.
"Its just the way it is in society, and to bring it a little more into balance the 100k earner pays more of various taxes."
That's just too handy to say and damn the higher earner if some of the structure of those 'various' taxes is blatently unfair - why care about them?
"If your neighbour has the same size of house as you at this moment, then he pays the same as you in council tax, but as you have 4 children you use more of the council services than he does ( i am assuming that he has no children or they are grown up )."
This I must say I find totally infair, tantamount to having a tax on having children. This bugs, because all to often I hear on other blogs posters who promote "If you have kids, on your head be it. Don't let them impinge on me in any way and make sure that you pay for them - as I certainly shouldn't".
The above diometrically opposes the notion of promoting a social conscience. Sorry, but correctly bringing up the next generation is of paramount importance to us all.
That my family argualbly uses more services than a smaller one in my view ought to make one think, why not say "pay full price for dinner tickets for the first child but have a slightly discounted price for the remaining children". It looks too often like we want to punish children for having siblings.
"It could be that you send your children to a private school like i did, but that was my choice, and i still had to pay my share to the public sector schools."
There's no way on earth we can afford to send four children to private school.
"another good part of LIT that i keep on forgeting about, is that it would be particulary helpful to lots people who have been made redundant, instant reduction of what they contribute to council services, instead of having to fill in various forms for benefit, and as soon as they get employment again, they start paying again."
I agree there is little useful help to those (otherwise hardworking) who loose their income.
Complain about this comment
#26 oldnat
"I'm always happy to see the Tories embarrassed, especially on immigration!"
A difference between us, then, if not exactly "clear blue water".
I'm always happy to see NuLab's control freakery shown up for the facade it is, and if the Tories get egg on their faces in the process then so much the better.
Complain about this comment
#28 Neil_Small147
"I object to LIT not on the principle of it, but that my local council will end up charging more than necessary, and waste a lot or cut services."
Government (at all levels) wastes money. Of course. Some of it is due to inefficiency. Some of it is due to their spending cash on things you don't approve of.
The core problem is that Scotland can't have a realistic debate on the best way to raise the required taxation, because the instruments available to it are so limited.
Which taxes should support local/national governments is a valid debate, but we are so constrained that a sensible solution is not available to us.
Isn't minimal fiscal autonomy wonderful?
Complain about this comment
NO. 28. Neil_Small147 wrote:
12. At 7:34pm on 27 Nov 2008, OWN-GOAL wrote:
No. 9 aye_write
The council tax was a tory idea aimed at saving the high earners ( larger houses )from paying a fairer percentage of their earnings to council services.
------------
Codswallop. You tell me how someone who is single uses more council services than a family of five.
Not sure who your posting is to NEIL as i have not said that a single person uses more services than a family of 5, see my post 25.
As for your poll tax being 10% of your earnings, when the LIT proposal would be 3% of your taxable earnings, i know which i would prefer.
As to your local council charging you more, its not a local council charge, its a scottish government local tax which cannot be more than 3% under the devolution terms.
Do you think that those who earn on the side pay council tax as it is.
Casual workers as far as i know have tax deducted at the basic rate of tax on the whole of their earnings and have to claim back their allowance from the inland revenue, so they would have to pay at 23% instead of 20%.
The principle is good and cheaper to collect, and harder to dodge.
I take it you have no idea of how many people who claim council tax benefit now, and when they start work fail to inform the council that they have started work and continue to get council tax benefit.
They would not be able to bypass LIT in the same way.
Complain about this comment
#31 OWN-GOAL
"I believe that the SNP are looking to see if it is possible to apply the LIT to other sources of income, but are handicapped by the devolution settlement"
This came up a few threads back, and unfortunately the Scotland Act limits it to earned income only, and arguably one rate only, too. If the LibDems want it soon they, like the SNP, will have to accept the Act's limits initially.
Complain about this comment
#35 - "Because the person earning 100k has not only the education, experience and time served, but much more crucially, the skills to perform the (usually very demanding) role that pays it"
And was that true on the likes of the HBOS execs and similar fat cats who took their firms to the brink of ruin (and sometimes beyond) whilst demanding big wages because "you need to pay big wages to attract the best"?
Complain about this comment
Watching "This Week" on the Damien Green affair, I'm reminded of Nixon's White House and the Plumbers.
Why would we want this bunch of paranoid politicians to get any more "anti-terrorist" powers.
Their terrorists so far -
Iceland
A Tory Front Bench spokesman.
We're next folks!
Complain about this comment
NO. 35. aye_write
What i was trying to point out to you was that if your neighbour had the same size of house, same income but no children, then in fact he is paying for part of your childrens education ( which to me is fair ).
I am only pointing out education, but there are other council services as well that your children benefit from that you and your neighbour pays towards.
Also to me it would be fair if all income was taken into account ( apart for family tax credits and a few others non taxable benefits ).
Sorry i do not know if family tax credits stop at a certain level of income, but have a suspicion that they do ( seems unfair ).
It would seem unfair to count your wealth as taxable under LIT, but i see no reason not to charge LIT on the interest on the savings, dividends and whatever else.
Complain about this comment
#23. oldnat
"I hope you don't expect me to draft a complete new taxation policy on this thread :-)" etc.
Naturally I do! We rely on you 'slightly' older folk to know everything! I am merely in training (at 34).
("and we didn't pay off the debts of bringing them up as we wanted till we retired - be warned!" - Hearing you!! - plan: get qualifications, return to work. As children of the same though, we DO appreciate it!)
I am not particularly cheesed off about any of your tax reforms!
Related to 2, it seems to me there is too much of society quite appallingly anti-children.
So similarly, my emphasis on tax would be to pay particular attention to families and to recognise the merits of having such a system.
#29 btw thanks for the tax link.
When I last looked I knew I didn't have the time (or stamina!) to board the merry-go-round of council phone calls. But will re-investigate :-)
Complain about this comment
#31 OWN-GOAL
"I certainly see your point about the undeclared earnings, but unfortunatly that has gone on for 100s of years and i see no end to it, as the payer and worker both gain, with the government and society in general losing."
I know....but those and other tricks are so obviously commonplace round here - I don't like to loose hope that the cheats might yet be tripped up!
Complain about this comment
#33 Brownedov
"I agree that the examples you quote in your #22 are plain wrong, but that's more because of the loopholes in the system and the different rates of taxation on different types of income than the principle per se."
You are right perhaps, but if nobody moans about it, will it ever change?
Although I'm all for keeping life as simple as possible, it's essential the system has sensible methods of differentiation - maybe just not as many as those from your Labour expert red tape manufacturers!
Complain about this comment
#43 aye_write
You sound just like my daughter! (consequently you must be wonderful)
Complain about this comment
#40 ForteanJo
"And was that true on the likes of the HBOS execs and similar fat cats who took their firms to the brink of ruin (and sometimes beyond) whilst demanding big wages because "you need to pay big wages to attract the best"?"
Admittedly, it can be a bit dodgy, particularly in that sector, but would HBOS have fared better if the trainee document controller had been in charge? Hmm, probably not.
(And if Mr aye_write had been in charge? Well, it would have gobbled up that Lloyds , been renamed 'McFabbyBank" and be the best bank in the world!)
PS Andrew Neil is right. Everyone's nodded off on the Blue Nun :-)
Complain about this comment
#4 I too looked into how much RE posts but i found the Oldnat was on a par for the few blogs that i checked so ditched that wee exercise .... the main difference was that Oldnat doesnt try to wind people up or bend the facts to suit his/her/its needs, or rant about Unionist idiots. Interestingly i thought he was a staunch Labour supporter but on a post the other day admitted to being anti Labour.
Complain about this comment
#41 oldnat
Absolutely. Both the latest QT and This Week were better than average and many thanks to aunty for getting the streamed live versions out with sufficient bandwidth for the last few weeks for us "real" expats to watch them.
Until this autumn, the live editions tended to be too frustrating to watch because the stream kept breaking up, but now it's a real pleasure to be able to see them.
Not ideal that the "terrorist" is a Tory, but certainly better than nothing. I doubt that Lord Mandy will be entirely pleased with young Jacqui.
Complain about this comment
#45 aye_write
"You are right perhaps, but if nobody moans about it, will it ever change?"
I certainly can't see it changing much while the two unionist parties spend most of their time fighting for the votes and wallets of Middle England.
Happily from my point of view as a believer in democracy, local control and fairness, both the main home rule parties want to change this.
They may not succeed immediately but will definitely move things in the right direction.
Complain about this comment
Scottish regional labour supporters, MSPs, MPs Councilors and of course their Lords, would prefer to see:
- Trident on Clyde
- ID Cards (est £15Bn)
- War in Iraq
- War in Afganistan
- 2.5 percent off VAT (What a joke!)
rather than:
- abolish unfair council tax
- local income tax basedon ability to pay
- a popular idea they didn't think of
- Scotland applying a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem
- Scottish pensioners and poorer folk being given the support they deserve in a decent society
A McG
Complain about this comment
#47 - "would HBOS have fared better if the trainee document controller had been in charge?"
Could it have faired any worse?
The point I'm making, though, (and one that has been made repeatedly by many posters) is that any tax system will have winners and losers. What seems fair to you will seem unfair to others. You may think that someone earning 100k has worked hard to reach that level and deserves it, but that isn't always the case. Equally, I know many graduates who do a very good job just above minimum wage because the £100k vacancies aren't always available. These people have done their time, made the sacrifices but have been unlucky when it comes to greasing the right pole or wearing their tie a certain way. It happens.
Complain about this comment
#46 oldnat
How extremely kind. (Though I'm sure your daughter doesn't deserve such a shady comparison!)
I share half my DNA with the Rev Justin F N Minty (just always funny!) who has been known to send the occasional letter!
So, all hail the oldies!
Complain about this comment
OK, what do people think of the RBS situation? The shareholders don't appear to like what was on offer so it appears the Government will own them as well.
#38 Own Goal
Re 10% of income etc. That was when the Poll Tax came in.
Admittedly, I would now pay less under LIT than I do with Council Tax. I don't like Council Tax - I have a 4 bedroom end terraced house, my next door neighbour has 3 bedrooms, same size of family but pays £20 a month less! But knowing my council they would cut services under LIT, that is unless the Scottish Government is going to increase the grant they give to councils. But I think Swinney will use the normal approach and look for "efficiency measures". His argument will be that Westminster is giving less to Scotland etc.
Answers on a postcard methinks.
Complain about this comment
#52 ForteanJo
"The point I'm making, though, (and one that has been made repeatedly by many posters) is that any tax system will have winners and losers. What seems fair to you will seem unfair to others."
True, but I still feel it is necessary to point out relevant discrepencies, as I think clammering to improve the system overall is laudable.
The loosers (who pay more) don't mind, if they see the big picture as inherently fair. On the other hand they sorely resent contributing so much to a system that isn't delivering that.
Why must I lump it? Because we've earned more? So we should be 'punished'?
I agree with you that there must be loopholes that need correcting. I think it is unadvisable though to overlook their importance.
"Equally, I know many graduates who do a very good job just above minimum wage because the ?100k vacancies aren't always available."
No sympathy there I'm afraid. That's very good for everyone to have done. A graduate does not deserve to start further up than someone else. The work and life experience they so often lack is too crucial to overstep.
If they are indeed cleverer then they can, and should rightly, climb to the better position a lot faster. But they do not deserve to earn a big wage just automatically on leaving University. Earn it when you can cut it.
Complain about this comment
#52 ForteanJo
"These people have done their time, made the sacrifices but have been unlucky when it comes to greasing the right pole or wearing their tie a certain way. It happens."
Yes, horrible. Been on the receiving end. But that is why life experience and building your personality is so crucial - it's necessary to navigate this unfair world you make very sure I notice. :-)
Complain about this comment
On #4 someone complained about this blog being swamped by Unionist posters. Anyone spot one?
Although not really a Unionist, just a show-me-something-better pragmatist, I confess that my words are occasionally quite sharp. Could this be due to my having to squeeze them in edgewise on this nationalist love-in?
Of course Oldnat and Brownedov will deny that charge, quite rightly. But with their new pal, the verbally incontinent aye right, they are making a mockery of any criticism of Expat and his like in the domination stakes.
Any originals out there?
Complain about this comment
At long last, Andrew Neil's blog has opened a thread on the issue of the day at: A mysterious arrest.
I suggest that's a more relevant place to post on the Damian Green affair until Brian and NR wake up.
Complain about this comment
By elections in England last night point to the fact that the initial benefits Labour may may have had from the PBR are already unravelling.
I think QT last night also indicated that.
The PBR was,as we have come to expect from GB and AD, a cynical political exercise which addressed the problems Labour was having as a result of the economic crisis rather than addressing the actual economic problems. A few headline grabbing giveways and tinkering at the edges of a crisis that threatens to engulf us all does not a rescue plan make.
On reflection most thoughful commentators now believe that the measures in the PBR will make very little difference to anything.
This sucker is going down.
Latest poll shows support for GB as the best man to lead us in crisis plummeting 10 points since the PBR and the election results last night showed a Tory gain from Labour (in a strong Labour area of Walsall), a Tory gain from Lib Dem in the West Country and a LibDem gain from Tory in Cambridgeshire where the Tory vote went up but where the collapsed Labour vote appears to have favoured the LibDems rather more than the Tories.
Mixed messages mostly but a significant retreat of the Labour vote everywhere.
I did say before that Labour would get a good press till after Glenrothes to secure a lame duck Labour leader in his position and then the gloves would be off again.
Looks like it.
Complain about this comment
#57 brigadierjohn
"...the verbally incontinent aye right..."
Greetings the jealous brigadierjohn!
Well, I believe if you're going to be verbally incontinent you must do so with the correct spelling!
So (with absolutely no glee) I shall point out that it's 'aye_write', not 'aye right'.
Keep trying old fellow :-)
Complain about this comment
#57 brigadierjohn
Currently, what you say is pretty fair comment, although #4 was referring to one specific individual. In the recent past, though, we've had other unionist trolling.
I do agree that it's a pity that those of a unionist ilk can't seem to come up with positive arguments for their views.
Complain about this comment
#59 sneckedagain
Thanks for the reminder of the Tory site which monitors by-election results.
It certainly doesn't look a good week for NuLab, particularly when the full Damian Green story comes to light, now starting to unfold on the Daily Politics.
Complain about this comment
#55, #56 - Whoa, stop the bus a minute.
Previously, you asserted "Because the person earning 100k has not only the education, experience and time served, but much more crucially, the skills to perform the (usually very demanding) role that pays it" yet now you are saying doing these things doesn't automatically entitle you to high earnings. You've even agreed in previous posts that some in the 100k jobs didn't exhibit the skills/experience etc to justify the pay. So are we now saying that pure blind chance plays a role? Being in the right place at the right time? Knowing who to "network" with? And is that fair?
You ask "Why must I lump it? Because we've earned more? So we should be 'punished'?" Everyone pays taxes. If you earn 100 pounds and pay a flat 20%, that would still leave you 80 pounds. If you earn 10 pounds, you'd be left with 8. I ask you who can more afford to pay 20% tax, the man earning 100 pounds or the one earning 10? Between them, they've paid 22 in tax, surely you don't think it fair that this 22 pounds be split evenly between them?
Complain about this comment
#60: Hmmm. Perhaps it should be "Aye, right!" :-)
But since you must be tedious, what's "clammering?" Did you mean clamouring? And did you mean "inadvisable" (post 55)?
And, er, um... post 35: shouldn't it be diametrically?
Look, we all make mistakes. Pointing out those of others can bite you on the bum at times.
Complain about this comment
"Previously, you asserted "Because the person earning 100k has not only the education, experience and time served, but much more crucially, the skills to perform the (usually very demanding) role that pays it" yet now you are saying doing these things doesn't automatically entitle you to high earnings. "
These two are not the same ("doing these things") - you don't have the necesary skills and experience just because you have a degree - you have some relevant knowledge, which will help you to start out in some carerers, but also much yet to learn.
"You ask "Why must I lump it? Because we've earned more? So we should be 'punished'?" Everyone pays taxes. If you earn 100 pounds and pay a flat 20%, that would still leave you 80 pounds. If you earn 10 pounds, you'd be left with 8. I ask you who can more afford to pay 20% tax, the man earning 100 pounds or the one earning 10? Between them, they've paid 22 in tax, surely you don't think it fair that this 22 pounds be split evenly between them?"
Only meant lump the loopholes and unfairnesses you mention as always being present in the tax system. It seems those who pay more have to just accept these descrepencies because they earn more, so have no right therefore to complian.
Complain about this comment
(previous post, 65, refers to 63, ForteanJo)
Complain about this comment
#4 Greenockboy
Good idea to get rid of those single posters who swamp these blogs. But I'm surprised that you would want to bar your nationalist friends who do exactly that? "Provocative, insulting and abusive" describes a lot of the nationalist rhetoric on these pages but you must be approving of that otherwise you would make your views known as you do with reluctant-expat?
Complain about this comment
Watching the Tories, the absolute in political cynicism, through this crisis is very interesting.
I think they know they need to do nothing and they have come up with very little of any plan with which to address the huge economic problems.
No hostages to fortune.
They are behaving as if they know they will be the next Government, will inherit an economic shambles and are presently preparing the ground for eye watering contraction of Government spending which will be blamed on Labour.
No other course of action is sensible and the sticking plaster panicked governments around the world are applying to what amounts to amputation of a huge proportion of the false ecomomy they have all been sunning themselves in will only prolong the agony.
You can't fix a bust business by doing more of the same.
Complain about this comment
#62 Brownedov: I think we've been here before. I am not trying to make a case for any party, political standpoint, personal ideology, anything like that. Therefore I feel no need to justify or promote anything here. I freely concede that many options are, prima facie, available. Some of them may be viable.
All I am saying, all I have ever said here, is that no properly developed, costed, fully-explained alternative has ever been put forward. By anyone, in my very humble opinion.
In these circumstances I am tolerably content to carry on with our flawed, imperfect, British democracy. But I'm not waving any flags for it.
I respect your Liberal ideals. I am a very liberal wee chap. But some of your co-posters of a nationalist bent make the case for the Union better than any UKIP or BNP propagandist. The most terrifying of them make the Union look like a cosy Utopia.
Complain about this comment
One for the labourites..
HOW THE TAX SYSTEM WORKS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1.The sixth would pay £3.The seventh would pay £7.The eighth would pay £12.The ninth would pay £18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. ‘I only got a pound out of the £20,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ‘but he got £10!’ ‘Yes, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a pound, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks’ ‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor’ The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill. And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Complain about this comment
#64. brigadierjohn
Hey, that's funny!
(But I wasn't out to make a fool of anyone else in those posts of mine, mind.)
However, good for you!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Looks like it's going to be slow mod day today, with 80+ posts already backed up on the new and crass NR thread, so I'll look back later.
Complain about this comment
#69 brigadierjohn
I fully concede your right to sit on the fence, but those committed to the existing union should be prepared to fight their end and at least occasionally come out with a few positives. I also agree that some on the side of home rule have a tendency to go OTT, but find it hard to blame them when confronted by so much negativity.
I really am off now to let the mod backlog clear, but will hope to look back later.
Complain about this comment
I've got an idea that'll help the economy. Scrap ID cards and spend the money on something useful.
Complain about this comment
#75 Anaxim
Agreed we should scrap ID cards. It won't release additional spending, but would mean that we need to borrow less.
Complain about this comment
#71 aye_write: Perhaps you've noticed? Most people here can make fools of themselves without any help from you.
Complain about this comment
67. At 1:11pm on 28 Nov 2008, salmondella
I'm not a Nat but you are exactly that which you condemn; a multiple poster.
There is a need for change in the Financial management of the UK and I believe that that should include the Fiscal powers of Holyrood specifically full fiscal autonomy.
There are Nats who want only independence and there are those of us who want varying degrees of change and then there are those who want nothing more than to disagree with anything that comes up for debate without a single positive proposal. They are New Labour Poodles.
This morning on GMS I heard the Scotsman & Herald being attacked for their negative reporting of anythingpositive about constitutional change Thank Goodness someone was willing to talk about it.
Brian what were the referendum questions which were put to Greenland this week surely worth a look
Complain about this comment
Re #69 brigadierjohn
'I am not trying to make a case for any party, political standpoint, personal ideology, anything like that. Therefore I feel no need to justify or promote anything here'
Hmm, I'm afraid that actions speak louder than words, and having had a quick look at your history I see a remarkable trend. No attacks on the rants and excesses of the unionist posters, but plenty of posts having a pop at the excesses of the nationalist posters and more than one or two heavy-handed attacks on Alex Salmond.
If you were just looking to see which ideology would be most beneficial for Scotland, then you would be looking to expose the excesses of both sides to get at the best answer, and to be positive about the better elements in each one.
Your viewpoint is obviously unionist, but you hide behind this air of neutrality.
It's a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and snipe without having to justify your own position, or is it that you do not feel you can defend it?
It's all very clever, but I don't think you are fooling anyone
Complain about this comment
#78 thatweec
When you throw out an accusation like "They are New Labour Poodles", I think you fall into the category that #4 Greenockboy complains about with regard to reluctant-expat.
That is exactly my point - the double standards. As long as you agree with nat drum banging you are free to join the debate no matter how rude or irrational your views are.
Complain about this comment
I was going to suggest that Salmonella has a wee shufty at some of the aforementioneds posts ,but I see that they have been sanitized ,at least on the BBCs blog.
Complain about this comment
Well, it would appear that my post at No 72 has either been removed or failed to even appear.
It is a very simple task to send me an email explaining exactly which of the 'house rules' has been broken.
The post contained no foul language or abusive content. It attacked no-one on this forum, it did however criticise the flooding of mass media online forums by Unionist bloggers of the type that frequent a certain 'quality' Scottish journal.
It also criticised the media in Scotland and suggested that certain stories would have remained suppressed but for these types of forums.
I listed a series of factual stories as examples, the Greenland referendum was one such.
I also added that, to the best of my knowledge, only Unionist politicians and certain Unionist leaning journalists had expressed concern about online forums.
Online forums are embraced by independence minded posters, we have nothing to gain by seeing them destroyed.
Complain about this comment
#82 Greenockboy
I've noticed before the mods don't like criticism of the press.
Re Greenland. I'm a bit (only a bit) surprised at the lack of coverage of this. I never knew anything about it until our French friend on here alerted us. Yet Greenland is a European country. Another European country gaining independence (well almost). I note interestingly that they left the EU in 1985.
Wake up Scotland!
Freedom
Complain about this comment
UK Democracy in the 21st Century
Complain about this comment
#77 brigadierjohn
"#71 aye_write: Perhaps you've noticed? Most people here can make fools of themselves without any help from you."
Hmm, lets see....
Your post #64:
"Pointing out those [mistakes] of others can bite you on the bum at times."
Well you bit - but after I'd 'shook my bum'.
If we despise foolishness, we'd have to despise ourselves. Rudeness and aggressiveness on the other hand... Ah, noone would (be so foolish as to) rely on that. I'm not being serious...
As for the other posters, I respect those who have a better argument and take no offence at others' opposing views. Bad tone can destroy a potentially valid argument however, so I'd say it's probably best to at least be careful with that.
I wonder, you seem disappointed with the quality of the posts on here??
Not sure what it is you want to hear - an alternative to the Union. If you seek a concrete and safe design for post independent Scotland, before you can commit to the idea, then I'd say you'll never get it. It will always be a risk, however calculated.
Complain about this comment
I think a serious debate is urgently required to discuss constitutional issues.
Perhaps the BBC could arrange this?
We need to hear balanced views - and I suppose the more extremist ones as well - on the benefits and problems of a particular status of government.
Complain about this comment
The Fairness of Council tax charges as supported by New Labour and the Tory Party -
Single person - Income £7k pa - (no tax credits for a single person at this income but charges include 25 percent reduction as a single occupancy) - Council tax-Water charges Band B 16 percent of income.
Married couple - Income £19k pa - CT-WC Band F - 11 percent of income.
Single person - Income of £140k pa CT-WC Band H - 2.2 percent of income less 25 percent single person occupancy.
Married couple - Joint income £280k pa CT- WC Band H - 1.1 percent of income.
Non Householder but user of Council services on any income - Nil - until they get a house of their own then they are banded as above.
These figures can be easily proven by visiting your local Council's website. They apply throughout Scotland.
I was a former Labour supporter and voter for 40 years - New Labour's views on Fair taxation leave me outraged.
It's the SNP for me from now on unless they do something 'really stupid!' and I am not alone - many people of my age will be voting the same way at the next election - we expected oh so much better from Labour!
Complain about this comment
#86 - A very laudable request but I wouldn't hold my breath. Even if the Beeb dained to host such a debate, there would still be those on both sides who would deny its impariallity the second any inconvenient facts were revealed.
A thankless task for any host, the proverbial poisoned challice. Even though it's something that's desperately needed.
Complain about this comment
ICM poll in tomorrow's Guardian apparently puts Tory lead back up at 15% - ie a comfortable overall majority.
I think it will continue to climb.
There are a number of interesting projections that can be considered if this trend holds - and I'm sure GB has well passed his point of maximum benefit from the economic crisis. He has come out in a weaker position than he went into it ten days ago.
First projection is that Labour could be out of power for a generation as there is in fact very little left of Labour except a fairly small governing clique who are reliant completely on remaining in power or the bare bones would be exposed,
Projection two is the pressure on Labour in Scotland being out of power in Edinburgh AND Westminster may provide the opportunity for a truly Scottish Labour Party to fight its way out of the dead body of NUlabour (Scotland).
Projection three - the decomposing Labour Party heavily loosing the next Westmimster election will in fact make the SNP the establishment party in Scotland. Inhabiting that ephemeral position removes huge areas of opposition and attracts the ambitious and the progressive to you. In particular the media is under great pressure to behave differently towards you.
The SNP is only a fair and decent media away from its goals
Complain about this comment
#79 blogger: Guess what? I had a quick look at your history. Surprise, surprise! Very high-handed, dismissive of others, patronising. In fact, your tone and attitudes remind me very much of the late and unlamented BigHullaballoo. Are you perhaps.... related?
The Unionist posters can speak for themselves. My criticisms are confined to those who seek to lure the gullible with what are, in my opinion, unsustainable ideas and false promises.
I think you'll find my contempt for the Labour Party is well documented. I think they might be Unionists.
Why do I need to defend an opinion? What's to justify? It's what I think. You have chosen to rubbish it. Bully for you!
Complain about this comment
#85 aye_write: "Not sure what it is you want to hear - an alternative to the Union. If you seek a concrete and safe design for post independent Scotland, before you can commit to the idea, then I'd say you'll never get it. It will always be a risk, however calculated."
An improvement in how the Union works would be one good thing to hear. Likewise the devolution arrangements. Even a solid Independence proposal!
As for a concrete and safe design, it's what I'd want for a new house, an employment contract or an aeroplane, etc. You seem to be saying that something as trivial as changing the status of the nation should just be a leap of faith.
And you wonder why I seem disappointed with the quality of some posts?
Still, I hope my tone is up to standard.
Complain about this comment
#89 sneckedagain
Thanks for the info. No detail on either ICM's or the Grauniad's website yet but their 'Tories extend poll lead amid pre-budget report doubt' interestingly says: "The poll ... was carried out after the chancellor's statement but before Thursday's arrest of the Conservative frontbencher Damian Green".
If there is any justice, and media coverage finally gives this issue the attention it deserves, this should be the beginning of NuLab's slump.
In that event, your "Projection three ... SNP the establishment party in Scotland" may come to pass, but if it does I hope they manage to learn the lesson that NuLab so quickly forgot about power corrupting.....
Complain about this comment
#91 brigadierjohn
Yes, it was lovely.
Well there are a few more variables with matters to do with governing a nation than with buiding a house - unless you get a few million people to vote on aspects of your new build? A lot of it is abstract. Does your new build have a foriegn policy?
Not merely a leap of faith, but as with evey change in government, a bit of one is necessary - or there's no change.
It does require a level of confidence though. A solid independence argument would I'm sure restore yours, but I've already been quite incontinent before on that :-)
Complain about this comment
#88 - very good points.
at this moment in Scotland we only hear 2 extreme views. we hear one from the unionists who have managed to sew up the traditional media.
on the other hand the Nat's have mastered the new media such as e-mail ,Internet & boards like this , chat rooms etc.
and as such the battle grounds are drawn.
the problem they both have is the vast majority of Scots are not interested in what either are proposing right now, the Tory's are trying to work out how to get their own clothes back and the Lib Dem's are only just beginning to re appear out of their own backsides after being shafted by Labour AGAIN.
so how could we have this debate? certainly not on the BBC in Scotland , they have firmly nailed their colours to the mast and neutral they ain't!!
Complain about this comment
Re #90 brigadierjohn
swing and a miss
bighullaballoo - no relation of mine as far as I know.
You comment that your 'criticisms are confined to those who seek to lure the gullible with what are, in my opinion, unsustainable ideas and false promises' but strangely enough you don't seem to find any of these unsustainable ideas and false promises in the unionist posts.
As for high-handed and dismissive, I think we are back to you looking in the mirror again ..
Just a quick note for you, not all unionists are NuLab, just as not all people who are in favour of independence are SNP supporters.
Complain about this comment
#93 aye_write: I'd prefer German builders. Is that a foreign policy? Actually I like this correspondence. But as good things are coming on telly I'll take my Immodium and go downstairs. G'night.
Complain about this comment
#95 blogger: Let me just say it then, since you seem to think it's important: I have no time whatsoever for the Land of Hope and Glory Unionists, anyone connected with UKIP, the BNP, the Women's Institute, or any uncritical supporter of The Union. Please be happy about that.
Your turn in the mirror.
I'm off for the night.
Complain about this comment
#94 sidthesceptic
You seem to be perpetuating the myth that only the "2 extreme" voices are heard.
Almost no one on these blogs has argued for a reversal of devolution, or for Scottish independence outwith the EU.
A number of us have argued that (at least for a period of time) some form of union with the rest of the UK makes sense until Europe becomes more democratic.
There are a lot of voices speaking on the constitutional issue - they just get drowned out from time to time by party political battles.
Complain about this comment
#96 brigadierjohn
:-D
Agreed, there's a good show on with foreign correspondence from the Australian jungle.
And g'night!
Complain about this comment
Re #97 brigadierjohn
I look forward to your scrutiny of the unionist arguments in the future.
BTW, I had a look in the mirror, must have a shave in the morning.
Have a nice night ;-)
Complain about this comment
One of the best arguments for reforming the UK is that it would remove the "elected dictatorship" that exists with Parliamentary Sovereignty, and the replacement of Cabinet Government with Presidential power.
Evidence 'proves' insufficient cabinet discussion of Iraq war legality in the Grauniad.
Gordon Brown tonight faces fresh calls for an Iraq inquiry following the emergence of documentary evidence that "proved" there was insufficient cabinet discussions on the legality of going to war.
The revelation emerged in a court hearing today when the government was appealing against an order to release the minutes of two cabinet meetings, on March 13 and 17 2003, immediately before the start of the invasion.
Jonathan Swift, counsel for the Cabinet Office, revealed that it was part of the commissioner's case that the minutes of March 17 "proved the absence of sufficient discussion".
Complain about this comment
#101 oldnat
"Last week, Lord Bingham, a former senior law lord, described the invasion of Iraq as "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law"."
I think this part just shows how underhand the present party will go to impose its selective will on the UK's people.
Complain about this comment
#70. BrianSH
"One for the labourites..
HOW THE TAX SYSTEM WORKS" etc.
Good post!
Very handy.
Complain about this comment
Hey-up oldnat and Brownedov, do you think that the recent Green situation has giving you a boost to forward your political agendas?
Remember! remember! dont jump the gun,
Mr Green has still to attend another police meeting and the SB has not yet released a statement as the case is on going?
However, you two do have the pirate within you's, Jacknat, davydov the pirates of the web-site.
Complain about this comment
I am rather intrigued by this local income tax, and tend to support it but as usual the devil will be somewhere hidden in the details of how the final system will work and how its 'fairness' is worked out across a system that covers many different types of household income.
As a single person who rents in a shared house though at the moment and not exactly earning what is apparently even the average, I can't help feel I will end up paying more.
Anyone recommend some good reading material for finding out more about the actual proposal? Preferably a non government source.
Complain about this comment
#104 derekbarker
"Hey-up oldnat and Brownedov, do you think that the recent Green situation has giving you a boost to forward your political agendas?"
Anything that makes English voters, who outnumber the rest of us, concerned about constitutional issues can only be a good thing for those of us who believe in democracy.
As it happens, the latest polls I've already posted links to show that the "official" Tory lead was back to about 15% before Green's arrest, and this can only help them. If the "officials" are sure they'll win the next general election comfortably, then the UK constitution will soon be put on a back burner.
Complain about this comment
Some excellent articles in the English press covering the arrest.
Try the Times the Guardian and the Independent.
The BBC appear to be working hard NOT to say much about it, if you look at the HYS site it is positively laughable, the suggestion for topics must be treated in the same way the questions are treated by QT.
" Don't like that one ,lets ask a question about John and his dreadful dancing, that should fill in some time .And then we can have a suggestive question about the BNP, that way we can kinda link SNP/BNP, clever eh? But lets not allow the asking of any pertinent questions ,just in case we embarrass the Labour Party. Now questions that attack the Tories and SNP are just what we need."
Robin Day must be spinning like a peerie.
Complain about this comment
Aye rite,
Mate the % of your homes income is more akin to a Scottish mentality, that we seem to have lost.
I am one of those that will have to pay more towards community services. I really dont mind that fact of life, because I choose not to live off the back of others whilst I am quite willing to pay my share.
Lets not forget that when we do not generate that income anymore, our contributions drop accordingly.
Lets look at crooked New Labours system when they were in office for their Masters down south. Rate rises were enourmous, from New Labour. They not only sucked us as dry as a foreigners towel, they went on to suck even more through that foreign government who occup our Nation.
The problem isnt just a matter of which system is used. London Controlled New Labour are the problem. Why any Scot would want to pay Tax to fund London is beyond me.
I want to pay the fairest tax level, rather than the dross given out by the Unionist Parties. I want my Tax Money to go into My Country and its Scottish Peoples Community Services. No more Tax to London.
Complain about this comment
105
LIT will work the way Income Tax works at the moment. Roughly speaking personal allowances will mean that a large proportion of the income of the lower paid will have no tax deduction and LIT will be taxed at 3p in the pound on income above personal allowance level.
Many low paid people will pay very little, like a fiver and so on, down to nothing at all and people on the basic pension will have no liabililty.
A large number of people who presently dodge paying at all - ie people earning wages but sharing homes will be brought into the net of payment which I consider to be perfectly fair as I believe all wage earners should pay their share not like the present system in which my old mum is subsiding the three wage earners living next door.
Anyway this is only a rough guide of the principle. The details will be worked out and announced before the next election.
Complain about this comment
#old Nat 98 - you are correct in part. no one is asking for the reversal of devolution what the unionists are asking for is the status quo or giving us more powers on the one hand and taking them away on the other
my point is that the majority of Scots don't want that, nor are they ready for full independence.
as usual our politicians are more interested in themselves rather than the people that they are supposed to represent.
they claim to listen i have not seen much of this lately
Complain about this comment
What worries me about LIT is that when the Scottish Government realise there will be a shortfall in revenue, then they will change the rules to make the calculation based on the total gross income of a household.
It's not a simple case of 3% of income will be the same, since low earners will pay a very minimum amount. But if the incomes are combined then it is possible to end up paying more than if incomes were kept separate.
My council tax is about 6.5% of my gross income. Under LIT of 3% my contribution would half. Great! But Councils are already complaining about a shortage of funds. So where are they coming from?
I doubt that bringing in more taxpayers into the equation will actually keep revenue levels the same.
The idea is great in principle, but I doubt it will work in practice.
Complain about this comment
I have no idea where the problems appear from, apart from vague unspecified assertions about whether it will work in practice. It is hugely simpler to collect than present Council Tax as the IR will collect it direct, it will free up huge amount of council time and resource as they will have none of the present nightmare collection to do.
In one respect it is the same as Council Tax. There is no guarantee there will be no funding shortfall no matter what system is employed.
National Government already supply almost 80% of local council funding direct so we are talking about small amounts at the margins.
The SNP Government is already pushing up direct payment to local Councils to nearer historic levels.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
112. At 4:18pm on 29 Nov 2008, sneckedagain wrote:
I have no idea where the problems appear from, apart from vague unspecified assertions about whether it will work in practice. It is hugely simpler to collect than present Council Tax as the IR will collect it direct, it will free up huge amount of council time and resource as they will have none of the present nightmare collection to do.
In one respect it is the same as Council Tax. There is no guarantee there will be no funding shortfall no matter what system is employed.
National Government already supply almost 80% of local council funding direct so we are talking about small amounts at the margins.
The SNP Government is already pushing up direct payment to local Councils to nearer historic levels.
---------------
Where does it state that HMRC have agreed to collect LIT? I'm not being sarcastic, but there are inherit problems in using HMRC. Do they collect it annually or in the same way as student loans, based on monthly/weekly incomes? I think they will go for the latter as it is simpler and more politically acceptable to use. If you went for annual assessments then these would work like Child Tax Credit, which means problems when there is a change in income.
The end result will be on employers no doubt, as they already pass details to HMRC, so I can assume that HMRC will force employers to pass further details.
The other issue is how the annual income is calculated in this case. If you work two or three part-time jobs, then under the current system people could be earning £20k but only be calculated for LIT on say a third of this. This isn't pie in the sky calculations, its based on current procedures.
Personally, I'd rather pay one flat rate of tax on my income - no NI etc - and make that revenue available to however the Government wants to use it.
And does HMRC have the resources to deal with this? Remember that they would be passing information to roughly 200 councils (if the LIT was rolled out UK-wide). That is a lot of information and not simply a case of pushing a button.
But if councils were more careful with their money, and stopped pretending to be businesses (look at councils speculating on property prices!) then council tax might have been kept at a reasonable level.
Complain about this comment
For all their condemnation of Alex Salmond's somewhat contravertial style of governing, the Labour party don't appear to be following the principles upon which that very parliament was founded. It was designed to be a place of constructive discussion and debate, but for Ian Gray to attack Alex Salmond on a policy to which he has no alternative is quite fundamentally unconstructive.
That said, you would then have to reprimand Alex Salmond for so blatantly changing the direction of the argument. However, if Ian Gray is going to get drawn into that, it's his own fault.
It would appear that we have a somewhat chronic need of better politicians.
Complain about this comment
#114- Neil_Small147 wrote:
Q. Where does it state that HMRC have agreed to collect LIT? I'm not being sarcastic, but there are inherit problems in using HMRC.
A. HMRC shall add 3% on to the tax-take of Scottish Tax-Payers; annual assessments and random checks shall ensure the correct sums have been paid, as per existing system. Changes in income should be stated to HMRC, as per existing system.
....so I can assume that HMRC will force employers to pass further details.
A. Employers are obliged to pass-on details of wages/tax deducted to HMRC. Tax remains a personal contract between each tax-payer and HMRC. No change is required.
Q. The other issue is how the annual income is calculated in this case. If you work two or three part-time jobs, then under the current system people could be earning ?20k but only be calculated for LIT on say a third of this. This isn't pie in the sky calculations, its based on current procedures.
A. The same issue exists in the current arrangements; tax-inspectors deal with this everyday and shall continue to do so- no change to existing arrangements.
Q. And does HMRC have the resources to deal with this? Remember that they would be passing information to roughly 200 councils (if the LIT was rolled out UK-wide). That is a lot of information and not simply a case of pushing a button.
A. HMRC shall control collection and pass sms to central (Scottish) Govt. to distribute according to tax-take for each council region (based on registered address of each tax-payer)- very slight change to existing system but hardly insurmountable! That is why LIT must be handled by central Govt and not be split to each council; they do not have the resources.
Q. But if councils were more careful with their money, and stopped pretending to be businesses (look at councils speculating on property prices!) then council tax might have been kept at a reasonable level.
A. A separate issue-not connected to LIT.
Complain about this comment
108. scottishrepublic
Apologies for time taken to respond.
"I want to pay the fairest tax level, rather than the dross given out by the Unionist Parties. I want my Tax Money to go into My Country and its Scottish Peoples Community Services. No more Tax to London."
Likewise, I'd like to see a fair system, where the sentiments in #70 are heeded and the importance of families' situation is recognised, possibly as in #23.
While striving for that, however, I'd put up with the LIT and it's disadvantages if the choice was between no LIT or LIT and independence.
I'd choose independence and look towards the tax system being refined in the future. We don't mind having to pay tax.
I too favour Scotland raising it's own taxes. With the Barnett formula it's like we are in the same car but London is in the driving seat and Scotland is in the baby seat (with London giving us a lolly pop!).
Complain about this comment
#114 - "The end result will be on employers no doubt, as they already pass details to HMRC, so I can assume that HMRC will force employers to pass further details."
What extra details, exactly? Employers are already oblidged to pass details of their employees' earnings to HMRC. These existing details would be sufficient to calculate LIT.
"If you work two or three part-time jobs, then under the current system people could be earning ?20k but only be calculated for LIT on say a third of this. This isn't pie in the sky calculations, its based on current procedures."
Is it really? So if I work 3 jobs, I only pay income tax on one of them? Never heard of that, I'll need to try it, shold save me thousands each year.
Complain about this comment
#110 sidthesceptic
"the majority of Scots don't want that , nor are they ready for full independence"
I'm not sure what you mean by "full independence" - the SNP are arguing for Scotland to have membership of the political and economic union that is the EU - ie union with more than just the other UK nations.
I argue for something different - A Confederal Europe in which Defence, Foreign Affairs, and macro-economics are dealt with by a European Government chosen by the European Parliament.
I want to see the UK being in the eurozone, so that macro-economic decisions are made at the European rather than UK level.
Until Europe has developed to a stage where they can handle Defence and Foreign Affairs, I'm prepared to have these handled by a UK Government - rather as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands do.
Complain about this comment
118. At 9:24pm on 29 Nov 2008, ForteanJo wrote:
Is it really? So if I work 3 jobs, I only pay income tax on one of them? Never heard of that, I'll need to try it, shold save me thousands each year.
----------------
I'm describing one process HMRC uses which is already in place.
If a person works, as you say, 3 jobs, but each only pays 4k a year, then your total is 12k.
But if you work these jobs with different employers, each employer only reports that particular income, which in this process puts the person below the threshold.
It is a known loophole, and admittedly would not cover the majority of workers. But it is there.
People seem to think that HMRC just collects lots of information, runs througha few things on the computer and tells people how much tax to pay.
But what about self-employed people? Taxi drivers for example. Most of them have to complete tax returns.
This returns me to how exactly is LIT paid? If someone is self-employed they will be unlikely to be paying tax every week.
I'm not defending council tax, nor criticising the principle of LIT. But it's not as easy as you think to set the system up. People have to be given clear details on how they will be expected to pay the tax, how it will be calculated and what information will be collected and disclosed to their local council.
Complain about this comment
Having undertaken to return upon the advent of some momentous occurrence, here I am for Advent, even though some of you no longer distinguish between that and an extended shopping spree. Not that I underestimate the economic, social and personal value of what is known as the Christmas shopping spree, having been following the progress of the current planetary economic cataclysm assiduously. But enough of doom and gloom. Let me tell you a story, a Christmas tale, if you like, which may or may not be of some little assistance to oldnat (#119 and passim) in his never-ending struggle to spread enlightenment among the unconverted:
Once upon a time, something happened. If it had not happened, it would not be told.
There was a village. At the edge of it, where the peasants' oxen break through the hedges and the neighbours' hogs wallow in the ground under the fences, there once stood a house. In this house lived a man, and the man had a wife; but the wife grieved all day long.
"What troubles you, dear wife, that you sit there drooping like a frost-bitten bud in the sunlight?" her husband asked one day. "You have all you need. So be cheerful, like other folk."
"Let me alone, and ask no more questions!" replied the wife and became still more melancholy than before.
Her husband questioned her a second time and received the same reply. But, when he asked again, she answered more fully.
"Dear me," she said, "why do you trouble your head about it? If you know, you'll just be sorrowful, as I am. It's better for me not to tell you."
But, to this, people will never agree. If you tell a person he must sit still, he is more anxious to move than ever. Britnat, for this was the husband's name, improbable though it may seem, was now determined to know what was in his wife's mind.
"If you are determined to hear, I'll tell you," said the wife, whose name was Scotnat, improbable though that may seem. "There's no luck in the house, husband; there's no luck in the house!"
"Isn't the cow a good one? Are not the fruit-trees and bee-hives full? Are not the fields fertile? Do you not appreciate the dividend that our union has produced?" asked Britnat. "You talk nonsense and indeed piffle and tosh if you complain of anything."
"But, husband, we have no revenues, no fiscal autonomy and no independence to speak of."
Britnat understood; and, when a man realizes such a thing, it is not well. From this time a sorrowful man and a sorrowful woman lived in the house, Dunbeggin, on the edge of the village, North Britting. And they were sorrowful because the overlords had given them no oil revenues and so forth, no fiscal autonomy and, indeed, no real autonomy to speak of. When Scotnat saw her husband sad, she grew still more melancholy; and the more melancholy she was, the greater his grief became. Good grief, what a pickle.
This continued for a long time.
They had prayers read in all the churches. They questioned all the witches and flayed the journalists within an inch of their lives, but no gift from the overlords came.
One day, two travellers arrived at Britnat's house and were joyfully received and entertained with the best food he had. They were angels in disguise and, perceiving that Britnat and Scotnat were good people, one of them, while throwing his knapsack over his shoulder to continue his journey, asked his host what he most desired and said that any three of his wishes should be fulfilled.
"Give me revenues," replied Britnat.
"What else shall I give you?"
"Fiscal autonomy, sir, give me fiscal autonomy!"
"And your third wish?" the angel responded.
"Well, it's like this, you see. Scotnat has been pining for something that she calls meaningful self-government, but I think it may drive us apart. Still, perhaps something can be arranged which will keep us together, improbable though that may seem?"
"Take care," said the angel, "or you may not be able to cope with these gifts. Have you considered how you will accommodate yourself to them?"
"Never mind that, sir, only give them to me!"
The travellers departed, but Britnat accompanied them as far as the high road, that they might not lose their way among the fields and woods.
When Britnat reached home again, he found the house, yard and garden transformed with plenitude of all that had been asked for. Scotnat was so overjoyed that she immediately desisted from demanding total independence and settled for settling down with Britnat in harmony and prosperity, and they both lived happily ever after. The end.
There, did you like that story, even though it is only a fairy tale and, therefore, not true, as some of you may have suspected, despite what I said in the introductory paragraph of it? OK, so I lied to you. Sorry. The truth is that Britnat went on getting trouble and strife from the wife, as you might expect, as they are an ill-matched couple. No guardian angels providentially appeared as if they had been ordered from a gift catalogue, whatever that may be. No settlement of grievances was arrived at, and the ailing union, which had only been a marriage of convenience in the first place, collapsed like something referred to loosely as a commercial bank and ended in divorce.
Well, maybe not. It is your story, after all. You make up an ending, if you can agree on one, and live happily ever after, if you can. Season's greetings, Earthlings.
And happy St Andrew's Day!
Toodloo.
Complain about this comment
114
This post is particularly confused and you are obviously completely all at sea with how our taxation system works.
Where do you get the peculiar notion that the tax collectors will have to contact the councils?
That has nothing whatever to do with them.
The attacks on LIT are getting very tiresome as all the same elements are present in out national income tax collection and this seems to provoke no complaints at all.
All that is wrong with the LIT suggestion is that it being proposed by the SNP and all the attacks are politically motivated.
Complain about this comment
#120 - "But if you work these jobs with different employers, each employer only reports that particular income, which in this process puts the person below the threshold.
It is a known loophole, and admittedly would not cover the majority of workers. But it is there."
But isn't your tax code adjusted to take this into account. Usually any allowances and free pay are attributed to your main job and the others are taxed at basic or higher rate.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/working/casual.htm
At the very least, HMRC will know how much you've earned (through each employer's books) and will send you a tax bill at the end of the year. I can't see how this loop hole could be exploited by more than a handful of tax payers in the UK. Certainly, any impact of this loop hole on LIT would be negligible.
Complain about this comment
#120 - "But what about self-employed people? Taxi drivers for example. Most of them have to complete tax returns. "
And? HMRC collects income tax from taxi drivers - collecting LIT would take no more effort.
"This returns me to how exactly is LIT paid? If someone is self-employed they will be unlikely to be paying tax every week."
Why is it important that LIT be collected weekly? An annual lump sum is just as useful as a weekly collection.
"I'm not defending council tax, nor criticising the principle of LIT. But it's not as easy as you think to set the system up."
But there is a system already in place that would be ready made for LIT. When devolution was enacted, what was then the Inland Revenue recoded everyone mainly resident in Scotland, amending their tax record with a "S" indicator (yes, S for Scotland). This was to allow for the potential 3p tax raising powers to be used. This mechanism could easily be utilised for LIT. HMRC are already resourced for the 3p tax so a variation of that should have minimum cost implications. Indeed, if such a system was used, the savings across the board (councils would not need council tax collectors) could be huge.
#122 - "All that is wrong with the LIT suggestion is that it being proposed by the SNP and all the attacks are politically motivated."
Some of the "flaws" being highlighted in LIT appear to be just plain wrong. Perhaps you have a point.
Complain about this comment
I think what I am trying to point out is the concern that councils will spend the money wisely, regardless of the system in place.
LIT for me would be about half of what I pay already. But I fear a cut in services. Or perhaps this will give the green door to paying for refuse collection.
Complain about this comment
#125 Neil_Small147
Yes, we could all sit wringing our hands and by default support a poorly thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to a failed policy (Poll Tax).
Or, in keeping with the new sense of "We have the ability to make this more fair", we could devise a system where higher-earners pay more for local services than those who earn less....oh, it's already been thought of!
Now lets make sure it is workable..oh, it already is!
I get the feeling nothing much would be changed or improved in your world, as it would be debated to death and if there were half a dozen people who fell through the net, any suggestion would be dismissed as unworkable!
As I have said before, we can all moan-just a bit harder to moan to the right people!
Complain about this comment
Happy St Andrews day to all, and especially our dear little resident alien!
Complain about this comment
#127 DisgustedDorothy
Thanks, and I hope you have a good day too.
I'm celebrating by winding up the more extreme English Nats on other blogs.
They tend not to understand irony.
Complain about this comment
126 - Well said!
This debate should be about the fairness of local taxation - No matter how the final system works in practice it will be fairer than the current system.
As a former Labour supporter, in the past I paid my 33% Income tax without a grumble, (I'm not saying I liked it but it was fair - we all paid our wack acording to our income).
At local level it was not so but as most of the money came from the national taxation, it was less noticeable, or so it seemed at the time.
Now as I approach State Pension age, I like many others of my age, have become increasingly aware that if you are not on benefits, credit tax etc. you are extremely vulnerable to hidden or backdoor taxes.
Having worked since I was 15 with never a day on the dole, I have no desire for the handouts aforementioned to be extended to meet my revised income but merely wish to be treated fairly in comparison to other taxpayers - it disgusts me that Labour support the present system of Council tax, something I would have expected the Tory Party to do as they benefit from the votes of the better off.
I find that I am not alone, many of my friends, some Labour, some Tory, are of the same opinion and we will not be voting for either of them at the next election. Indeed, most of us did not vote for them at the last election.
I was amazed that the SNP adopted this policy as their MSP's will all personally lose money - their attitude shows up the Labour and Tory MSP's as being greedy and completely out of touch with decency and fairness.
Complain about this comment
Your quote reminds me of a very famous verse of words spoken by the godfather of medicine;
As to diseases ,make a habit of two things —. to help, or at least, to do no harm.
— Hippocrates
I wonder, can we go so far as to label the current economic situation as synonymous with disease? Surely one can draw parallels.
Lung Cancer can be linked to smoking too much - Skin Cancer with over exposure to UV and tanning salons alike and Liver failure with addiction to alcohol.
Is the current economic climate a symptom of the free market economy? It wasn't communist rhetoric or Soviet propaganda when he wrote it - and should one look hard enough you'd find the very scenario we're experiencing almost lifted from the pages of Marx and Engels manifesto.
Moderation - is a wonderful word. It means indulge but not too much - it means cut back - but not too little. Such a word deserves it's own holiday - for in moderation one might find an answer that for 50 years has eluded us all.
Complain about this comment
It looks as if the Calman Commission has been a waste of our money.
While the Sunday Times hasNeil_Small's concerns that his council will always waste his money, applies even more to the 500,000 GBP wasted by Westminster on this process.Scotland on Sunday is reporting that
Complain about this comment
#131 - Wasn't the Calman commision set up and resourced by Holyrood? I just hope Labour and Tory voters remember this money was thrown away out of pure spite. I doubt they will, but I can always hope!
That's half a million (and rising) on Jack the Lad's vanity project aka Edinburgh Trams, half a million on Bendy Wendy's smoke and mirrors project, or the Calman commision as it's known in the press - NuLab are certainly the party of the people, if being the party of the people means you don't have any problems wasting the people's tax revenue just to spite your political opponents.
Complain about this comment
#132 ForteanJo
Calman was set up by the Unionists in the Scottish Parliament with a 50k GBP grant of our money.
It then got a further 500k GBP grant from Westminster.
I wonder how that 500k will appear in the "regional accounts" of the UK. More public expenditure on Scotland perhaps?
Complain about this comment
#133 - oldnat
You're right enough (of course). Should have read your links before posting.
Interesting question on how this grant will be accounted for in terms of regional spending. I suspect we all know exactly how this spending will appear.
Complain about this comment
It seems to be a very bad thing indeed..
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS