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.

Swinney vows to press ahead with local income tax plan



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: 18 July 2008
FINANCE secretary John Swinney today pledged to press ahead with plans to scrap the council tax.
Scottish Government plans to replace it with a local income tax have met with resistance from business leaders and political opponents.

The deadline for submissions to a consultation on the local income tax closed today and Mr Swinney said he exp
ects a Bill to come before Parliament in 2009/2010.

The tax would then come into force in 2011 – if passed at Holyrood.
"The public were frustrated by the fact that there was no change under the last administration for eight years," Mr Swinney told BBC Radio Scotland today.

"An unfair council tax was allowed to carry on – this administration is doing something about it."

The SNP administration has already frozen council tax throughout Scotland this year.

Four out of five households will be better off under the local income tax plans, according to the finance secretary, who said the Government will reflect on the "points of detail" raised by organisations in the consultation.

"We will look at all the information that's come forward and bring forward a proposal to Parliament in the Autumn.

"But in all of this we have to bear in mind where the public is in this question.

"The council tax has increased by 60% since 1997 – its punished hard working families in Scotland."

The Government will set out its response to the consultation in the Autumn, with a Bill expected to come before Parliament in 2009/10.

The local income tax met with resistence from the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.

The Federation of Small Businesses this week said it made "bad business sense" and could harm Scotland's competitive edge against England.

The plans were also criticised by the STUC, Unison and the National Union of Students.

And Labour finance spokesman Iain Gray said today: "It is absolutely clear from those organisations that have published their submissions or commented publicly that this consultation exercise is a damning indictment of the SNP's proposals."

He added: "If the word 'consultation' means anything at all then Alex Salmond should listen to what he is being told and dump his unpopular plan to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK."

The local income tax does have support in principle from the Lib Dems, but they want to see councils given the power to vary the rate they charge.

The SNP want it set nationally at three pence in the pound.
Liberal Democrat finance spokesman and leadership candidate Tavish Scott said: "Liberal Democrats believe that the discredited council tax should be replaced with a fair local income tax based on ability to pay."

The Tories say there should be a 50% cut in council tax for pensioners across the board.

Tory enterprise spokesman Gavin Brown told BBC Radio Scotland today: "The current system is certainly not perfect, but I think it is better than the option we have on the table from the Government."
He said the Tories want to see the local income tax plans "put to bed" before a debate on reform of the system can get under way.



The full article contains 537 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 July 2008 12:29 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Ken_Fitlike,

18/07/2008 12:53:32


Bring it on.....
2

Rab The Ranter,

Ayrshire 18/07/2008 12:56:25
John Swinney and his abilities can be summed up in one word.

"The man is a clown of the lowest order".
3

Rab The Ranter,

Ayrshire 18/07/2008 12:57:20
My coontin' ability is the same as Swinney's :o)
4

,

18/07/2008 13:10:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

BIG EYE,

Paisley 18/07/2008 13:12:04
Well done John Swinney and well done every MSP who supports the move to remove Council tax and replace it with a solution based on ablity to pay.

Contrast this will the spendthrift Chancellor who is today planning to change the rules so he can borrow more. At this stage he will borrow to the hilt knowing that his Government is a goner and it will be the Tories being left to pick up the pieces.

This Labour Government, like every one before them ,is going to leave a financial mess of gigantic proportions for the next Government.

And some people still vote Labour. Why?

Brown promised to get rid of boom and burst and has successfully managed to eliminate boom!
6

DouglasT,

18/07/2008 13:28:45
O/T but interesting article about the shenanigans of Brown and co

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfnpft43_08tb6w9gf
7

AM2,

Scotland,UK 18/07/2008 13:39:21
Fine, Mr Swinney. You've been given enough rope.
8

man-in-a-suitcase,

On a plane going south. 18/07/2008 13:44:11
The Scottish media always refer to the SNP's plans for a local income tax and never call it the SNP's plans to abolish the hated Council Tax. Two identical houses A and B. In house A you have a couple, one of whom is working and earning £20,000 per annum. In house B there are four people, three of whom are working, and all earning over £20,000 per annum. So £20,000 is coming into house A and at least £60,000 is coming in to house B. Why should the one worker in house A be paying three times as much in tax for local services as each of the three workers in house B? The guy in house A is paying the same as all three workers next door added together! And all three in house B are earning more than the poor guy in house A! What's fair about that? Anybody explain to me what is fair about this situation?
9

AM2,

Scotland,UK 18/07/2008 13:47:16
Incidentally, by their own admission, the SNP’s pre-election claim that 90% of us would be better off under a LIT was false.

Alex Salmond's spokesman's has now said that “four out of five households in Scotland will be better or no worse off”.

How much of the 80% is "no worse off" and how much is "better off"?

How much will services suffer when revenues are less than anticipated due to owners of unincorporated businesses forming limited companies in order to receive most of their income as dividend rather than salary, thereby bypassing PAYE?

How quickly will public support for LIT come crashing to the ground when they realise that - within the context of revenue shortfalls - the SNP's intention is to “move towards allowing local authorities greater flexibility in setting the local income tax rate”?

So many questions. So few answers. Go ahead, Mr Swinney. Make my day!
10

Alan B,

18/07/2008 13:50:50
#AM2

"How much will services suffer when revenues are less than anticipated due to owners of unincorporated businesses forming limited companies in order to receive most of their income as dividend rather than salary, thereby bypassing PAYE?"

They would have already done that already to save tax if that is what they were wanting to do. so why do it now just to save the difference between their council tax and lit when they could have saved vastly more doing that already and saving something like 20%.
11

AM2,

Scotland,UK 18/07/2008 13:51:41
#9 man-in-a-suitcase

They're already all paying income tax. They're all paying VAT. They're all paying tax on any savings or investments.

But by sharing a house, they're using fewer council services than if they lived apart. Not a quarter or a third, but certainly less.

They will by necessity produce somewhat less rubbish – or if they require more than the normal provision will presumably pay extra for it. They will generally not have as many school-age children as adults who live singly or in couples, so will require less educational provision, on average. People who can successfully share accommodation may be more sociable than certain others whose lifestyles require social work or police involvement. Work through a list of council services and you’ll see that there are many such examples. Taken together they indicate that to levy local tax on four adults sharing a house to the same extent as if they were living in four separate houses is at least arguably unfair.
12

AM2,

Scotland,UK 18/07/2008 13:56:48
#11 Alan B

Not so. Most Scottish businesses are unincorporated. An extra 3%+ could make a tremendous difference, as various professional commentators have noted.

Even Burt said that a LIT's "yield would be less predictable and it would place a major administrative burden on taxpayers, employers, local and central government."

But anyway, I've been through this all before. Swinney has taken his decision. The rest of us will have to live with it.
13

Alan B,

18/07/2008 14:09:42
#AM2

You have ignored my point.

Why would a company make the change for the sake of the difference between 3% LIT and council tax when they are not willing to make the change for more than 20% (on certain thresholds).

I do not support LIT as you know but i cannot understand why you honestly think someone would ignore 20% savings but then suddenly wake up to a considerably smaller saving.

A valid point is more that those that can take dividends could avoid the tax and hence is an unfairness.
14

Alan B,

18/07/2008 14:12:52
#Alan B

Also consider the VAT saving you can make being a vat registered company.
15

Alan B,

18/07/2008 14:14:45
sorry #15 was directed to #AM2.
16

John south of Soutra,

18/07/2008 14:28:00
Labour finance spokesman - Iain Gray, and what training did Mr Gray receive to take on this position - he was a physics teacher therefore is highly qualified to lecture us on finance
17

Who?,

18/07/2008 14:37:39
#9 man-in-a-suitcase

You logic is way way off.

In my opinion the fairest way is for everybody should pay the same. It shold be pay as you use. If your children go to private schools then you should get a tax discount. If you have medical insurance and don't use the nhs there is another discount.

Lets face it when i got to the shops for some bread, milk and juice the shop owner doesn't charges the same rate to everybody no matter what they earn.

When i got to the cinema or football i pay the same as the people sitting next to me, i don't have to submit payslips and wait for them to calculate a charge.

Any government should be a bit more interested in sorting out the chancers and stop trying to impose extra taxes on everyone else.
18

Highland Mighty©,

18/07/2008 14:56:26
5. "nearly half the money collected in Tax is spent on collecting the tax in the first place."

LOL! Who told you that?!

19

G,

dundy 18/07/2008 15:02:53
This tax will succeed in the eyes of the SNPites.....

Water will be fresher, birds will sing more sweetly and Alec Salmond is hte most beautiful man on the planet........
20

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 15:08:02
...Perhaps some of the SNP activists will address the cuts that would have to be made, associated with 280MM (as per gov, statements) shortfall due to a 3% LIT rate?
21

Mr. Henry Brown Esquire.,

Invercockaleekie 18/07/2008 15:19:28
Pound for pound, Council Tax is 3.5 times more expensive to collect than Income Tax. Quote from the SSP's Consultation Paper on the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill:

"3.56 The total cost of collecting Council Tax and processing Council Benefit claims for 2002/03 is not readily available. However the total cost in 2001/02 was £68.5 million. [Source: Scottish Local Government Financial Statistics 2001/02]. This represents 5% of the £1,363.4 million collected. The Council Tax therefore has a collection cost of 5p in the £.

3.57 The Inland Revenue reports the cost of collection of Income Tax to be 1.41p in the £. [Source: Inland Revenue Annual Report 2002/03 - Appendix 2 Table1]. Thus Council Tax costs 3.5 times more to collect than Income Tax for every pound collected."
22

Mr. Henry Brown Esquire.,

Invercockaleekie 18/07/2008 15:22:15
Salmond is quite correct.
The Labour Party is against LIT simply because it ACTUALLY helps pensioners and the poorest in society.

Support for LIT by the Labour Party would fly in the face of all that the Labour Party now stands for, viz. support ONLY for the better off and Labour Party cronies.

Asked - Would you support or oppose the introduction of a local income tax to replace the Council Tax?

Yes 46% No 22% DK 32%

Broken down by Holyrood voting intention the polling information is as follows (Y/N/DK):

Labour 40%/27%/33%
Conservative 42%/29%/29%
Lib Dem 51%/20%/29%
SNP 58%/19%/23%

The TNS system Three poll interviewed 1086 people across Scotland between the 23rd and 29th April 2008.


Most MSPs and MPs would pay more, perhaps that is another factor behind the abolition of the abolition. Self interest.
23

Highland Mighty©,

18/07/2008 15:24:07
22. I suspect economies of scale may have some role too...
24

Mr. Henry Brown Esquire.,

Invercockaleekie 18/07/2008 15:28:40
#21. Do you mean the Labour UK goverment statements?

Now if we are to believe these statements we would also start buying the Sun or The Telegraph and believe the guff they print.

At the moment Brown, Darling, Browne, Curran and Cairns are displaying the morality of Robert Maxwell, he had the decency to pop of voluntarily.

So many Browns that is the problem.
25

Mr. Henry Brown Esquire.,

Invercockaleekie 18/07/2008 15:28:41
#21. Do you mean the Labour UK goverment statements?

Now if we are to believe these statements we would also start buying the Sun or The Telegraph and believe the guff they print.

At the moment Brown, Darling, Browne, Curran and Cairns are displaying the morality of Robert Maxwell, he had the decency to pop of voluntarily.

So many Browns that is the problem.
26

John Cameron,

Broughty Ferry 18/07/2008 15:29:37
This must be the final conformation that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. You would think we had enough problems dealing with the wreckage the Big Awkward has created down south without the "stay at home" Scottish politicians going completely crazy as well.
27

Mr. Henry Brown Esquire.,

Invercockaleekie 18/07/2008 15:30:54
#24.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
28

Mr. Henry Brown Esquire.,

Invercockaleekie 18/07/2008 15:33:19
Ich glaube nur der Statistik, die ich selbst gefälscht habe
29

man-in-a-suitcase,

18/07/2008 15:34:52
#18

To some extent I agree with you. But where is the logic in relating the value of a house to how much tax you pay? When you go to the cinema or the football, they don't stop you at the door or gate, and ask you what kind of a house you live in, before they tell you how much they are going to charge you. If people are using the services then everybody should indeed pay the same, exactly as you say, but in the case I outlined above, this is clearly not the case. The three workers in house B are obviously making more use of already hard pressed council services than the single worker in house A, so it seems to me the guy in house A is subsidising the people next door, some of whom will be making absolutely no contribution to local services whatsoever! And may well be earning much more into the bargain! So once again, where is the justice and fairness in the Council Tax? Why should the single worker in house A pay three times as much in tax for services, than each of the three workers in house B? All four are using the exact same servives and yet one is paying a hell of a lot more than the other three. No wonder some people are against council tax abolition. Who wouln't be if you're paying nought and the idiot next door is paying it for you. I must admit, there's some logic in that.
30

Mr. Henry Brown Esquire.,

Invercockaleekie 18/07/2008 15:36:02
I cannot pretend to feel impartial about colours. I rejoice with the brilliant ones, and am genuinely sorry for the poor browns.


Churchill
31

Brian Hill,

18/07/2008 15:48:08
Dear rab the ranter. It's obvious you have a first class knowledge of economics having been dux boy at the exclusive Auchtertool Academy and then gaining a triple first in Economics, Political Philosophy and Gardening from the University of Auchenshoogle.

Please show us mere idiots where the poor deluded John Swinney has gone wrong.

32

Who?,

18/07/2008 15:48:21
#30 i do see where you are coming from and i agree in a certain extent. Your point about houses A and B is one that has gone on for years in social/ council housing.

When i was at uni working in a bar part time one of my collegues worked there full time, his sister worked in financial services, both his parents worked and they were paying the same in council rent as the single mother with 3 kids living next door. When i asked him if he thought this was fair he almost hit the roof!

I think its fair to say that we agree on the principle that everybody should pay the same for the services they get, the only real argument is how the calculation is generated- income, house value, poll tax etc. I don't have an answer to the question but whatever system is in place people will scream.

I don't understand this PC/liberal guff that people spout about protecting the poorest in society. Its the vulnerable that need protecting not the poorest. Yes vulnerable people can be/ are poor but not all poor people are vulnerable. Why should dole scroungers, able bodied people be protected even more than they are when they are able to contribute something for their housing and giro? Very few people actually qualify for these things, the ones that do cream it in. Get them to do something to earn it.
33

Luke Skywalker,

United Kingdom 18/07/2008 15:49:59
Swinney's statement about 80% being no worse off is obviously patent rubbish. Arithmetically, that cannot happen if the same total amount of tax is to be raised. (On a personal basis, I would pay less than half of the amount I currently pay) However, LIT would rid us of the unfair council tax so perhaps we should investigate it further. My understanding was that the Liberals were in favour of a LIT so why don't they make themselves heard? Reluctant as I am to be seen to almost agree with anything the Sentimental Nonsense Party says, I hope this is not dumped without further consideration.
34

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 15:52:39
#26 Mr Henry

No, 280MM is Swinney's figure, you are thinking about figures from other sources which claim a substantially larger defecit.
35

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 15:53:55
...Perhaps some of the SNP activists will address the cuts that would have to be made, associated with 280MM (as per gov, statements) shortfall due to a 3% LIT rate?
36

,

18/07/2008 15:55:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Alan B,

18/07/2008 16:01:09
#Luke Skywalker

"Swinney's statement about 80% being no worse off is obviously patent rubbish. Arithmetically, that cannot happen if the same total amount of tax is to be raised."

They are not planning to raise the same amount of tax. They plan rightly or wrongly to introduce this tax as part of a tax cut.

Plus the fact even if it were to raise the same amount of tax their is nothing arithmetically to stop 80% being no worse off, when you change a method of taxation.
38

Wee Wull,

Nr Peebles 18/07/2008 16:02:21
How can we really believe in anything Ian Gray says after that pathetic performance he gave on Newsnight during the Wendy Alexander "Bring it on" debacle.

Actual why should aanyone pay any attention to anything New Labout is saying these days.
39

Alan B,

18/07/2008 16:07:52
#The Tin Man

While u have not address your post to me. My take on a tax cut is. Labour have massively increased tax over the last 10yrs without a transformation of services. Some of their tax rises have funded big rises in say doctors pay rather than focusing on adding capacity. Same with teachers although i do think their was a issue with teacher pay.

As such i would happily have much of the tax rises by labour reversed. A get rid of all the waste that has arisen under labour governance.

Beyond the waste i also believe in not having a high tax economy. I do not think it is a good idea.

Part of the issue when talking about tax is for evey £1 the government take in tax even if well spend is £1 less in someones pocket to spend on your own family.

There is a balance between government spending and spending your own money as you see fit in the interests of your own family.

Government have to ration their expenditure as do the public.

Specifically talkinag about this government (labour) they have made a huge mess of pensions. But by continually taking more and more of our money it is so much harder to provide for your retirement.
40

Alan B,

18/07/2008 16:11:16
#Tin Man

The other point about all labours tax rises. The best way in the medium term to raise tax revenues is to growth the wealth creating side of the economy. Far too much of labours policies have been to grow the public sector, rather than earn the wealth first.

That is another reason we find we have so much public debt and he is currently having to re-write his own golden rules again after having fiddled with them before.
41

Highland Mighty©,

18/07/2008 16:15:58
40. So there are not more people being treated in hospital anymore?

So there has not been a year-on-year reduction in crime since the late 90s?

So thousands of schools have not been rebuilt and refurbished?

How can say that there hasn't been a "transformation of services"?? Are you seriously trying to claim there has been no sign of increased public expenditure?
42

,

18/07/2008 16:18:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

Highland Mighty©,

18/07/2008 16:20:59
43. Grow up, silly child. Go and watch 'Braveheart' again, making sure you continue to believe everything you see as historic fact.

41. Alan B, just how old are you that you do not know what public services were like when taxes and expenditure were significantly lower just ten years ago?
44

,

18/07/2008 16:27:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

,

18/07/2008 16:31:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 16:32:12
#41 Alan B

Whilst I would agree with your general philosophy, Highland Mighty does have a point, for once. Furthermore, the UK does have a lower tax regime than many other European countries.

My original question remains, though.
47

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 16:33:20
Wolfbagging Scot

Go away.
48

,

18/07/2008 16:36:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Alan B,

18/07/2008 16:38:47
#Highland Mighty

What i am saying is
1)i would prefer a lower tax economy.
2)labour have wasted alot of money, as they have thrown alot of money at problems without necessarily getting value for money.
3)there is a difference between spending money and improving services. eg spending more money on a teachers salary while maybe a good idea does not necessarily make pupils better educated. The same could be said of having a new school. Labour by their own admission have admitted many pfi contracts for public building were poor.

Their has been critism of the implementation of mcrone report as the labour government have not achieve.

U may thow critisms my way but i could equally given ur post question if you are an apologist for labour. I think they have been very poor in government. Whether it was failure to mark exams, the introduction of higher still, failure to sign forms for bridge tolls. I have lived through the both the years of tory in the 80s and labour rule both this time round and was young in the 70s under their rule then.

Yes their has been some improvement in public services but their also have been a great waste of money. And i said i prefer a government that earns money before it spends it. ie not just a quick fix tax rise or plunging us into huge deficits.

As for your specific questions. I do not think we have the type of health service we should given the money invested. Do not think education system is fundamentally better than the 80s. Something are better and other things worse.

As for crime i do not think serious crime has gone down much. Crime and reporting of crime are 2 different things.
50

Doggin'it1707,

18/07/2008 16:40:51
I may be up for some of that 49.

Have you read the GERS report? I have and I can prove its wrong, it didn't show that Scotland is the richest country on the "planet Earth" (next to mars).

How can that be, illegal wars anyone, is that where the oil money goes?
51

Alan B,

18/07/2008 16:48:45
#The Tin Man

"Furthermore, the UK does have a lower tax regime than many other European countries."

The uk used to have a lower tax regime under the tories. Not now. The imf the last time i heard was quoting our public expenditure (or tax cannot remember) ratio at 45% of GDP (the uk government puts it at 42%).

The uk has moved from a low tax country relatively to a much high one. We have moved in the opposite direction to the higher spending european countries.

While the is ok economically in the short term it undermines you competiveness in the long run. Much of Browns economic growth has been public sector spending. Manufacturing employment apparently declined much faster than under the tories in the 90s surprising.

As for improved public services.

Do you think we have a better road network. roads are so full of potholes now.
Do you think train services are much better.
Do you think education service is much better. (and i do not mean are they spending more. do u actually think the additional expenditure has fundamentally improved output).
Do you think we have a world class health service given the money now being spent.
Do you honestly believe the crime figures.

Personally i would happily ring fence nhs spending. But would have rather increased capacity ie more doctors rahter than fewer earning more.

But beyond that i would want to earn money before spending it and not having huge debts and massive tax rises.

52

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 16:49:23
#50 Alan B

Such is life, when career politicians, and the civil service get involved in anything.

More politics = less efficency, but, for better or worse, we in Scotland are lumbered with shed-loads of politics, with everyone being represented by four of their ilk. However, it is political decisions that we are discussing.
53

Alan B,

18/07/2008 16:55:04
#53 The Tin Man

Agree.





54

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 16:55:19
#52 Alan B

Well, to be fair, the NHS is certainly better than in the '80's, crime has dropped, but that is probably due to less unemployment, train sandwiches are much, much better, and more people go to university. There are certainly a lot more cars on the road, so there must be more money around to buy them.

I am not too sure about the tax burden in the UK compared to other countries in Europe - got any figures?
55

Alan B,

18/07/2008 16:58:13
#The Tin Man

Thing is Brown actually did very well economically for his first 2yrs of office from a uk perspective.

The independence of BOE was an excellent decision. And he ran a tight fiscal ship for his first 2 yrs.

Then it went to pot.

He did make a big mistake undermining pensions? Do not actually have problem with the change he made but more the fact he did not put something inplace to ensure the longer pension system for the country.

56

Col. Blimp­IV*,

18/07/2008 17:00:41
42 Highland Mighty©, - "So there has not been a year-on-year reduction in crime since the late 90s?"

Nobody has reported more than one crime since about 1995, unless they needed a crime number for the insurance company.
57

The Tin Man,

18/07/2008 17:05:19
#56 Alan B

I would say that when a government in an economically stable country starts buying banks, they have clearly lost the plot, and must go.
58

Alan B,

18/07/2008 17:07:22
#The Tin Man

I agree the ecomomy is now in better shape than the 80s. The 80s there was alot of pain due to the structural reform. Problem at the moment is the level of personal debt.

My problem with the economy is while the tories made a mess of certain things economically and their was alot of pain the underlying economy was improved. Labur inherited a generally sound economy.

They have not improved the underlying competiveness but benefited from a strong underlying economy. With the excellent decision to make BOE independent (lib dems policy).

I do not see it with crime. How many stabbings have their been in the last few weeks. Much will be to do with reporting. Do not actually blame the government for crime too much as it is difficult to change society and takes decades to change a culture.

Do think roads are a mess. But again can understand a government prioritising other things.

The huge rises in participation rates in students happened under the tories as they allowed a massive expansion in higher education. Leading to arguements of underfunding and the whole student loan thing.

One important thing to remember is alot of money is spent on things other than the key services.
59

Alan B,

18/07/2008 17:09:38
#58 The Tin Man

I actually think the NR was a no win situation for labour. They simply could not let NR go bankrupt so actually do not have a problem with them buying the bank.

What i do critise brown for is the poor regulation that cause the bank to go bust in the first place. As chancellor and a chancellor that change the regualationary framework removing it from BOE he was responsible.
60

Alan B,

18/07/2008 17:11:54
Have a good weekend guys got to go.
61

Publius,

London 18/07/2008 17:38:57
#55 The Tin Man

You write "the NHS is certainly better than in the '80's, crime has dropped, but that is probably due to less unemployment, train sandwiches are much, much better, and more people go to university. There are certainly a lot more cars on the road, so there must be more money around to buy them."

Much of this can be disputed or, at any rate, we need to know answers to a lot of questions before we can accept it.

The NHS is better. Is the improvement over a 20 year span any greater than the improvement between the 60s and the 80s or between the 40s and the 60s? Is the NHS as improved as it should be, given the money spent on it? Do peple get better faster because of the NHS or because they have a better diet or because private companies have invented better drugs?

'Crime has dropped'. Is this true? If it is true is it anything to do with the government or the police? Perhpas it reflects the reduced proportion of young men in the total population? Perhaps it is because cars are more difficult to steal and private houses now have security windows and burglar alarms.

'More people go to university'. True, but what are now university courses were once training courses for nurses.

That said I agree entirely with your #58.
62

Rab The Ranter,

Ayrshire 18/07/2008 18:29:17
Highland Mighty
#24 "I suspect economies of scale may have some role too."



I suspect economies of TRUTH may have some role too...
63

LEAL,

18/07/2008 19:24:05
The vast majority of people in Scotland think LIT is fairer than the council tax.Why is the Labour Party so out of touch with the people?
64

Shamus,

Glasgow 18/07/2008 19:31:59
#64. It always seems fairer when someone else is paying more for the services you receive. Or is it just selfish greed.
65

Iainbroch,

Moray! 18/07/2008 22:07:14
In relation to LIT - I guess the bully boy tactics and the dirty tricks of the quislings will not work!

Now that Broonies fiscal rules are shot to peices by his own economic mismanagent he is just going to tear up the rules and write new ones!

I guess that Liebaaah and the other Onionist stooges are not in a moral or intellectual position to hector or lecture anyone about any economic, fical or tax issues.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.