Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 6th October 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

SNP rebuts Tory local tax claim



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 April 2008
By HAMISH MACDONELL
JOHN Swinney, the finance secretary, hit back yesterday at opposition claims that average couples would be hundreds of pounds a year worse off under his local income tax plans.
The Tories claimed at the weekend that a household with two people working full-time and earning the average wage – giving them a joint income of £53,290 – would be £289 a year worse off under the local income tax than they were under the council tax
.

But Mr Swinney said the Tories were wrong to use the mean (average) figure for income and should have used the median (middle) figures, because this was more accurate.

Mr Swinney claimed the average earning in a dual-income household was £45,000, not £53,000.

Mr Swinney's spokesman said: "The Tory figures are indeed a travesty of reality, and amount to nothing more than an inaccurate apology for retaining the hated council tax – which the Tories imposed on Scotland in the first place.

"Under SNP plans, a double-income earning household on full-time average earnings would gain £114 compared to the unfair council tax."

A Scottish Conservative spokesman later defended his party's analysis.

He said: "The income data we used was based on official government figures, supplied by the Office of National Statistics. Since this is a UK body, perhaps that is why the SNP doesn't like them. We stand by them."





The full article contains 236 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

karinxxx,

15/04/2008 00:03:20
hands up whos income is 53,000 pounds a year or even 45,000
2

Highland Mighty,

15/04/2008 00:08:17
"But Mr Swinney said the Tories were wrong to use the mean (AVERAGE) figure for income and should have used the median (middle) figures, because this was more accurate.

Mr Swinney claimed the AVERAGE earning in a dual-income household was £45,000, not £53,000."

So that's clear then. He shouldn't use the average income but the....average income. Got that?

1. The people who earn that amount (and more) are the dual-income households, the housesharing graduates, the managers, the executives, the directors and the leaders of our companies.

So nothing to worry about leeching more money off them. After all, what's the worst they could do? Move south?
3

Conan the Librarian™,

15/04/2008 00:27:28
2 re 1
And free their jobs up?
4

Castaway,

15/04/2008 00:43:05
The results of the 2007 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) show that median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK to April 2007 reach £457. Median earnings of full-time male employees was £498 per week in April 2007; for women the median was £394.
£498 (male) plus £394 (women) per week times 52 equals £46384 per year.
Average income per household, 2005/06, United Kingdom was £27,000.
5

Jwil,

15/04/2008 00:46:40
A Scottish Conservative spokesman later defended his party's analysis.

He said: "The income data we used was based on official government figures, supplied by the Office of National Statistics. Since this is a UK body, perhaps that is why the SNP doesn't like them. We stand by them."

This is a pathetic response from the Tories to Swinneys accusation. OK, the figures were official, but not the way they were interpreted. It has been said before, statistics can be interpreted any way you want.

6

Stefan Mack,

Elgin 15/04/2008 00:46:45
lol....because living on 53K a year is such a struggle! just think...that lost £289 could have helped fuel a second 4x4 for a few days.
7

Senga Jean,

15/04/2008 00:50:08
Highland Blighty it is like waiting for the next shoe to fall. What is your second point or are you a punctilious pointer. Back to school for you if you see no difference between mean and median. On average we have four limbs but your middle limb is a different animal. Do you get it now or is it that you wish to bluster anything to say the SNP is wrong.
8

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 15/04/2008 01:04:35
2 High on old Blighty

Are you terminally thick?

When assessing a tax class the proper method is to use the mid point or median of all persons in the class. That way there is equal numbers of persons in the class higher and lower than the median.

If you use the mean average, you could end up with an imbalance with more above or below the mean average thus making the analysis unrepresentative of the class.

Of course, if you want to cook the books and spin the facts, you would choose whicheve option will give the best distortion and further your political point.

Now, what do you want? The Facts or The Spin.

Fact: LIT saves money for dual income families in that tax class

Spin: LIT costs money for dual income families if you believe the distortion.

9

Castaway,

15/04/2008 01:39:20
Office of National Statistics -
Median gross weekly earnings: males in full-time employment, April 2006 was £465.7(Scotland) / £487.4 (UK)
Median gross weekly earnings: females in full-time employment, April 2006 was £375.1 (Scotland) / £386.8 (UK)
Giving a joint income of £465.7 plus £375.1 x 52 equals £43,825 (Scotland) per year.
Giving a joint income of £485.4 plus £386.6 x 52 equals £45,458 (UK) per year.
10

Richardinho,

15/04/2008 02:06:54
#2 Here's the explanation for unionists-they're not very bright.
11

Richardinho,

15/04/2008 02:09:36
"The income data we used was based on official government figures, supplied by the Office of National Statistics. Since this is a UK body, perhaps that is why the SNP doesn't like them. We stand by them."


How pathetic-that sounds like an AM2 or Highland Mighty post!
translation; "we know we're talking rubbish and have been caught out, but at least we got some coverage in the scotsman!"
12

David MacVicar,

web 15/04/2008 05:08:05
Unionist Logic and accounting:

a) Average earners 300 a week worse off, so most will be paying more. Therefore this should raise more tax, but is unfair - Tory Logic.

b) LIT will create a several hundred million black hole (exact amount depends on day of the week and which party is counting). Therefore the LIT does not raise near enough in TAX. Why - because Scotland is full to the brim of everyone earning nothing but share income - especially those on benefits. No wonder the folk in the south are miffed!

Reality - LIT will not raise as much as the Council TAX because it tax people less overall and is fairer overall. Shortfall will be supplied centrally. Its so fair Westminster is searching any means possible to stop or delay it before the electorate in the South catch the wind of change. Meanwhile the LibDems look on like Easter Island statues.
13

Bridged and tunnelled,

15/04/2008 06:47:25
Means, modes, medians. All mean the same thing in this context. The policy is dead in the water.

It costs too much to collect and it collects too little. These factors on their own are enough to kill it.

That's before getting to the question of whether or not its extra vires (local tax replacing council tax ought to be set locally and collected locally - whereas this will be set at national level and collected nationally) or whether UK Govt will agree that present levels of ~council tax can just be shifted over to cover a this new 'local' income tax.

It's dead, dead, dead in the water.

14

James,

Dundee 15/04/2008 07:50:45
Hamish MacDonnell, Highland Mighty, HM, Hmmmmmm?

#2
'After all, what's the worst they could do? Move south?'

Why not?
15

brownlie,

15/04/2008 08:07:20
21 Bob Christie

Whereas the Tories referred to double income families Hamish's headline read "Families will be worst off by £290 under SNP tax plans" - an entirely different scenario. We unionists know how to frighten prospective independence voters.
16

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 08:28:35
#2 Highland Mighty
The UK disproportionately taxes the lower paid, this Labour Government has refused to increase the tax burden on the super rich.
Who runs our industry now ? It has been sold off to anybody who wanted to buy when the pound was low relative to their own currency. Expat managers from the host country then move to the UK and pay tax only on the pittance they are paid by the UK subsidiary.
17

,

15/04/2008 08:38:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 08:42:32
2 Hamish

It was you who wrote the article not Swinney.
19

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 08:43:24
So why are the Tories too feared to publish their figures and calcs then??
20

Tynietiger,

15/04/2008 08:46:41
Highland Mighty

The great thing about LOcal Income Tax is that it is fair...unlike Labour's doubling of 10p tax rate which hursts the lowest income families.

What kind of society do you wish where non doms etc don't pay their share of income tax or companies go off shore to shelter excessive profits.

Laboyur's plans for LIT means an expensive revaluation of all properties and everyone living in Band E to H house will pay more in Council Tax irrespective of their income.

21

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/04/2008 08:52:49
The Mickey-Mouse 3% LIT figure is a 'travesty of reality'.
22

Alasdair,

15/04/2008 08:55:34
Interesting that the Tories' accusation gets a full page spread, and top billing online.. and the SNP's rebuttal only gets a small paragraph, and shoved down to 6th place in the politics section online.

Yet more bias from this execrable rag.
23

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 08:58:45
28

No you pretending to care whats in the articles is a travesty of reality.
24

brownlie,

15/04/2008 09:04:46
28 Tin man

What is a travesty of reality is not the LIT but the alternative. Our plans, after we demolish the Nat's plans, with the help of our natural allies the Tories and Lib Dems, will be to revalue all the properties in Scotland as we did in Wales. This revaluation in Wales resulted in more money flooding into the Treasury and everyone, except a few bolshie Welsh, were happy. We cannot, of course, do this in England just now but, rest assured, Scotland will be our next target.
25

,

15/04/2008 09:10:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

15/04/2008 09:10:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

15/04/2008 09:12:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

,

15/04/2008 09:13:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Pat Scot,

15/04/2008 09:33:55
#1

My household income is quite a bit more than that. I still think a local income tax is better than council tax, because it's based on ability to pay.

However, I don't trust the councils to use it wisely as my council tax has nearly doubled in 10 years. The LIT should be introduced, but councils told "that's it, no more, if you've overspent, tough"
30

Miss H,

15/04/2008 09:36:07
2 This is actually an important point HM. The median figure tells you what the real average is.

I have been shocked actually by the level of ignorance displayed by people in these conversations about what real people earn.

Let's repeat that the median salary is around 19,000. Median salary for men is around 25,000. For women it is 15,000.

People who think that the average 'Middle Scotland' couple bring home 65 grand are living in cloud cuckoo land.
31

McX,

15/04/2008 09:42:39


As posted yesterday.

They claim that the average Scottish Council Tax was £983 when the actual average Band D Council Tax is £155 higher at £1,138.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7244836.stm


They claim the average household earns two full-time wages meaning an income of £1,024 per week. The latest figures for total median household income (two full time earners) show it to be £864 per week - £160 less than they claim.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2007/2007_res_la.pdf


The majority of households do not include two full time wage earners. Figures from the latest Scottish Household Survey show only 47% of men are in full time work and only 28% of women. Only 17% of households contain two full time wage earners.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/01084217/12-1


So, they simply got their sums wrong. I fully expect the Hootsman and the Times (Scotland branch) to recognise this tomorrow on their respective front pages.*


*Didn't happen I see, funny that.
32

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 15/04/2008 09:45:50
"Means, modes, medians. All mean the same thing in this context. The policy is dead in the water."

Keep telling yourself that. The Scottish people know otherwise.

Salmond can't lose here. Either this hugely popular policy gets implemented, in which case he wins, or it gets blocked by the Unionists, in which case he wins. The extent to which he's running rings round idiots like Alexander and Stephen is getting embarrassing.
33

morris,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 09:46:27
Most of the comments above fall into two distinct categories. Those who can do arithmetic and those who cannot. The choice of figures used by the Conservatives is deliberately so,and unrepresentative of the true picture.The SNP never at any time denied that there would be winners and losers.Of course there must be both.Any kind of "average " has a purpose but for demonstration purposes only,and usually its used to favour one side of an argument at the expense of balance and therefore truth.
The majority of people, notbaly the poorer ones will benefit,and the higher earners are perfectly well aware of this WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE OPPOSED.
Which you are depends upon how much you earn, simple as that.
If there is a huge increase for anybody under a PAYE based collection it merely proves how unfair the Council Tax is!
The majority benefit from a LIT,and those who do not can well afford it.
The picture is not helped by those who muddy the water and take advantage of the lesser educated people by suggesting they will be disadvantaged when this is only arithmetically possible where they are already wealthy.
The Tories are appealing to the one factor that unites all Tory supporters, and a fair part of New Labour also. (Self preservation).
One supporter once said to me principles are all very well,but you cannot employ them where money is concerned. He thought it was funny,and I can see the alleged humour,but in fact its near enough what they really believe.Wealth is a virtue and should be rewarded.This thinking (or lack of it rather)is now alien to Scotland I am glad to say.
Lets make sure it never returns !
34

Doh,

15/04/2008 10:04:12


Highland Mighty, I know as a Tory you are one of our brightest and best hardworking citizens but your maths does seem a little rusty.

Here is a snippet from wikipedia - an executive summary if you like - for people with very little tiem and even less ability:-

The difference between the median and the mean is illustrated in this simple example:

Suppose 19 paupers and 1 billionaire are in a room. Everyone removes all the money from their pockets and puts it on a table. Each pauper puts $5 on the table; the billionaire puts $1 billion (i.e. $109) there. The total is then $1,000,000,095. If that money is divided equally among the 20 people, each gets $50,000,004.75. That amount is the mean amount of money that the 20 people brought into the room. But the median amount is $5, since one may divide the group into two groups of 10 people each, and say that everyone in the first group brought in no more than $5, and each person in the second group brought in no less than $5. In a sense, the median is the amount that the typical person brought in. By contrast, the mean is not at all typical, since nobody in the room brought in an amount approximating $50,000,004.75.

35

malkster,

Scotland 15/04/2008 10:05:52
Why is thsi still a story the SNP have been told to get back in their box, e.g you are not allowed to do it and it doesn't raise enough money. Surely we should be looking forward.
36

Arfur,

15/04/2008 10:20:54
where the hell is the results of the survey?
37

Publius,

London 15/04/2008 10:31:53
#2 David McVicar

You are wrong to dismiss the point that "LIT will create a several hundred million black hole". An increase in income tax rates will not raise as much revenue as the SNP thinks. Some wealthy people will arrange to take their money as capital gains, interest on savings or dividends. Other people will be tempted into the black economy and take more of their income as untaxed cash-in-hand. And others may stop working altogether and live on benefits instead.
The converse is also true. Reductions in income tax rates do not lead to proportionate losses in income tax revenue to the state. In some cases they have actually increased the tax take!
Every change in taxes leads to changes in people's behaviour. They may be hard to quantify eactly, but they should not be ignored.
38

Miss H,

15/04/2008 10:35:18
17 Wrong on so many levels. Mean, mode, median - not all the same thing.

Income tax does not cost more to collect than council tax. It costs less and has a greater success rate.

Neither does it collect 'too little'. More people pay income tax than pay council tax.

And it's not dead in the water. The more the unionist parties attack it the better it looks to most voters.





39

Senga Jean,

15/04/2008 10:37:24
#44 They have been sent to Harare for a recount,
40

Auckland Arab,

15/04/2008 10:47:08
The Tories never could count.

It is clear to anyone with half a brain that very high top end values (be they salaries or house prices) are bound to skew the "average" or mean figures upwards. The question is what is the total number of people who fall into above this average and below. Based on the published facts, a significant majority (i.e. more than 50%) fall below mean/average joint income. So if 65% say are below the average then it is not really representative is it?

Median is the best and most representative value to use. A primary one arithmetic student could work that out, but not clearly some of their parents!
41

Edward,

15/04/2008 10:48:18
Watched Newsnight Scotland last night, they had a Labour MP on, whose answer to the demise of the 10p tax rate and the additional burden on the low paid was to anser that those with children can claim benefit! Is this Labour's answer to everything???
So much for a socialist party! The idea was to encourage everyone back to work and earning money and self respect, how can you encourage self respect by telling those in low income, that they can continue claiming benefit as long of course that is they have children - Labour are pathetic!!
42

Steven P,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 10:52:43
I realise that this topic has probably run its course, but two other issues come to mind.

It was quoted yesterday that the Tory analysis compared 'average' double-incomed households with 'average' council tax levels.

It is surely a fair assumption that many double-incomed (and above-average incomed) households on gbp 45/53k range live in above-average rated council tax properties and are therefore paying above-average council tax.
At worst, most of these households will therefore be no worse off.

Secondly, it is inconceivable that there will be more losers than winners under an LIT - admittedly some may be considerably worse off (but still well within range of affordabilty). Whether its 80/20 split or even a 60/40 split, Labour and Conservatives appear to have decided that they would prefer to fight it out between them for the minority - interesting political strategy and good luck to them!
43

Edward,

15/04/2008 10:54:57
#49
That Labour MP was Anne Mckechin , Glasgow North
44

Galaman,

Galashiels 15/04/2008 11:02:58
When it comes to taxes, there is no such thing as a "middle-of-the-road" or "one size fits all" system. There will be winners and losers no matter what (if anything) is brought in to replace council tax - or any other tax for that matter.
What I cannot understand is: what's wrong with simply replacing housing price "bands" with workers' income brackets?
At least that would, in many cases, avoid the anomaly whereby two working people living in the same home but with different wages, would pay different amounts of local income tax. With what I suggest, as long as both people's incomes fell within the same income bracket, they would both pay the same.
45

Jimmy the Pie,

15/04/2008 11:10:32
Was Anne Mckechin the only spokesperson that the Sleaze Party could call on??? Scraping the barrel?
Or is she fancying Red Wendy's job when she follows Comrade Broon out the door??
No wonder the Sleaze Party are suffering slack bowel syndrome
46

frank mcbride,

lusitania 15/04/2008 11:26:47
LIT, given the current fiscal constraints, on the SG, is the fairest system available. It is based on ability to pay.

CT will never be fair:

1. It is based on perceived property value; not even revalued every year. Or for that matter, every 2 or 3.
2. It is set at the whim of LAs; >60% increase in the last 8yrs.
3. It takes little account of ability to pay; there can be up to 70% marginal tax rates.

Those arguing against LIT must provide a better fair system. Basically put up or shut up.
47

Highland Mighty,

15/04/2008 11:37:50
Oh how the nats like to insult people to cover up their own ignorance!

Well, let's just come down to their level briefly...

You stupid, purile, incompetent and ignorant nats. To think that such tedious and banal children as yourselves can even imagine to be more informed than anyone else on the planet, let alone me, is a new high in hilarity.

That you are permanently in absolute agreement with SNP politicians solely because they are SNP politicians and not because of any sign of intellect or experience (and no, spending a few years working at a bank is not an acceptable indication of thorough knowledge of economics!) only highlights your inability to maintain independent thought and to challenge the bizarre claims made by the SNP and other nationalists.

That you regularly quote Wikipedia (written by amateurs) and also 'The Great Deception', an astonishingly flawed work by yet another amateur (by his own admission too!) again demonstrates that you have no right to question anyone else about anything.

Gullibility is not a certificate of applied knowledge.

Now go back to your homework and your beans on toast, little nat children with pathetic hang-ups about William Wallace and 700 year old conflicts.

You're all idiots.

(and now back to the grown-up world....)
48

David MacVicar,

web 15/04/2008 11:41:55
#45 Publius, London

My comment was not post #2 and my surname is spelled MacVicar, but I think your post went uphill from there ;)

Yes there is a shortfall and yes people with share income will be let off the hook. However it has been deemed too costly (by the Burt report not the SNP) to introduce a system to capture extra tax on this income.

As to your other remarks, many things may happen and the LIT as proposed is far from ideal, you will get no argument from me. My own preference is a real LVT - Land value Tax.
Share income is still taxed if people try to find loopholes or save cash in other ways Governments are great at finding ways to Tax it!! Any workaround wont remain a workaround for long!

I can't possibly see the LIT encouraging more people into cash in hand work than exists already to those who would get their council tax benefit cut if they had high enough wages to be hit by the LIT. Lets stick to relaity here!
49

Highland Mighty,

15/04/2008 11:42:28
19. Feel free to back any of your claims up whenever you like (although it would be preferable if you provided such proof WITH your claims as you went along).
50

brownlie,

15/04/2008 11:51:14
49 Edward

What Anne McKechin, presumably she was speaking on behalf of labour, did not refer to is the complex nature of tax/child credits which, apart from being difficult to understand for claimants is confusing for the civil servants who administer the system. The system clearly does not do what it says on the tin. It does not address the needs of the needy and is an unworkable bureaucracy.
51

Grahamski,

Falkirk 15/04/2008 11:52:04
55
The problem with the SNP is that it isn't just their self-styled amateur cyber warriors who know nothing and use personal attack as their modus operandi. Unfortunately their full time politicians play the same kind of smug, self-righteous and downright nasty game.
There's a wee tic that the nationalist politicians have picked up from their leader. Mr Salmond has an aggravating habit of snearing or chuckling halfway through a sentence. Something like this: 'Of course it's all (insert snear/chuckle here, huh-huh) London's fault'. I saw Ms Sturgeon being interviewd recently and she has started with the wee self-satisfied chuckle as well!
In the 80s if you had the misfortune of encountering the Militancy Tendency you would notice that they all sounded the same too. Sad really...
52

brownlie,

15/04/2008 11:56:00
55 Highland

Great stuff, Highland, that will show the ignorant nats.

It will show them the wrong way to spell puerile and it will show them how to complete sentences without using verbs.

It will show them that we unionists are naturally modest and refrain from showing our superiority in any way.
53

Queen D,

Glasgow 15/04/2008 12:03:12
I only came omn here to search for the poll results.
Where are they Scotsman?
You promised them on the 13th , it is now the 15th.
You would'nt be trying to pretend that they have'nt been collated yet , would you ?
You would'nt be wanting them " lost " in the system would you ?
A " for fun " poll in the Times puts support for Independence at 85 % , don't tell me your poll is even higher ?????
54

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/04/2008 12:04:18
Why an I being slagged-off for saying that the 3% LIT figure is a 'travesty of reality'. Even Swinney has admitted that it is unrealistically low. Even the consultation paper says that it is unrealistically low. It really dosn't matter what political party spouts figures. If they are based on this mythical 3%, they are meaningless.
55

Publius,

London 15/04/2008 12:09:31
#56 David MacVicar. Sorry I got your surname wrong. I'm doing my job and watching this board at the same time so I don't have time to check my typing! I meant no offence. As to the rest of your post, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

#58 Brownlie. Spot on. Tax credits are a disaster - and not only for the reasons you give. They blur the relationship between your job and the pay you get. Your net pay should not depend on the number of your children: it should depend on the nature of your job and how good you are at it. Child allowances are a good thing - but they should be completely separate from the tax system.
56

Highland Mighty,

15/04/2008 12:10:09
61. Don't nats blitz online polls answering the questions multiple times instead of just once?

That you use one online poll's 'result' that independence has "85% support" is an excellent example and I thank you for mentioning it.
57

John S,

15/04/2008 12:16:45
The local income tax isn't going to happen because Wendy said on 29 March 2008, "If they (SNP) lose a vote of confidence on an issue like local income tax, then they will have to go back to the people".
58

Highland Mighty,

15/04/2008 12:17:16
59. Arrogance is a wonderful attitude for a politican to have.

60. Look up 'irony', cretinous child.

59

Publius,

London 15/04/2008 12:28:03
#54 frank mcbride,lusitania

You write that "Those arguing against LIT must provide a better fair system. Basically put up or shut up."

Fair point. Here are two alternatives:
(1) Implement Burt in full. Burt advocated a percentage tax based on property values.
(2) Transfer costs of administration of centrally determined services - education, social services - to Holyrood thereby reducing costs of local authorities and freeing them up to focus on the promotion and development of their districts. Combine with this with additional bands at the top end of council tax to bring in additional revenue without hitting those in bands at the lower end.
60

frank mcbride,

lusitania 15/04/2008 12:40:06
HM.

Having been blinded by your omnipotent humility, having been enlightened by your Olympian wisdom, I refuse to be humiliated more.
I will no longer attempt to debate with the gods.

BTW, could you confirm that 'irony' means, like iron: hard and brittle, soft and malleable, called steel when mixed varios elements e.g. tung sten cheek (strong, sharp and long-lasting)?

61

brownlie,

15/04/2008 12:43:38
66 Highland

For irony to be effective, the originator must have wit and intelligence and I'm afraid you do not qualify on either count.

It also helps to have a command of the ENGLISH language.
62

Arfur,

15/04/2008 12:51:21
#55 Highland Mighty - 'To think that such tedious and banal children as yourselves can even imagine to be more informed than anyone else on the planet, let alone me'

-that my little nest of vipers is quite frankly laughable. Based on some of your quotes, facts and figures that you regularly spew up, a village idiots thicker younger brother is more informed than you.

'you are permanently in absolute agreement with SNP politicians solely because they are SNP politicians and not because of any sign of intellect or experience'

- I am in agreement with SNP politicians because they are actually trying to do some GOOD for the country. It would seem you however stick up for your politicians solely because of party as their idiotic dribblings are HURTING the country.

'That you regularly quote Wikipedia'

- I personally havent but if someone does then that is their CHOICE. What they do not do is quote made up facts and figures picked out of your nose.

'Gullibility is not a certificate of applied knowledge'

- tell me who was duped by those idiotic figures quoted by your party yesterday? a blind man, wearing 2 eye patches with is head in the sand could see that those figures were stupid.

and now back to the grown-up world....

- are you trying to tell me that you once were in the grown-up world? Must have been a long..long.long.long...long time ago because I can not remember that.
63

SeriouslyAmused,

Ayr 15/04/2008 12:52:10
HM throws toys out of pram after being shown up as hopeless and adds:

"(and now back to the grown-up world....)"

Which one is that HM? Yours populated with the made-up characters you create so you can have someone to talk to? Yeah, you go back to that snug little world. Why don't you revive British Pride - give him a £60k income and have him come on here and tell us he's miserable at losing a fiver a week.

BTW -what have you done to/with AM2. I miss him. He was a bit more real than this preposterous cartoon character you currently use.
64

frank mcbride,

lusitania 15/04/2008 12:56:20
#67, Publius.

What would be the cost of implementing Burt?

What would the cost be of yearly revaluation of each individual property?
The arbitrary nature of this is the same as for CT.
Why should a homeowner in Edinburgh (6bed Mansion Morningside) pay @1% £12 000, while a houseowner in Glasgow pays £6 000 on an identical property?
The same differential would apply across the spectrum.

Where is the ability to pay element? Again, like CT, there would be serious marginal rate taxation.

As for your pt.2.

Doesn't LIT meet the 1st part of your solution, but with the significant difference of allowing flexibility, based on local needs, guided by local knowledge?
Your 2nd part has the same faults as CT.
65

Arfur,

15/04/2008 12:57:52
#72 AM2 is one of those characters that you refer to. I am not sure if he actually believes he is someone else agreeing to his own nonsence as another name but i think they may have had a lovers tiff.
66

Jimmy the Pie,

15/04/2008 13:02:11
Afternoon Highland Pride,
You sound a bit peeved today. Are your piles bleeding or is it something more serious???
Your posting @55 was full of vitriolic bile. Will this get worse as the Sleaze party's (and Comrade Broon's) ratings in the polls head south??
Perhaps an anger management course would be worth considering. As the NHS probably wouldn't cover such treatment we could possibly have a whip-round for you here?
Do let us know
67

malkster,

Scotland 15/04/2008 13:25:23
#73

Jackie no chicken counting, there are still not enough votes to even force a referendum through parliament. Then the arguements about the question and only 1 poll gives a 1% advantage. This is not the time for crowing or sounding arrogant but the time for further work.
68

The Sprucer,

15/04/2008 13:43:15
Highland Mighty! Man, you are the last bastion of unionising on this blog! AM2 has been defeated and we haven't heard from him for ages. Stand up and defend your corner! Act like a man for goodness sake.


69

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 15/04/2008 13:48:04
Anyone else see the news article about John Swinney at lunchtime?
70

David MacVicar,

web 15/04/2008 13:53:01
The LibDums have been totally silent on LIT. Even Wendy has popped up briefly to fire a blank before crawling back to her refuge.

The LD seem to think that saying nothing about anything is the safest policy. They can smell conflict as well as sleaze.
Best sit back and let the Big players fence it out.

Note: The Tories and Labour have moved away from 'faux' assertions about legality to questions of averages/cost calculations etc.
Treasury officials were reported on the bbc to be open to collecting the lit and are just waiting for Westminster legislation.

Seems the argument from the SNP has been won bar the voting.
All the 'clarification' the LIT actually needs is:
Scottish parliament to vote for it.
UK parliament to let Treasury collect it.
71

Publius,

London 15/04/2008 14:02:12
#74 frank mcbride

To take your comments 1 by 1.

(1) Cost of implementing Burt. I don't know how much it would cost, but, then, I don't know how much the cost of any new scheme would be. I can't think that Burt would be any more than local income tax. There are already search engines which give the price of every house sold in the last year by postal code.
(2) Under any system of taxation Edinburgh would pay more per head than Glasgow. The block grant to each district would be (and is now) varied to take account of this.
(3) The point of the first bit of my second point was that education and social services (like police and health)are national services. People don't want local variations. They want the same standards everywhere These services should be organised, run and paid for by the Scottish government. This would free up local authorities. Another advantage is that these services could be delayered. Scotland simply doesn't need 32 education departments. Getting rid of them would be a big efficiency saving.
72

Miss H,

15/04/2008 14:08:12
The problem with what Burt recommended is exactly the same as with council tax. Property values are not automatically an indication of income.

Burt suggested setting the baseline at 2006 house values. Like many people my house has probably doubled in value between when I bought it and 2006 but my income hasn't doubled.

And what will happen if house prices start to slump? that could quite easily happen.

73

Jwil,

15/04/2008 14:11:40
As far as the opposition parties and the Scotsman are concerned there is advantage in promulgating this type of lie.

Yesterday the Daily Record had a full page about the Tory calculations (big headline), today they published the SNP rebuttal (just to demonstrate how fair the and balanced the newspaper is???) -- A two inch section of column at the bottom of the second page.
74

Mikey,

15/04/2008 14:12:28
HM, there is an old adage that goes along the lines of "Better to be quiet and thought a fool than to speak up and confirm it!"

Now get back to class, little one and let the adults debate.
75

Miss H,

15/04/2008 14:12:42
81 Incidentally Publius people there is local variation in services like education, social work and health.

What works in Glasgow may not work in the Highlands or Edinburgh and vice versa. Same with policing. There are already national bodies within the police force for serious and organised crimes and for sex offences etc. But local and community policing should be local and community based.
76

Miss H,

15/04/2008 14:14:48
83 Yes but how many Daily Record readers would have believed the Tory figures? They would have just read 'average couple' with joint income of 65 grand and laughed.

The SNP knows the Daily Record readership even if the Daily Record doesn't.
77

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 14:16:32
67

1 Seems nobody wants to implement Burts recomendations does it? Labour and the tories want to hang on to the council tax and are making no moves to alter it in any way whereas the Lib Dems want their own version of LIT.
Obviously just another complete waste of tax payers money. How very Labour.

81

Dont know or care how much it will cost you have obviously put a lot of thought into this as usual.
You dont care about the Burt recommedations anymore than anybody else yer just trolling for another anti SNP argument. You just cant find a valid reason to nail them can you??
78

malkster,

Scotland 15/04/2008 14:16:53
#82

Why should income be a factor in paying for services. It costs just as much per person to clear my trash and fix my street lamps and roads as another persons. If I earn more than the other person I already pay far more NI and Income tax than they do so why should I pay more than them for the same services. People should factor in paying for the running of a house when they buy it.
79

Jwil,

15/04/2008 14:21:55
#86

I take your point, but I think most of them wouldn't read past the headline, and that would probably be enough for many of them condemn the SNP.

I found it really amusing when the Record said -
...its not like us to agree with the Tories but........

80

malkster,

Scotland 15/04/2008 14:25:37
#91

Due to blood circulation and the position of your heart and other organs I bet it would be higher than 37 degrees.
81

David MacVicar,

Web 15/04/2008 14:27:46
81 Publius, London.

I think you make some valid points. However all the parties already had the chance to examine the findings in Burt and then created or amended their LIT policy.

Labour and Tories basically ignored Burt. Labour (essentially the main opposition, and leading alternative) amazingly have decided to plough ahead with CT and rebandings and CT increases at or above inflation. IMO a suicidal policy if ever there was one.

The SNP and the LD looked at Burt, ignored the recommended approach but have opted for another that Burt discussed. The LIT at 3 or 5% was the result.

What we have now is a simple choice between flavours of LIT or CT, all other options are off the table, to come back some time in the future I'm sure.

What will most of Scots vote for:
a) Continue CT, rebanding, regular increases and means tested exemptions.
b) LIT, no rebanding, central collection, separate water bills, some wealthy people not paying, most people paying less.

I can't see a) with much of a chance of success.
82

David MacVicar,

web 15/04/2008 14:30:41
91 Methalions

Ah, what this really tells me is that you are infact a student, living in a bedsit and its the only way you can get enough space to lie down ;)
83

Publius,

London 15/04/2008 14:39:07
# 82 Miss H. You ask 'what would happen if property values fall'. Income tax is just as prone to fluctuation as property value - if not, more so. A slight downturn in the economy leading to less overtime and slightly more unemployment brings about a disproportionate fall in tax receipts. What then?
#87 Foulkes. You are wrong. I voted SNP last year. I think that LIT is a terrible mistake. And introducing a new tax at the same time as the next election may be turn a mistake into a catastrophe.
#93 David MacVicar. Interesting reply...but no-one EVER pays less tax. One way or another the government will squeeze the money out of you!
84

Miss H,

15/04/2008 15:00:24
82 Yes income tax is prone to fluctuation and an economic downturn could affect that. Nevertheless I think you need to bear in mind that if house prices take a dip you could have a big problem.
85

Alan B,

15/04/2008 15:03:49
#85 Miss H

" Incidentally Publius people there is local variation in services like education, social work and health."

Would have to agree with Publius when he says that education etc should be run directly by the scottish government.

U meantion local variations in health but we have a national health service not a council run health service so it an example of what Publius is saying.

In education if it was funded by the scottish government directly to schools, these schools could then run their own activities and take account of local needs. Do councils actually enhance education or is it just another layer of government. Are schools not best placed to make decisions as they operate at the coal face. Exams are national, and so are salaries and to a large extent the curriculum which is orientated towards the exams etc. When we had the regions we had duplication of very similar activities.

In relation to police is it not still organised based on the regions eg strathclyde police rather than council specific. I think it would intesting to look at having a national police force (it could be run in a decentralise manner) and also local beat bobbies working for the council. One to deal with serious crime and the other prevention and vandalism etc. Having a split like in the US.

This leads to the question that the current council set up was done before the scottish parliament and may not be the best system now the parliament has come into existence. Much of what the regions did could be done by the parliament.

Council elections have small turnouts and i would bet most people are not aware of who the leader of their council is and tend to vote in response to national issues and the party they would vote for nationally.

I would like councils to be responsible for raising the money they spend and not be funded 80% by central government which i feel is open to abuse and corruption. would i really trust labour not to come up with a formula not to rew
86

Miss H,

15/04/2008 15:05:58
88 We could all play that game. I don't drive so why should I pay anything for roads? My kids have left school so why should I pay for education? I recycle more than my neighbours so why should I pay the same as them for getting my bins emptied?

That way lies madness.

Just accept that you live in a civilised country which provided public services paid out of general taxation and you will feel a lot happier about it.
87

Alan B,

15/04/2008 15:06:23
cont..
would i really trust labour not to come up with a formula not to reward their own councils etc.
88

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/04/2008 15:09:14
#1 Mine and my wife's combined income is over that amount- so what's your point?
89

Alan B,

15/04/2008 15:14:31
Miss H

"Just accept that you live in a civilised country which provided public services paid out of general taxation and you will feel a lot happier about it."

I think poster #88 was not meaning it should not come out of tax but states

"Why should income be a factor in paying for services."

On of the aspects i think that has been ignored in the argument of fairness almost comes down to "equality of opportunity" against "equality of outcomes".

There is a large part of income variances that come down to person choice. ie the choices we make in life. Do u want to earn more or do u want a fulfilling job. Do u want to work hard, move for the job or do u want a better lifestyle balance. Did u bother at school? Could u be bothered going home from ur job and studying most nights? Do u do the extra couple of unpaid hrs at the end of the day that gets u a promotion or quickens ur learning curve so u can jump to the next job.
90

Queen D,

Glasgow 15/04/2008 15:14:46
Where's the poll ?
I am most interested to see the result!
Just for the un of shutting up some blowhard!
Like I have said before, polls are like MOTs , only valid on the day.
But 85% ( possibly more English folk voting to get rid of us!) in the Times is really cheering me up!
I don't care who it depresses either!

Scotsman , you can try every trick in the book , including the one you have just played , secret e-mail indeed!, but I'm not going to stop asking for the RESULT!
Could it be that support for independence at 23% was skewed by unionist supporters??? Never ! They would'nt stoop so low would they?!?
91

Miss H,

15/04/2008 15:16:35
98 Disagree with that completely. It is the centralisation of education policy and micro managemnet from the centre over the past 8 years that created many of the problems. Fair enough, Labour ministers saw the light on that towards the end of their term in office but letting local authorities ‘off the leash’ is the best thing that can happen for education.

In places like Glasgow it is the only way, in my opinion, to solve the problems of under-attainment. It’s not often that I praise Labour councillors but some of the things Steven Purcell is saying about how they plan to change education in Glasgow are really exciting and I think will make the difference.

If I am wrong that will become obvious but they deserve the chance to show what they can do when they have the freedom to do it.