|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Fri 16 Dec 11:34
I already pay £200 per month more tax than my peers down south and will not be getting totally gouged by Scottish gov now.
It’s there a case to massively tax Scots more than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK?
“Everyone earning more than £43,662 in Scotland will have to pay more income tax next year.
Deputy First Minister John Swinney said the higher rate of tax will increase from 41p to 42p in the pound in April, and the top rate from 46p to 47p.
The tax threshold for the top rate will also be lowered from £150,000 to £125,140.
This change has already been announced for other parts of the UK by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt.
Mr Swinney described the increase as an "extra penny to enable spending on patient care in our National Health Service".
And he said he was asking people to "pay their fair share" so they could "help to create the fairer society in which we all want to live".
But the Scottish Conservatives said making higher and middle earners in Scotland pay more more tax than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK risked undermining the country`s potential for economic growth.
Scottish Labour said the extra money would be used to "fix some of the damage done by 15 years of SNP cuts and failure" and predicted that people will not accept rising tax bills "if all they see is further decline in services".”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 16 Dec 14:13
If we want the public services that we say we want then they need to be paid for and alas the greater burden of that cost is going to have to be shouldered by those who can most afford it.
Is it fair that your counterparts down south are paying less tax? Its not really a question of it being fair or not as although it is one nation it contains two systems. Is it fair than in Scotland we get freebies and services they don`t get down south? Free prescriptions, free eye tests, nurses not on strike so a health services running better (and who knows on what day you might urgently need that) on average cheaper council tax, etc. Again it`s not about being fair or not. The Scottish government have a budget and allocate the funds as they see best.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 16 Dec 15:28
i`ll be paying a lot more than my counterparts in england as well, but as said above, i`ll also get benefits they won`t.
my kids (x3) have benefited from free university fees (two have completed their degrees and now have secured good jobs and as such are paying more tax back into the system and the third is still on her uni journey)
our whole family has benefited from free prescriptions and my daughter used the free bus pass last year to commute to edinburgh to get experience that she would
have otherwised missed out on due to transport cost
i suppose if you want to move down south and pay for all the benefits you get here, while only reducing your tax burden slightly, then that`s up to you?
...but i`m happy to contribute a bit more to support things like free uni fees that directly and indirectly benefit us all
what i really grudge is paying any tax to westminster for it to be syphoned off to all their pals
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Fri 16 Dec 15:35
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 16 Dec 14:13
Is it fair than in Scotland we get freebies and services they don`t get down south? Free prescriptions, free eye tests, nurses not on strike so a health services running better (and who knows on what day you might urgently need that) on average cheaper council tax, etc.
Our household will pay £5-600 per month more than the same household down south which hardly seems worth it for eye tests and prescriptions. Health cover we already pay for (and are taxed on for the work element). So for us we will consider moving to Berwick or massively loading our pensions with AVC’s. I don’t mind paying more tax than down south but the dial has moved too far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 16 Dec 16:13
I`m guessing with those sort of numbers your household income is quite substantial and if the savings of 6k a year or so make it worthwhile to move out of the country then it`s something worth looking into.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 16 Dec 17:09
P Don`t move to Berwick its twinned with the village of the Damned :-))
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 17 Dec 01:16
If you`re paying £6k p/a extra in Scotland then that suggests a combined income of around £300k p/a.
Not being funny, but if you`re bringing in £15k after tax in a month, are you really losing sleep over an extra £500, especially when you consider higher property prices and fewer benefits in comparison to someone based in England.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sat 17 Dec 07:33
Quote:
DBP, Fri 16 Dec 15:28
i`ll be paying a lot more than my counterparts in england as well, but as said above, i`ll also get benefits they won`t.
my kids (x3) have benefited from free university fees (two have completed their degrees and now have secured good jobs and as such are paying more tax back into the system and the third is still on her uni journey)
our whole family has benefited from free prescriptions and my daughter used the free bus pass last year to commute to edinburgh to get experience that she would
have otherwised missed out on due to transport cost
i suppose if you want to move down south and pay for all the benefits you get here, while only reducing your tax burden slightly, then that`s up to you?
...but i`m happy to contribute a bit more to support things like free uni fees that directly and indirectly benefit us all
what i really grudge is paying any tax to westminster for it to be syphoned off to all their pals
Well said.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 17 Dec 08:30
Good Post DBP
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 17 Dec 09:12
The greatest financial beneficiaries of all these freebies are the better off. The more they earn the merrier for them.
The ones who live in big houses in posh areas for example who had their council tax frozen for years and years saving them £thousands, and even more thousands to come.
Got their kids through UNI for nowt, still working aged Sixty so free bus to their swanky office, pick up a free prescription during their lunch hour and free bus home.
Bonkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 17 Dec 09:18
Question for you then Parboiled. Why is it that all of these things (and more) are also free in Sweden and the country still turns a surplus? Oh and I only pay 32% income tax here, which is all my taxation.
Yet you support the UK economic model. Bonkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 17 Dec 09:28
Quote:
hurricane_jimmy, Sat 17 Dec 09:18
Question for you then Parboiled. Why is it that all of these things (and more) are also free in Sweden and the country still turns a surplus? Oh and I only pay 32% income tax here, which is all my taxation.
Yet you support the UK economic model. Bonkers.
32% is average in Sweden. In the UK the rates are typically 20% until you hit 40k where anything you earn more than that is taxed at 40+%.
The UK is massively inefficient. For decades now services have been stripped back further and further and put out to tender to be delivered by private companies. For some reason the UK public thinks the private sector are incredibly efficient. I`ve for and with private sector companies. My mind boggles at why the public sector brings them in to do pieces of work as the standard is usually poorer than what could be achieved in house if they resourced effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 17 Dec 10:14
Answer for you HJ. ABBA a boring Xmas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 17 Dec 11:39
The greatest financial beneficiaries of all these freebies are the better off. The more they earn the merrier for them.
You are right about that, but I`m a bit confused about why you think that`s an argument against asking those same people to contribute more towards what they receive?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 17 Dec 12:10
Middle income getting hit again, whatever happened to the land tax ? It was going to benefit everyone else but 15 years later we`re still awaiting it`s implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 17 Dec 12:33
Middle income? My annual wage is almost bang on the Scottish average and I`m only going to be paying a about a tenner a month extra if those online calculators are accurate.
I think what you mean is those well above the middle are being hit again.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sat 17 Dec 12:54
I think the whole tax system could with a proper refresh.
Having both tax and NI seems like a bit of a fudge.
And those poor folk on over 100k are actually getting taxed at 60 percent of some of their salary. And then it drops after that. It seems fairer to have an increasing tax burden as pay increases.
Bringing the highest rate down from 150k seems sensible but it strikes me that there`s a lot to do in addition to that.
Having the ability to share tax benefits for those that choose to actually look after their kids rather than chucking them in childcare from the age of 6 months would, in my opinion, make for a better society with well cared for children. But perhaps research suggests something different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 17 Dec 13:57
Merging NI with PAYE to simplify matters has been mooted before, NI isn’t ring fenced for pensions or the NHS after all so why not?
Successive Chancellors have shied away from it because a big jump in the basic rate of income tax is too scary to contemplate, even though most would be paying much the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Dec 14:47
Increasing NI instead of income tax also exempts unearned income from the increase and we all know that investors will be favoured at the expense of workers when the Tories are in government. Where do they get their funding from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 17 Dec 15:42
Jake - not sure if you`ll be aware but we don`t pay national insurance as an add-on - that 32% covers everything. Every Kommun (city/town) has their own income tax level and has the power to vary the rate. I think the actual rate in Lund is 32.4% but I seem to get a rebate each year and am pretty sure I pay less than this when I`ve calculated it out. Somewhere in the region of 26% if I remember correctly. Companies also have to pay an employment tax here, which means that the government actually get the equivalent of about 45% of my salary when you put that on top of what comes out of my pocket. Kinda flies in the face of all the Tory arguments about lower business tax leading to more job creation. Far better to create insentives for small companies and tech & r&d firms as the Danes and Irish have done.
Parboiled - so no substantive answer as to why the UK couldn`t follow Sweden`s example? Or perhaps why Scotland couldn`t follow the Nordic countries` example?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 17 Dec 15:49
HJ, why didn’t Sweden follow the UK example and fight the Nazis instead of supplying them with materials for their war machine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sat 17 Dec 15:53
Does the Scottish Government not have the power to adjust tax thresholds?
Westminster have put a freeze on any changes, it surely puts money in the pocket of the low earner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Dec 16:30
Crikey, now we`re fighting WW2 all over again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 17 Dec 16:53
Parbroiled - So the answer is you have no answer. Not surprised.
Your levels or whitabootery are quite impressive though. As for Sweden during the Second World War, the Swedes were keen to avoid becoming embroiled in the conflict and had enough of a standing army to put the Germans off invading, but not enough to win outright. It probably would have ended up something like the Winter War and Continuation wars between Russia and Finland. I could equally ask you why the UK did hee haw when they could have declared China in breach of the 97 treaty over their recent actions in Hong Kong and reclaim Hong Kong Island and Kowloon which they could legally do. But what about is the point in actually asking that question? Why is it so hard for you to stick to the subject and address the points made to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 17 Dec 20:11
The Scottish Parliament can and does vary thresholds and rates for Income Tax on earnings from employment (i.e. Non Savings, Non Dividend income). It cannot lower the Personal Allowance (the level at which tax starts to be paid) although I think it could effectively increase it by introducing a “zero rate” band.
In theory, this gives us the choice between, for example, running a high tax, high spend economy, or a low tax, low spend one. The devolution of some taxes means that we should reap the benefits of good economic choices (at the cost of paying for bad economic choices). Also, we can choose to spend more on healthcare and less than education or vice versa.
Of course, public services cost relatively more to provide in Scotland, for geographical and social reasons, and the extent to which this is recognised via the Barnett formulae is reduced year on year.
Another issue is there is a practical limit to the extent to which you can tax, and pushing up tax rates doesn’t necessarily increase revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 17 Dec 22:42
Parboiled- touche! Sweden and Finland, armies which HJ contends are very effective, laid down their weapons at the first whiff of Nazi invasion. He still believes that they can now attack me in Moscow as part of a NATO assault. Jackanory stuff. Unless they are hardboiled fascists which I will reserve judgment upon.
The previous debate is banker speak for looting the poor, the debate s over the degree to which this is is done. `Geographical, social` are words freely banded about by the banker class who have looted the western economy and supported the attack on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which was a link to future western prosperity. When Germany goes the rest will follow, and Scholz is on borrowed time for sure. Nordic socialism is a decent aspiration but well beyond the political grasp of Sturgeon and her supporters.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 18 Dec 01:23
Sammer, I`d love for you to show me where I said the Swedish and Finnish armed forces would attack Moscow. Please do share this.
What you`ll find that I actually said was that the Finnish and Swedish militaries would make a mess of any attacking Russian force. Neither country has any desire to invade Russia as you well know.
The Ukrainians are already asking a mess of the Russian army with mostly outdated equipment and a fraction of the training that all NATO armed forces have. Do you honestly believe that the Russian forces could do anything other than be routed if it came to open conflict with NATO?
You basically had rings ran around you by various posters regarding Russia but your ego wouldn`t let you admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend
Date: Mon 19 Dec 09:58
DBP sums up my thoughts on this.
It`s bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
|
|
|
|
|
|
