PDA

View Full Version : Fit to govern?



Mibbes Aye
13-03-2008, 08:58 AM
Arguably a mockery (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scottishnationalparty/Swinney-tax-plan39s-missing-700m.3867060.jp) of the process of government :devil:

Does the SNP now have any credibility left in terms of managing the nation's finances?

Jack
13-03-2008, 10:39 AM
FACT I知 not politically motivated, they're all a bunch of bandits.

But IMO 」710 million, as far as running Scotland over a year is concerned, is neither here nor there. I知 not 100% sure but I think previous Scottish Governments (Administrations) have nearly always had a surplus so this could just be taking it closer to the wire.

」710 million in a budget of 」30bn isn't really that big.

Gatecrasher
13-03-2008, 10:41 AM
FACT I知 not politically motivated, they're all a bunch of bandits.

But IMO 」710 million, as far as running Scotland over a year is concerned, is neither here nor there. I知 not 100% sure but I think previous Scottish Governments (Administrations) have nearly always had a surplus so this could just be taking it closer to the wire.

」710 million in a budget of 」30bn isn't really that big.




how many schools hospitals or police officers can you employ with that amount :confused:

thats a lot of money what ever way you look at it

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 10:55 AM
For me, the REAL story here is the question of the CT Benefit money that Scotland gets from the UK Government. The SNP have done their sums on the assumption that they will still get that money, but that assumption seems to be in a lot of doubt.

The reform of the CT system, IMO, hinges on whether we get that cash or not. I foresee a lot of propagandising about the ownership of the money, jurisdiction, and downright clashing between both Governments in the months to come. Without being too down on the SNP, it wouldn't surprise me if this is an ideological battle that they have been planning.

Gatecrasher
13-03-2008, 10:57 AM
For me, the REAL story here is the question of the CT Benefit money that Scotland gets from the UK Government. The SNP have done their sums on the assumption that they will still get that money, but that assumption seems to be in a lot of doubt.

The reform of the CT system, IMO, hinges on whether we get that cash or not. I foresee a lot of propagandising about the ownership of the money, jurisdiction, and downright clashing between both Governments in the months to come. Without being too down on the SNP, it wouldn't surprise me if this is an ideological battle that they have been planning.


CT?

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 11:01 AM
Sorry, Council Tax.

At present, we get a block of money from the UK Government to help pay for Council Tax Benefit, which is a UK measure. However, since we are proposing to move away from CT to a local Income Tax, it has been suggested that we will no longer be entitled to that block of money. The SNP's calculations for the local Income Tax are based on the assumption that we will still get that money, "because it's Scotland's".

Let the debate begin.......

Gatecrasher
13-03-2008, 11:03 AM
Sorry, Council Tax.

At present, we get a block of money from the UK Government to help pay for Council Tax Benefit, which is a UK measure. However, since we are proposing to move away from CT to a local Income Tax, it has been suggested that we will no longer be entitled to that block of money. The SNP's calculations for the local Income Tax are based on the assumption that we will still get that money, "because it's Scotland's".

Let the debate begin.......


its a very good and valid point :agree:

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 11:04 AM
its a very good and valid point :agree:

... and, like me, you're sitting on the fence for now.... :greengrin

Gatecrasher
13-03-2008, 11:06 AM
... and, like me, you're sitting on the fence for now.... :greengrin

:greengrin

i just want to have a look at the figures before i make a decision

Mibbes Aye
13-03-2008, 12:52 PM
FACT I知 not politically motivated, they're all a bunch of bandits.

But IMO 」710 million, as far as running Scotland over a year is concerned, is neither here nor there. I知 not 100% sure but I think previous Scottish Governments (Administrations) have nearly always had a surplus so this could just be taking it closer to the wire.

」710 million in a budget of 」30bn isn't really that big.



You think?

」710 million is around 40% of the total collected in council tax each year.

Or to put it another way it would be a 」20 million reduction for every local authority in Scotland.

What gets cut to pay for it? The SNP aren't saying.

Bad Martini
13-03-2008, 01:04 PM
An example:

Scotland requires say x amount of money to operate services from Council Tax - lets say 1BN
Scotland has council tax payers who pay 750M
Therefore, a deficit of 250M exists as there are punters out there, who canny afford "their share"
Nevertheless, 250M is needed to balance the books
As all taxes are collected and distributed via the UK Government in the main and their appointed bodies, THEY pay Scotland the 250M to "make up the difference"

...this is complex how?

Therefore, if we raise the 750M by ANOTHER means i.e. a local income tax, the defficit will still exist, will still have the same skint punters and thus the 250M should STILL be paid.

If the local income tax does NOT generate the 750M, thats OUR problem but we are surely still entitled to the defficit we've ALWAYS had...

There are alternatives and these are WAY better;

1. Give Scotland **** ALL except...
2. The ability to set up, maintain and collect its OWN taxes as IT sees fit
3. Keep its OWN oil
4. Whilst they are at it, we'll take full control of everything else to make it nice and fair...
5. That's it.

They give us **** all. We'll give them **** all. We'll see who would be in favour.

Ask yourself why the "UK Government" are NOT in favour of this.

ENDOF, IMHO

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 02:03 PM
Your arguments are quite sound, BM, but of course way too simplistic for our elected reps, both here and down south.

This is not taking sides, BTW (see above... me plus fence)... but the justification for THEM not giving US the CT Benefit is that it has been ring-fenced for CT only. Not for IT, or for local spending in general, but specifically for CT. No CT? No benefit. No budging.

However, IMO, it goes deeper... UK Government doesn't like the idea of a local IT, and will do whatever it can to discourage it, even in areas where, legally, it has no jurisdiction.

This one is going to run.

Luna Landing
13-03-2008, 05:00 PM
Arguably a mockery (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scottishnationalparty/Swinney-tax-plan39s-missing-700m.3867060.jp) of the process of government :devil:

Does the SNP now have any credibility left in terms of managing the nation's finances?

Anything written by Hamish McDonnell - the author of this piece _ is not to be taken seriously . He makes no attempt to take a balanced view of what is happening as he still cant accept that labour lost. For that matter neither can the Hootsman.

Mibbes Aye
13-03-2008, 08:44 PM
Anything written by Hamish McDonnell - the author of this piece _ is not to be taken seriously . He makes no attempt to take a balanced view of what is happening as he still cant accept that labour lost. For that matter neither can the Hootsman.

Not familiar with his work so I'll go with what you're saying. But the Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2111838.0.SNP_unveils_council_tax_repl acement.php) and the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7285326.stm) are reporting along the same lines.

The numbers don't add up, they know it but they won't say how they will deal with that.

Zeberdee
13-03-2008, 09:57 PM
If your band D and earn over 35k you end up paying more? This is outrageous. The fact is most people in a band D home prob have an income of around this or at least jointly. CT is far too much at the moment never mind paying more!!!

Finally starting to see what life under the SNP will be like.

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 10:01 PM
If your band D and earn over 35k you end up paying more? This is outrageous. The fact is most people in a band D home prob have an income of around this or at least jointly. CT is far too much at the moment never mind paying more!!!
Finally starting to see what life under the SNP will be like.

Playing devil's advocate here.... what would be your alternative way of funding local government?

Zeberdee
13-03-2008, 10:12 PM
Playing devil's advocate here.... what would be your alternative way of funding local government?

I have no idea. But if its gonna cost anyone earning 35k, in a band d or less house more, then it is certainly no improvement on the current system.

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 10:16 PM
I have no idea. But if its gonna cost anyone earning 35k, in a band d or less house more, then it is certainly no improvement on the current system.

According to the Government, most people will end up paying less, or stay the same. Only a few will pay more.

Zeberdee
13-03-2008, 10:18 PM
Aye, accoriding to them. But it looks like they'll shaft all the single people or families on a decent wage!

However, independent research by the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for The Scotsman revealed last night that there would be many more losers under LIT than the Scottish Government has predicted, and that hundreds of thousands of middle-income earners in all parts of Scotland would be worse off.

PwC broke down the wage levels by individual council tax bands something Scottish Government projections failed to do to give a more detailed picture of the winners and losers.

It found that single people in average Band D homes earning more than 」35,000 would have to pay more, and that those in more expensive Band G homes would pay more if they earned above 」53,000.

It also worked out that couples in Band D homes would start to pay more once their combined income hit 」49,000, while couples in the more expensive Band G homes would pay more if their combined income totalled 」75,000 or more.

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 10:25 PM
Aye, accoriding to them. But it looks like they'll shaft all the single people or families on a decent wage!

However, independent research by the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for The Scotsman revealed last night that there would be many more losers under LIT than the Scottish Government has predicted, and that hundreds of thousands of middle-income earners in all parts of Scotland would be worse off.
PwC broke down the wage levels by individual council tax bands something Scottish Government projections failed to do to give a more detailed picture of the winners and losers.

It found that single people in average Band D homes earning more than 」35,000 would have to pay more, and that those in more expensive Band G homes would pay more if they earned above 」53,000.

It also worked out that couples in Band D homes would start to pay more once their combined income hit 」49,000, while couples in the more expensive Band G homes would pay more if their combined income totalled 」75,000 or more.

Numbers, eh? So.... hundreds of thousands of middle-income earners in all parts of Scotland would be worse off. That's out of a taxpaying population of, what, 3 million? How many is hundreds of thousands? 300,000? 900,000? Even 900k out of 3 m is a minority; it still means the majority will be better off, or no worse off.

I am not disagreeing with your stance, BTW. Just making the point that the debate thats about to kick off will be throwing numbers about all over the place. Numbers can be made to say anything....

alex plode
13-03-2008, 11:15 PM
Sorry, Council Tax.

At present, we get a block of money from the UK Government to help pay for Council Tax Benefit, which is a UK measure. However, since we are proposing to move away from CT to a local Income Tax, it has been suggested that we will no longer be entitled to that block of money. The SNP's calculations for the local Income Tax are based on the assumption that we will still get that money, "because it's Scotland's".

Let the debate begin.......

The UK argument is:- if you're scrapping Council tax you can't have a 」400M Council Tax subsidy, however it's not really as simple as that.
When Westminster scrapped the rates, it didn't abolish rates reliefs; when the poll tax was scrapped, local government subsidies were transferred intact to underwrite its successor, the council tax.

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

This is a well directed spanner, thrown into the works by a shaky labour regime in an attempt to block an SNP manifesto pledge to abolish the unpopular Council tax. I feel it will ultimately backfire on them.

CropleyWasGod
13-03-2008, 11:21 PM
This is a well directed spanner, thrown into the works by a shaky labour regime in an attempt to block an SNP manifesto pledge to abolish the unpopular Council tax.

My interpretation, as well.

However, I think the SNP will welcome the fight. It wouldnt surprise me if this becomes less about the CT/LIT debate, and more about sovereignty and the essence of devolution. The SNP love these kind of fights.... viz the Trident thing, and the Lewis chessmen.

alex plode
13-03-2008, 11:32 PM
My interpretation, as well.

However, I think the SNP will welcome the fight. It wouldnt surprise me if this becomes less about the CT/LIT debate, and more about sovereignty and the essence of devolution. The SNP love these kind of fights.... viz the Trident thing, and the Lewis chessmen.

Indeed.
The more the champagne socialists dig their heels in, the better for the SNP.

mickeythehibbee
14-03-2008, 09:50 AM
Your arguments are quite sound, BM, but of course way too simplistic for our elected reps, both here and down south.

This is not taking sides, BTW (see above... me plus fence)... but the justification for THEM not giving US the CT Benefit is that it has been ring-fenced for CT only. Not for IT, or for local spending in general, but specifically for CT. No CT? No benefit. No budging.

However, IMO, it goes deeper... UK Government doesn't like the idea of a local IT, and will do whatever it can to discourage it, even in areas where, legally, it has no jurisdiction.

This one is going to run.

Hate to play Devil's advocate, but technically speaking, the UK parliament still has jurisdiction all over the UK. The Scotland act only created another parliament to rule in Scotland, however the sovereignty of the UK parliament remains unchanged so technically, anything the Scottish parliament do could just be undone by the UK parliament. It would break a constitutional convention (and piss off a lot of people) but unfortunately, they still could. :boo hoo::boo hoo:

Hibs Class
14-03-2008, 01:00 PM
This is a well directed spanner, thrown into the works by a shaky labour regime in an attempt to block an SNP manifesto pledge to abolish the unpopular Council tax. I feel it will ultimately backfire on them.[/quote]

Agree to a point, although there is the possibility / probability that the SNP included pledges in their manifesto that they would have known they couldn't honour and / or which would have drawn the UK government into conflict. Ultimately I think this is just another example of why there are no policiticians of any shade that can be trusted.

CropleyWasGod
14-03-2008, 01:40 PM
Hate to play Devil's advocate, but technically speaking, the UK parliament still has jurisdiction all over the UK. The Scotland act only created another parliament to rule in Scotland, however the sovereignty of the UK parliament remains unchanged so technically, anything the Scottish parliament do could just be undone by the UK parliament. It would break a constitutional convention (and piss off a lot of people) but unfortunately, they still could. :boo hoo::boo hoo:

... and it is this part that the SNP will relish challenging. It wouldnt surprise me if they have planned the whole confrontation.

offshorehibby
15-03-2008, 09:52 AM
The Scottish labour have been running scared of the SNP since the election, loosing most battles. Their big brothers down south are now trying to shaft the SNP and the Scottish people any chance they get.
In the long term I don稚 think this is about CL or LIT but the start of the debate about sovereignty of the nation. Alex Salmond is a good speaker and knows what he痴 doing; this will unfold over the next year watch

cabbageandribs1875
16-03-2008, 01:10 AM
If your band D and earn over 35k you end up paying more? This is outrageous. The fact is most people in a band D home prob have an income of around this or at least jointly. CT is far too much at the moment never mind paying more!!!


outrageous ? yep your spot-on there :agree: how on earth do the SNP expect people on a paltry 」700 p/week expect to survive :dunno: with such a paltry sum per week i can see them ending up feeling like pensioners who struggle to put food on a table, and having to watch how much electricity/gas they use on a daily basis :agree:

Finally starting to see what life under the SNP will be like.



my rents went up 」3/week because of the C/T freeze (well, the council have to try claw it back from somewhere eh, and why not claw it back from the easiest targets first ) i'm raging that they are getting away with this and would suggest that salmond MUST have known the councils would have to get it back from somewhere and where else could they start by clawing some of it back than rent payers :brickwall but guess what, after seeing people earning a paltry 」700 p/week starting tae panic..........the rent increase is worth it :agree::wink:

--------
16-03-2008, 01:33 PM
Arguably a mockery (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scottishnationalparty/Swinney-tax-plan39s-missing-700m.3867060.jp) of the process of government :devil:

Does the SNP now have any credibility left in terms of managing the nation's finances?



If you're sure the SNP are so bad at simple arithmetic that they're disqualified from government, 'mibbes' you'd like to comment on the story in today's Sunday Herald regarding Trish Godman MSP (Scottish Labour) who (to quote) "has pocketed 」30,000 of public money to cover her 'hotel' costs despite the fact she did not stay in any...."

She was Deputy Presisding Officer at the time. Instead of staying in the hotels whose bills she was claiming in her Parliamentary expenses, she was staying in her son-in-law's flat on Holyrood Road. Her son-in-law is one Gary Mulgrew, who just recently pled guilty to corporate fraud - he's one of the so-called NatWest Three. He copped a plea and is now serving a three-year sentence in the States for wire fraud.

Isn't it grand when you have politicians of the honesty and probity of Trish Godman and Wendy Alexander around, knocking on the doors of government?

Stones, glass houses, living in and throwing, anyone? :cool2:

Mibbes Aye
16-03-2008, 04:34 PM
If you're sure the SNP are so bad at simple arithmetic that they're disqualified from government, 'mibbes' you'd like to comment on the story in today's Sunday Herald regarding Trish Godman MSP (Scottish Labour) who (to quote) "has pocketed 」30,000 of public money to cover her 'hotel' costs despite the fact she did not stay in any...."

She was Deputy Presisding Officer at the time. Instead of staying in the hotels whose bills she was claiming in her Parliamentary expenses, she was staying in her son-in-law's flat on Holyrood Road. Her son-in-law is one Gary Mulgrew, who just recently pled guilty to corporate fraud - he's one of the so-called NatWest Three. He copped a plea and is now serving a three-year sentence in the States for wire fraud.

Isn't it grand when you have politicians of the honesty and probity of Trish Godman and Wendy Alexander around, knocking on the doors of government?

Stones, glass houses, living in and throwing, anyone? :cool2:

What makes you think I would want to stick up for a Labour politician allegedly misappropriating funds?

More to the point I would distinguish between individuals abusing their position (which is one issue) and my OP.

My point is that the minister responsible for finance announces a policy is to be implemented (this isn't a policy commitment in Opposition, this is the real deal).

Said minister can't explain how the shortfall caused by the policy will be dealt with.

Said minister reveals that the agency he wants to collect the tax have said they have no intention of doing so.

To talk about implementing a change of such magnitude but to have no grip on the financial implications and not to have even established the processes necessary for the change?

It's amateurish and incompetent at best and that's being kind.

Zeberdee
17-03-2008, 08:37 AM
my rents went up 」3/week because of the C/T freeze (well, the council have to try claw it back from somewhere eh, and why not claw it back from the easiest targets first ) i'm raging that they are getting away with this and would suggest that salmond MUST have known the councils would have to get it back from somewhere and where else could they start by clawing some of it back than rent payers :brickwall but guess what, after seeing people earning a paltry 」700 p/week starting tae panic..........the rent increase is worth it :agree::wink:

I earn my money and pay more than enough CT already to cover any services i use.

There is no point replacing an unfair system with another unfair system and punish people who already pay more than their fair share. Why should i even bother working to earn a decent wage? i might as well just sit on my arse and get everythin given to me like those other ****s.

Im not talkin about pensioners btw, i believe they should pay only a nominal fee if any fee at all!.

CropleyWasGod
17-03-2008, 09:47 AM
I earn my money and pay more than enough CT already to cover any services i use.

.

Taking that line, one could argue that the better off are likely to use less Council services than the worse off.... and that they therefore should pay less CT. However, that misses the point of social democracy and a progressive tax system; quite simply, those who can afford to pay more, do so, to benefit those less well off.

Bad Martini
17-03-2008, 12:14 PM
I earn my money and pay more than enough CT already to cover any services i use.

There is no point replacing an unfair system with another unfair system and punish people who already pay more than their fair share. Why should i even bother working to earn a decent wage? i might as well just sit on my arse and get everythin given to me like those other ****s.

Im not talkin about pensioners btw, i believe they should pay only a nominal fee if any fee at all!.


I can almost see where you a coming from here and I DO agree completely that those who contribute **** all, should have it MUCH harder than they do.

If that involves doing voluntary work (and thus contributing) for their dole then so be it ... one should get **** all for **** all ... that I DO agree with.

However, the council tax is pish and make nae mistake.

Also, as I alluded before and I'll now state explictly, the only way we can ever achieve a balance in terms of taxes and who pays what is by the Scottish Government setting all taxes in Scotland and keeping all profits generated by Scotland (and YES, YES, YES - I am referring to the ****ing oil).

ENDOF