SNP unveils council tax replacement
 |
| Swinney reveals plan for fairer' charge |
Sixteen years after the council tax replaced the poll tax, the replacement itself is seen as unfair, and pressure has built for further change. The SNP wants a local income tax, arguing that would be fairer.
Yesterday, Finance Secretary John Swinney set out his plan, with some options. His task doesn't look easy.
What's the idea?
Council tax would be killed off in March 2011. From the following month, Scottish residents would be charged 3p in the £1 on basic and higher rate income tax, but not on the personal allowance (at today's rates) of the first £5435 earned.
Council tax raises more than £2bn in revenue, and a 3p rate is reckoned only to raise £1.7bn. The gap in council budgets would be filled by an increased grant from Holyrood to local authorities.
Is it local and is it based on income?
It would pay for local services, but would not be set locally. There would be a uniform rate of 3p throughout Scotland, unless LibDems can persuade Mr Swinney to allow councils to vary the rate slightly. That would cost government and businesses a substantial amount in administration, particularly an employer whose staff could face 32 different payroll tax rates.
The plan is not based on all income. Unearned income, meaning savings and investment income which represents about 9% of the total, would not be covered. Those with enough wealth to avoid earning a living would pay nothing.
Does the Scottish Parliament have enough powers?
MSPs can decide on the system of local taxation used. It can also vary tax on the basic rate of income tax by plus or minus 3p. But that is not the power it is proposing to use for councils.
The catch is that Holyrood would need Westminster to help it on two counts. One is council tax benefit, which is worth £391m to 533,000 welfare claimants' households in Scotland this year, rising to £430m by 2011. UK ministers are refusing to release that money to Holyrood in a block, which could be used to offset the costs of introducing local income tax.
The other catch is that Scottish ministers do not want to run their own tax collection agency, as that would be costly. It would also require Scots to fill in an extra self-assessment form, and would add to employer payroll costs. So it makes sense for this tax to be raised by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
Who wins?
With some broad assumptions, the Scottish Government reckons any household with income below £58,000 should be better off. The lowest earning 10% would see a 5.7% increase in income, a middle earner would be 3% up, and the top 10% would be 1.2% worse off.
Applied to typical households, the typical married pensioners would see a 3.4% increase, or £13.80, and single pensioners would be 3.3% up. One-parent families would be 1.7% better off.
What about business?
It is sceptical, and dislikes the payroll implications of 32 councils having different tax rates. The 3p rise in income affects a lot of smaller businesses that are not eligible for corporation tax. If they are not paying council tax, their income tax bills go up around 15%.
What about second homes?
They would still be liable to a charge, broadly in line with current council tax, possibly variable between councils.
Will it fly?
The excuses are already prepared. If Whitehall doesn't kybosh the plan, the LibDems could. And even if LibDems are persuaded to support it, the SNP would still be two votes short of a majority. Greens show no sign of support and Labour and Tory opponents are digging in.
How to calculate new payment
Step one:
Deduct your personal allowance from your gross annual salary - that is the amount you get paid before any taxes have been deducted.
Step two:
Calculate 3% of this figure. One way of doing this is to divide the figure by 100, and then to multiply it by 3.
Example (2008-09)
You have a gross income of £20,000.
You deduct your personal allowance, which is £5435, leaving £14,565.
You then calculate 3% of this:
£14,565 divided by 100 is £145.65
£145.65 multiplied by 3 equals £436.95
The amount of local income tax
you will pay over the year will be
£436.95.
Personal allowance £5435
Personal allowance for people aged 65-74 £9030
Personal allowance for people aged 75 and over £9180
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:13am Wed 12 Mar 08
Douglas Fraser again refusing to acknowledge or even enquire as to the status if the council tax benefit..... the articles in today;s Herald, all penned by Mr Fraser read like a Labour Party Briefing..... shameful....
Douglas Fraser again refusing to acknowledge or even enquire as to the status if the council tax benefit..... the articles in today;s Herald, all penned by Mr Fraser read like a Labour Party Briefing..... shameful....
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 12:22am Wed 12 Mar 08
Yup, straight from Gordon Brown via Alf Young. It's all part of the next election strategy you see;)
Yup, straight from Gordon Brown via Alf Young. It's all part of the next election strategy you see;)
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:58am Wed 12 Mar 08
Rule Britannia. Hamish and Dougie queuing up to take the oath already.
Rule Britannia. Hamish and Dougie queuing up to take the oath already.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:58am Wed 12 Mar 08
Rule Britannia. Hamish and Dougie queuing up to take the oath already.
Rule Britannia. Hamish and Dougie queuing up to take the oath already.
Posted by: Rodmac, Glasgow, Scotland on 8:13am Wed 12 Mar 08
The 'balanced' article twice talks about an employer having to administer 32 different pay rolls. There is nothing in the SNP's plans to necessitate that. It is not impossible to claw back money for local services from those with unearned income despite Porky Brewer's blustering on Newsnight. In saying that it is a more balanced article than in the Scotsman.
The 'balanced' article twice talks about an employer having to administer 32 different pay rolls. There is nothing in the SNP's plans to necessitate that. It is not impossible to claw back money for local services from those with unearned income despite Porky Brewer's blustering on Newsnight. In saying that it is a more balanced article than in the Scotsman.
Posted by: davieboy on 8:19am Wed 12 Mar 08
What happens if there is a recession & say unemplloyment goes up by 50,000 over a 2 year period. That is 50,000 more people taking out of the pot than putting into it.
As we have all seen with Northern Rock, it can only take someting to happen in another part of the globe for the doodah to hit the fan.
What happens if there is a recession & say unemplloyment goes up by 50,000 over a 2 year period. That is 50,000 more people taking out of the pot than putting into it.
As we have all seen with Northern Rock, it can only take someting to happen in another part of the globe for the doodah to hit the fan.
Posted by: Duns Scotus, The Borders on 8:34am Wed 12 Mar 08
[bold]davieboy[/bold] - What would happen today if 50,000 people are made unemployed over the next 2 years and they have no money to pay their Council Tax?
davieboy - What would happen today if 50,000 people are made unemployed over the next 2 years and they have no money to pay their Council Tax?
Posted by: Rab The Man, Was My Uncle on 9:17am Wed 12 Mar 08
Thought Swinney did very well to retain his politeness in view of what was a very boorish, public bar like stance from Brewer.
It's not like the point he was seeking to have answered (Aye, Right) was a substantive one in any event.
Swinney?..Calm, assured, and seems very much on top of his brief
Thought Swinney did very well to retain his politeness in view of what was a very boorish, public bar like stance from Brewer.
It's not like the point he was seeking to have answered (Aye, Right) was a substantive one in any event.
Swinney?..Calm, assured, and seems very much on top of his brief
Posted by: Joe90 on 9:27am Wed 12 Mar 08
Since a form of council tax will be retained for second homes, surely those fortunate enough to have an unearned income should pay under this heading? Is there any reason why they should not declare this unearned income and receive the same allowances as the rest of us? Why not simply charge the 3% on their unearned income less allowances? Problem solved!
Since a form of council tax will be retained for second homes, surely those fortunate enough to have an unearned income should pay under this heading? Is there any reason why they should not declare this unearned income and receive the same allowances as the rest of us? Why not simply charge the 3% on their unearned income less allowances? Problem solved!
Posted by: Joe90 on 9:27am Wed 12 Mar 08
Since a form of council tax will be retained for second homes, surely those fortunate enough to have an unearned income should pay under this heading? Is there any reason why they should not declare this unearned income and receive the same allowances as the rest of us? Why not simply charge the 3% on their unearned income less allowances? Problem solved!
Since a form of council tax will be retained for second homes, surely those fortunate enough to have an unearned income should pay under this heading? Is there any reason why they should not declare this unearned income and receive the same allowances as the rest of us? Why not simply charge the 3% on their unearned income less allowances? Problem solved!
Posted by: Michael Mullins, Dalry on 9:48am Wed 12 Mar 08
Joe90
Of course it would be possible, but much more difficult (and costly) to administer and police. Deduction at source would be impossible, in many cases, because many company registrars and financial institutions are out of the jurisdiction. At the moment, dividend income arising in the UK, for example, is taxed at a flat rate. Were this to be varied for holders with a scottish address, I foreesee an increase in the use of nominee names and accommodation addresses - already not uncommon
Joe90
Of course it would be possible, but much more difficult (and costly) to administer and police. Deduction at source would be impossible, in many cases, because many company registrars and financial institutions are out of the jurisdiction. At the moment, dividend income arising in the UK, for example, is taxed at a flat rate. Were this to be varied for holders with a scottish address, I foreesee an increase in the use of nominee names and accommodation addresses - already not uncommon
Posted by: alanH, ek on 10:34am Wed 12 Mar 08
so by the figure abovevmy family will be about £700 a year better off cos we have one working adult in the house.
Our neighbours with 4 working adults will be about £500 worse off.
In the short term that looks unfair. However in about 10 years we will have 3 wage earners and they will have retired with both the grown up kids moving out. As such they will be better off and we will pay more.
Sounds a fair socialist way of gatherring local taxation to me
so by the figure abovevmy family will be about £700 a year better off cos we have one working adult in the house.
Our neighbours with 4 working adults will be about £500 worse off.
In the short term that looks unfair. However in about 10 years we will have 3 wage earners and they will have retired with both the grown up kids moving out. As such they will be better off and we will pay more.
Sounds a fair socialist way of gatherring local taxation to me
Posted by: The Wise One, Glasgow on 10:44am Wed 12 Mar 08
I reckon any household with 3 or more earners with the so called average wage of £23k pa will be worse off. In fact the losers are the kids who elect to stay with their parents, as they will be taxed in future. Only when you get the offspring to fly the nest will it actually reduce the household tax burden, although the offspring will still be paying taxes wherever they reside. I suppose you could say the government will increase the debt of young people who do not have their own home. Typical, take away Graduate Endowment and tax them at 3% on income.
Point worth considering: As the kids leave school, university etc and get a job, they will be paying more tax than at present. In effect those households will be paying more for the same services.
Maybe they will be the losers in these proposals, along with the projected 10% of us who are wealthy.
I reckon any household with 3 or more earners with the so called average wage of £23k pa will be worse off. In fact the losers are the kids who elect to stay with their parents, as they will be taxed in future. Only when you get the offspring to fly the nest will it actually reduce the household tax burden, although the offspring will still be paying taxes wherever they reside. I suppose you could say the government will increase the debt of young people who do not have their own home. Typical, take away Graduate Endowment and tax them at 3% on income.
Point worth considering: As the kids leave school, university etc and get a job, they will be paying more tax than at present. In effect those households will be paying more for the same services.
Maybe they will be the losers in these proposals, along with the projected 10% of us who are wealthy.
Posted by: Ann Allan, Dundee on 11:08am Wed 12 Mar 08
John Swinney and the SNP are working hard to have a fairer system put in place but the unionists again are saying no because they know it's a winner and the Scottish people will be better off so the Labour & Conseritives will lose votes. So tell me they are interested in the Scottish electors if so they would be in on the discussons a cross the Parliament , as it is much better that everyone pays their share.
John Swinney and the SNP are working hard to have a fairer system put in place but the unionists again are saying no because they know it's a winner and the Scottish people will be better off so the Labour & Conseritives will lose votes. So tell me they are interested in the Scottish electors if so they would be in on the discussons a cross the Parliament , as it is much better that everyone pays their share.
Posted by: davieboy on 11:19am Wed 12 Mar 08
Duns Scotus,
If 50000 peopel today were made unemployed, if the household income met a certain threshold, the council tax would still be paid. I.e. the risk to the government revenues would be spread.
With this dogs breakfast however, the governement is leaving itself wide open to fluctuating global economic conditions.
Duns Scotus,
If 50000 peopel today were made unemployed, if the household income met a certain threshold, the council tax would still be paid. I.e. the risk to the government revenues would be spread.
With this dogs breakfast however, the governement is leaving itself wide open to fluctuating global economic conditions.
Posted by: Vespa, Clacks on 11:23am Wed 12 Mar 08
The timing of the proposed implementation is interesting - it wont have time to hit the fan before the next election..
The timing of the proposed implementation is interesting - it wont have time to hit the fan before the next election..
Posted by: davieboy on 11:27am Wed 12 Mar 08
The wise One,
you make an interesting point, If there is no council based on the value of your home. It is then cheaper to buy / finance expecially if you are married / have a partner. It would make sense to then suggest that as more people would buy homes there would be an even greater shortage than at present.
If there is a shortage then it would be safe to assume that house prices would rise further still. However the fly in the ointment is that as prices go up, younger people would find it even more difficult to get on the housing ladder especially so if they are getting taxed even higher.
It is also safe to say that younger people from the poorest areas would be hardest hit.
The wise One,
you make an interesting point, If there is no council based on the value of your home. It is then cheaper to buy / finance expecially if you are married / have a partner. It would make sense to then suggest that as more people would buy homes there would be an even greater shortage than at present.
If there is a shortage then it would be safe to assume that house prices would rise further still. However the fly in the ointment is that as prices go up, younger people would find it even more difficult to get on the housing ladder especially so if they are getting taxed even higher.
It is also safe to say that younger people from the poorest areas would be hardest hit.
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshire on 11:34am Wed 12 Mar 08
£1.20 + £0.85 = £186 billion
Hurrah we are gaunnae be rolling in it (NOT!)
Simpleton Swinney, this guy is a clown.
£1.20 + £0.85 = £186 billion
Hurrah we are gaunnae be rolling in it (NOT!)
Simpleton Swinney, this guy is a clown.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 12:12pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Rab, just where did you study economics??
Rab, just where did you study economics??
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 12:42pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Could we please not go down the road (much travelled in the past) of assuming a personal tax (LIT) as a household tax.
To start counting the numbers of working adults in a house means absolutely nothing and is very misleading.
Working adults should pay for council services regardless of whether they own the home or not, that is the whole point !
To say that a household with 5 working adults in it will be worse off is bunkum, the 5 working adults will be paying their dues as individual residents of and service users of an authorities area.
I have two sons, one of whom is of working age, he does NOT walk in at the end of the week and throw his wages at his mother and shout " Here mum, put this into the great household pot, by the way are we worse off as a household this week? "
He pays what my mother used to call ' dig money' , the rest of his cash is his to do with as he pleases, at present he pays hee haw towards the council services that he uses and is entitled to, his mother and father do.
Even he knows that this is wrong when our pensioner neighbours on both sides are making contributions through the god awful council tax system.
Individuals pay taxes, not bricks and mortar or notional ' households' .
If a home contains half a dozen people earning a wage, then it is right and proper that all six of them should be making a fair contribution to the area they live in and the services provided for them.
If the home has one pensioner earning nothing then they should pay nothing, they spent a lot of years paying through the nose, give them a break and let those more able take the strain.
Besides, as a nice side effect the vast majority of us will be much better off with LIT, win, win I reckon, fair and equitable.
Could we please not go down the road (much travelled in the past) of assuming a personal tax (LIT) as a household tax.
To start counting the numbers of working adults in a house means absolutely nothing and is very misleading.
Working adults should pay for council services regardless of whether they own the home or not, that is the whole point !
To say that a household with 5 working adults in it will be worse off is bunkum, the 5 working adults will be paying their dues as individual residents of and service users of an authorities area.
I have two sons, one of whom is of working age, he does NOT walk in at the end of the week and throw his wages at his mother and shout " Here mum, put this into the great household pot, by the way are we worse off as a household this week? "
He pays what my mother used to call ' dig money' , the rest of his cash is his to do with as he pleases, at present he pays hee haw towards the council services that he uses and is entitled to, his mother and father do.
Even he knows that this is wrong when our pensioner neighbours on both sides are making contributions through the god awful council tax system.
Individuals pay taxes, not bricks and mortar or notional ' households' .
If a home contains half a dozen people earning a wage, then it is right and proper that all six of them should be making a fair contribution to the area they live in and the services provided for them.
If the home has one pensioner earning nothing then they should pay nothing, they spent a lot of years paying through the nose, give them a break and let those more able take the strain.
Besides, as a nice side effect the vast majority of us will be much better off with LIT, win, win I reckon, fair and equitable.
Posted by: JAM on 1:34pm Wed 12 Mar 08
The main aim is to get away from the notion that Council Tax is the responsibility of a householder and that the amount should be linked with the value of a property. We all use services and we should all pay. The burden should never have been placed on householders alone.
Where I think the plans fall apart is in the method of collection. To propose using the existing HMRC network is presumptious and also arrogant. It wont happen for various reasons most of them practical. Swinney was foolish to suggest it. The idea will be laughed out of the Commons.
The main aim is to get away from the notion that Council Tax is the responsibility of a householder and that the amount should be linked with the value of a property. We all use services and we should all pay. The burden should never have been placed on householders alone.
Where I think the plans fall apart is in the method of collection. To propose using the existing HMRC network is presumptious and also arrogant. It wont happen for various reasons most of them practical. Swinney was foolish to suggest it. The idea will be laughed out of the Commons.
Posted by: JC on 1:54pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Another pythoneque wheeze from the tartan tories- Their rich pals would be able to avoid it with help from their accountants and end up paying less than the rest of us.
Onc again the ordinary Scots come off worse.
subtext -this is not about fairer tax, it's so the nats can run some degree of taxation themselves and so set a precedent if unfortunately Scotland gets separated from the rest of the UK. Unfortately it's ordinary working families who will suffer because of their ideology
Another pythoneque wheeze from the tartan tories- Their rich pals would be able to avoid it with help from their accountants and end up paying less than the rest of us.
Onc again the ordinary Scots come off worse.
subtext -this is not about fairer tax, it's so the nats can run some degree of taxation themselves and so set a precedent if unfortunately Scotland gets separated from the rest of the UK. Unfortately it's ordinary working families who will suffer because of their ideology
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 2:13pm Wed 12 Mar 08
JC Nobody[quote]Another pythoneque wheeze from the tartan tories[/quote] Another piece of plagarism from JC Nobody
JC Nobody
Another pythoneque wheeze from the tartan tories
Another piece of plagarism from JC Nobody
Posted by: Kinghob, Scotland on 2:21pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Talking about 'pythonesque wheezes' what's all this about the 'blackhole' created by the borrowing antics of Gordon Brown for all these years, to prop up mismanaged banks, to fund wars, to make up shortfalls in economic management and leading to the increase by blatant means and stealth taxes on to all of us in these Isles to prop up a rather rubbish Labour government?
If you earn (enough) of an income, and use council services you should pay for that, rather than make yer ma and da pay it because you doss in their house at 30 years old.
Even if you are younger, you should acknowledge the burden you personally put on council services rather than make mum and dad pay more.
So a bit of financial responsibility doesn't equate with a 'household' having increases in payments for services, unless you believe householders should just have their taxes increased leaving more bevvy money for us young yins? lol
Newsnight was a joke last night, the interviewer was too scared to look at all aspects of the tax because some of it is indeed attractive and certainly fair-unlike the alternative if Labour had got back into government in Holyrood. However perhaps the Scottish Government should find a cheap method to make folk who have no earnings but are rich pay the LIT, even though it is not worth the bother financially because of the very few who fall into this bracket.
That doesn't mean that most people aren't better off though, the bbc interview was mickey mouse with the guy shouting away at John Swinney in a manner tha Blair's war in Iraq and the half million dead never ever eexposed him to!
A bit of respect, he should not allow arses like that to shout at him when teh nlabour government in Westminster is an unscrutinised walking financial disaster!
A bit of balance is much needed, but it looks like the Scottish Government will have to continue to earn respect by deeds, because Labour journalist minions like Fraser above will always respect the Northern Rock antics of Brown et al over people who put the interests of Scotland first.
Talking about 'pythonesque wheezes' what's all this about the 'blackhole' created by the borrowing antics of Gordon Brown for all these years, to prop up mismanaged banks, to fund wars, to make up shortfalls in economic management and leading to the increase by blatant means and stealth taxes on to all of us in these Isles to prop up a rather rubbish Labour government?
If you earn (enough) of an income, and use council services you should pay for that, rather than make yer ma and da pay it because you doss in their house at 30 years old.
Even if you are younger, you should acknowledge the burden you personally put on council services rather than make mum and dad pay more.
So a bit of financial responsibility doesn't equate with a 'household' having increases in payments for services, unless you believe householders should just have their taxes increased leaving more bevvy money for us young yins? lol
Newsnight was a joke last night, the interviewer was too scared to look at all aspects of the tax because some of it is indeed attractive and certainly fair-unlike the alternative if Labour had got back into government in Holyrood. However perhaps the Scottish Government should find a cheap method to make folk who have no earnings but are rich pay the LIT, even though it is not worth the bother financially because of the very few who fall into this bracket.
That doesn't mean that most people aren't better off though, the bbc interview was mickey mouse with the guy shouting away at John Swinney in a manner tha Blair's war in Iraq and the half million dead never ever eexposed him to!
A bit of respect, he should not allow arses like that to shout at him when teh nlabour government in Westminster is an unscrutinised walking financial disaster!
A bit of balance is much needed, but it looks like the Scottish Government will have to continue to earn respect by deeds, because Labour journalist minions like Fraser above will always respect the Northern Rock antics of Brown et al over people who put the interests of Scotland first.
Posted by: The Wise One, Glasgow on 2:26pm Wed 12 Mar 08
[quote]Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 12:42pm today
Could we please not go down the road (much travelled in the past) of assuming a personal tax (LIT) as a household tax. To start counting the numbers of working adults in a house means absolutely nothing and is very misleading. Working adults should pay for council services regardless of whether they own the home or not, that is the whole point ! To say that a household with 5 working adults in it will be worse off is bunkum, the 5 working adults will be paying their dues as individual residents of and service users of an authorities area. I have two sons, one of whom is of working age, he does NOT walk in at the end of the week and throw his wages at his mother and shout " Here mum, put this into the great household pot, by the way are we worse off as a household this week? " He pays what my mother used to call ' dig money' , the rest of his cash is his to do with as he pleases, at present he pays hee haw towards the council services that he uses and is entitled to, his mother and father do. Even he knows that this is wrong when our pensioner neighbours on both sides are making contributions through the god awful council tax system. Individuals pay taxes, not bricks and mortar or notional ' households' . If a home contains half a dozen people earning a wage, then it is right and proper that all six of them should be making a fair contribution to the area they live in and the services provided for them. If the home has one pensioner earning nothing then they should pay nothing, they spent a lot of years paying through the nose, give them a break and let those more able take the strain. Besides, as a nice side effect the vast majority of us will be much better off with LIT, win, win I reckon, fair and equitable.
Could we please not go down the road (much travelled in the past) of assuming a personal tax (LIT) as a household tax.
To start counting the numbers of working adults in a house means absolutely nothing and is very misleading.
Working adults should pay for council services regardless of whether they own the home or not, that is the whole point !
To say that a household with 5 working adults in it will be worse off is bunkum, the 5 working adults will be paying their dues as individual residents of and service users of an authorities area.
I have two sons, one of whom is of working age, he does NOT walk in at the end of the week and throw his wages at his mother and shout " Here mum, put this into the great household pot, by the way are we worse off as a household this week? "
He pays what my mother used to call ' dig money' , the rest of his cash is his to do with as he pleases, at present he pays hee haw towards the council services that he uses and is entitled to, his mother and father do.
Even he knows that this is wrong when our pensioner neighbours on both sides are making contributions through the god awful council tax system.
Individuals pay taxes, not bricks and mortar or notional ' households' .
If a home contains half a dozen people earning a wage, then it is right and proper that all six of them should be making a fair contribution to the area they live in and the services provided for them.
If the home has one pensioner earning nothing then they should pay nothing, they spent a lot of years paying through the nose, give them a break and let those more able take the strain.
Besides, as a nice side effect the vast majority of us will be much better off with LIT, win, win I reckon, fair and equitable.[/quote]
Typical, take away Graduate Endowment and tax them at 3% on income.
Point worth considering: As the kids leave school, university etc and get a job, they will be paying more tax than at present. In effect those households will be paying more for the same services.
Your comment suggests that you accept the the real losers will be the single persons living with their parents. Already burdened with debt in many instances, they will pay even more taxes and will most likely never be able to afford a house of their own.
I suppose that is one way of resolving the housing shortage.
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 12:42pm today
Could we please not go down the road (much travelled in the past) of assuming a personal tax (LIT) as a household tax. To start counting the numbers of working adults in a house means absolutely nothing and is very misleading. Working adults should pay for council services regardless of whether they own the home or not, that is the whole point ! To say that a household with 5 working adults in it will be worse off is bunkum, the 5 working adults will be paying their dues as individual residents of and service users of an authorities area. I have two sons, one of whom is of working age, he does NOT walk in at the end of the week and throw his wages at his mother and shout " Here mum, put this into the great household pot, by the way are we worse off as a household this week? " He pays what my mother used to call ' dig money' , the rest of his cash is his to do with as he pleases, at present he pays hee haw towards the council services that he uses and is entitled to, his mother and father do. Even he knows that this is wrong when our pensioner neighbours on both sides are making contributions through the god awful council tax system. Individuals pay taxes, not bricks and mortar or notional ' households' . If a home contains half a dozen people earning a wage, then it is right and proper that all six of them should be making a fair contribution to the area they live in and the services provided for them. If the home has one pensioner earning nothing then they should pay nothing, they spent a lot of years paying through the nose, give them a break and let those more able take the strain. Besides, as a nice side effect the vast majority of us will be much better off with LIT, win, win I reckon, fair and equitable.
Could we please not go down the road (much travelled in the past) of assuming a personal tax (LIT) as a household tax.
To start counting the numbers of working adults in a house means absolutely nothing and is very misleading.
Working adults should pay for council services regardless of whether they own the home or not, that is the whole point !
To say that a household with 5 working adults in it will be worse off is bunkum, the 5 working adults will be paying their dues as individual residents of and service users of an authorities area.
I have two sons, one of whom is of working age, he does NOT walk in at the end of the week and throw his wages at his mother and shout " Here mum, put this into the great household pot, by the way are we worse off as a household this week? "
He pays what my mother used to call ' dig money' , the rest of his cash is his to do with as he pleases, at present he pays hee haw towards the council services that he uses and is entitled to, his mother and father do.
Even he knows that this is wrong when our pensioner neighbours on both sides are making contributions through the god awful council tax system.
Individuals pay taxes, not bricks and mortar or notional ' households' .
If a home contains half a dozen people earning a wage, then it is right and proper that all six of them should be making a fair contribution to the area they live in and the services provided for them.
If the home has one pensioner earning nothing then they should pay nothing, they spent a lot of years paying through the nose, give them a break and let those more able take the strain.
Besides, as a nice side effect the vast majority of us will be much better off with LIT, win, win I reckon, fair and equitable.
Typical, take away Graduate Endowment and tax them at 3% on income.
Point worth considering: As the kids leave school, university etc and get a job, they will be paying more tax than at present. In effect those households will be paying more for the same services.
Your comment suggests that you accept the the real losers will be the single persons living with their parents. Already burdened with debt in many instances, they will pay even more taxes and will most likely never be able to afford a house of their own.
I suppose that is one way of resolving the housing shortage.
Posted by: Kinghob, Scotland on 2:51pm Wed 12 Mar 08
So the answer was obviously to vote Labour, who would have put their crap proposals through Parliament in the same gung ho useless manner that they did for the previous 8 years.
The party that wanted the political status quo for devolved powers and has suddenly changed their mind.
It is three years at least until this is implemented and yet you and labour loving journalists are challenging the LIT in a manner that the 60% burden directly on householders was never looked at!
I believe that everybody with the income to pay for council services [bold]that they use[/bold] should bloody well pay!
I don't believe making the householder themselves bear the brunt of Labour council and governmental mismanagement by hiking the Council Tax bill up by 60% was a solution to anything relating to poverty, home ownership or debt mate.
So the answer was obviously to vote Labour, who would have put their crap proposals through Parliament in the same gung ho useless manner that they did for the previous 8 years.
The party that wanted the political status quo for devolved powers and has suddenly changed their mind.
It is three years at least until this is implemented and yet you and labour loving journalists are challenging the LIT in a manner that the 60% burden directly on householders was never looked at!
I believe that everybody with the income to pay for council services
that they use should bloody well pay!
I don't believe making the householder themselves bear the brunt of Labour council and governmental mismanagement by hiking the Council Tax bill up by 60% was a solution to anything relating to poverty, home ownership or debt mate.
Posted by: Joanna, Oregon on 3:09pm Wed 12 Mar 08
A local income tax is a farse. We already pay income tax. Also I don't see how this would promote equality and fairness. The richer areas would get more money and arguably they use less services.
A local income tax is a farse. We already pay income tax. Also I don't see how this would promote equality and fairness. The richer areas would get more money and arguably they use less services.
Posted by: Kinghob, Scotland on 3:13pm Wed 12 Mar 08
If LIT is a farce then god knows what the mismanaged ever increasing council tax was.
saying we already pay income tax is neither here nor there, come to Scotland and buy a dram of whisky and you'll find out that tax has many forms, mostly the UK shafting all because of their economic mismangement and massive financial shortfalls that occur when you bail out private banks at close to £100 Bilion in cost not to 'darling' but to the taxpayers!
Darling and Brown don't have money to run/ruin these Isles finances-it is[bold] our[/bold] taxes they waste.
If LIT is a farce then god knows what the mismanaged ever increasing council tax was.
saying we already pay income tax is neither here nor there, come to Scotland and buy a dram of whisky and you'll find out that tax has many forms, mostly the UK shafting all because of their economic mismangement and massive financial shortfalls that occur when you bail out private banks at close to £100 Bilion in cost not to 'darling' but to the taxpayers!
Darling and Brown don't have money to run/ruin these Isles finances-it is
our taxes they waste.
Posted by: Joanna, Oregon on 3:21pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Yes quite but my point is don't penalize us on our incomes twice we pay enough income tax as it is. Plus what happens if unemployment rises?
Yes quite but my point is don't penalize us on our incomes twice we pay enough income tax as it is. Plus what happens if unemployment rises?
Posted by: davieboy on 4:05pm Wed 12 Mar 08
This will hurt the working man even more. As well as paying the same rates of taxes as the rest of the UK, the SNP & the Lib Dems want to hurt them even more.
Where is the incentive for people on low incomes to work longer hours in order to pay for extras like a holiday or a new car or to improve their home. Nowadays they could work overtime but even with extra hours, wee specky swindle still wants his 3 points on the extra hours worked.
This will hurt the working man even more. As well as paying the same rates of taxes as the rest of the UK, the SNP & the Lib Dems want to hurt them even more.
Where is the incentive for people on low incomes to work longer hours in order to pay for extras like a holiday or a new car or to improve their home. Nowadays they could work overtime but even with extra hours, wee specky swindle still wants his 3 points on the extra hours worked.
Posted by: TheGlaswegian, Edinburgh on 4:15pm Wed 12 Mar 08
davieboy - an individual paying council tax of £150 a month would need to earn more than £70,000 to be worse off.
I'm a working man and I'm looking forward to the day this is introduced. haev you worked out how much it will affect you? (of course, if you still stay with yer maw, then you'll be worse off)
davieboy - an individual paying council tax of £150 a month would need to earn more than £70,000 to be worse off.
I'm a working man and I'm looking forward to the day this is introduced. haev you worked out how much it will affect you? (of course, if you still stay with yer maw, then you'll be worse off)
Posted by: davieboy on 4:46pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Glaswegian,
firstly your figures are a load of tosh. £70k minus £5K personal allowance = £65k. 3% of £65k = £1950 per annum.
Since the council tax is collected over the 1st 10months of the financial year then the annual figure is £1500, which the average band D figure for Scotland as a whole.
The "so-called" break even figures quoted in most papers today is estimated to be between £58k & £60k. (were you at Seville a couple of years ago?)
Secondly if you are working man and are looking forward to this then you are an imbecile. You can look forward to the fact when you work overtime wee specky swindle is getting his 3 points off of YOUR salary. You can also look forward to poor and disadvantaged workers paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the managers he works for and when the retired compant director living of shares in the Mearns & Morningside is paying hee haw and playing golf.
Glaswegian,
firstly your figures are a load of tosh. £70k minus £5K personal allowance = £65k. 3% of £65k = £1950 per annum.
Since the council tax is collected over the 1st 10months of the financial year then the annual figure is £1500, which the average band D figure for Scotland as a whole.
The "so-called" break even figures quoted in most papers today is estimated to be between £58k & £60k. (were you at Seville a couple of years ago?)
Secondly if you are working man and are looking forward to this then you are an imbecile. You can look forward to the fact when you work overtime wee specky swindle is getting his 3 points off of YOUR salary. You can also look forward to poor and disadvantaged workers paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the managers he works for and when the retired compant director living of shares in the Mearns & Morningside is paying hee haw and playing golf.
Posted by: The Impartial Observer on 5:17pm Wed 12 Mar 08
I am puzzled about all this. In an area where there is a preponderance of poorer, working class citizens who are either unemployed or on low incomes, the tax take at 3% will be much lower than in an area where incomes and employment levels are high. But running services in the poorer area may well be more expensive, or at least the need for them may be greater.
So a poorer district like East Renfrewshire would have a lower income to spend per head than a richer area like West Renfrewshire. Is that right - or am I missing something? I guess to some extent this also applies with a property based tax, but is the problem greater or less with a local income tax?
I am puzzled about all this. In an area where there is a preponderance of poorer, working class citizens who are either unemployed or on low incomes, the tax take at 3% will be much lower than in an area where incomes and employment levels are high. But running services in the poorer area may well be more expensive, or at least the need for them may be greater.
So a poorer district like East Renfrewshire would have a lower income to spend per head than a richer area like West Renfrewshire. Is that right - or am I missing something? I guess to some extent this also applies with a property based tax, but is the problem greater or less with a local income tax?
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 5:38pm Wed 12 Mar 08
The Not Quite Impartial Observer[quote]So a poorer district like East Renfrewshire would have a lower income to spend per head than a richer area like West Renfrewshire.[/quote] Has that been a traditional Labour district, and if so, why is it the "poorer" and without decent local services under the old system?
The Not Quite Impartial Observer
So a poorer district like East Renfrewshire would have a lower income to spend per head than a richer area like West Renfrewshire.
Has that been a traditional Labour district, and if so, why is it the "poorer" and without decent local services under the old system?
Posted by: Kinghob, Scotland on 5:42pm Wed 12 Mar 08
The LIT isn't due to start for a few years Davieboy, just be thankful that in the interim you have the amount you pay frozen, and in a few years your precious Labour party will be in worse doodoo than they already are.
I earn a great wage, my wife works part time and my LIT is the same as the council tax. I saw that tax hike up by 60% over Labour by the way, did you notice this, and if so did you complain on an online commentary section of the Herald?
Nope.
because you love labour for some extremely odd reason.
Get over it, Labour are useless and for the majority of people the LIT is better and there is three years at least to fend off Westminster who are only cheesed off because the English only editorials will be at their throats about the council tax freeze, meanwhile all those blackhole economic chickens in the beleaguered borrowing UK economy will continue to come home to roost which give Darling an excuse to tax us silly as opposed to freezing taxes! lol
The LIT isn't due to start for a few years Davieboy, just be thankful that in the interim you have the amount you pay frozen, and in a few years your precious Labour party will be in worse doodoo than they already are.
I earn a great wage, my wife works part time and my LIT is the same as the council tax. I saw that tax hike up by 60% over Labour by the way, did you notice this, and if so did you complain on an online commentary section of the Herald?
Nope.
because you love labour for some extremely odd reason.
Get over it, Labour are useless and for the majority of people the LIT is better and there is three years at least to fend off Westminster who are only cheesed off because the English only editorials will be at their throats about the council tax freeze, meanwhile all those blackhole economic chickens in the beleaguered borrowing UK economy will continue to come home to roost which give Darling an excuse to tax us silly as opposed to freezing taxes! lol
Posted by: Joanna, Oregon on 5:43pm Wed 12 Mar 08
east ren poor?????
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 6:24pm Wed 12 Mar 08
[quote]Your comment suggests that you accept the the real losers will be the single persons living with their parents.[/quote]
There are always winners and losers in any taxation model.
I would much rather that the winners were those on very low incomes and pensioners on a fixed income.
The young in work adult can and should look after themselves and pay their way.
Whether you own a few bricks or not means nowt when you need the council supplied services, even though the " I don't use the services so why should I pay " morons have made the usual bleating appearances.
We all walk along pavements under street lights and a myriad other council services are there 24/7 whether we think we use them or not, the " I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools " crowd make me b loody angry..
Have a fire at your house and see if somebody turns to help up or not, fire, police, social services....etc.
Ever been to a library?
If so did they ask to see your title deeds at the door?
Ever been to a council leisure facility?
Did they ask to see your council tax bill?
Just a very small examples of things we expect to just be there whether we own or rent a house or not, we ALL use the services whether we think we do or not, emptying the bins seems to be the extent of the average punters knowledge of what we pay for.......well some of us pay for.
We ALL should pay if we earn, this includes my own brood, and to their credit they know it too.
Pity some want to dodge the bullet for ever.
Selfish.....just selfish.
Your comment suggests that you accept the the real losers will be the single persons living with their parents.
There are always winners and losers in any taxation model.
I would much rather that the winners were those on very low incomes and pensioners on a fixed income.
The young in work adult can and should look after themselves and pay their way.
Whether you own a few bricks or not means nowt when you need the council supplied services, even though the " I don't use the services so why should I pay " morons have made the usual bleating appearances.
We all walk along pavements under street lights and a myriad other council services are there 24/7 whether we think we use them or not, the " I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools " crowd make me b loody angry..
Have a fire at your house and see if somebody turns to help up or not, fire, police, social services....etc.
Ever been to a library?
If so did they ask to see your title deeds at the door?
Ever been to a council leisure facility?
Did they ask to see your council tax bill?
Just a very small examples of things we expect to just be there whether we own or rent a house or not, we ALL use the services whether we think we do or not, emptying the bins seems to be the extent of the average punters knowledge of what we pay for.......well some of us pay for.
We ALL should pay if we earn, this includes my own brood, and to their credit they know it too.
Pity some want to dodge the bullet for ever.
Selfish.....just selfish.
Posted by: TheGlaswegian, Edinburgh on 6:39pm Wed 12 Mar 08
davieboy , my council tax gets collected every month by direct debit. (i.e. 12 times a year...)
But, I'll concede that my figures were a bit out. If you were paying £161 a month (instead of my original 150) council tax then you'd need to earn over £70k per year to be worse off.
My council tax is £185 per month (i.e. 12 times per year). As the sole breadwinner with a wife and two toddlers at home, and in receipt of no benefits (other than the standard child benefit that everyone with kids receives), I'll be a good bit better off under the new proposals (cheers for he concern but I aint no imbecile).
As for your argument about the retired company director in the mearns paying nothing by living off unearned income. The current situation is that you don't pay tax on unearned income - perhaps this need a re-think? But jealousy aint my thing. In the meantime and at this point in time, the LIT concept (regardless sof what it is finally named) suits me 100%. At some point (when the wife goes back to work) I will end up in the group of folk worse off. But, hey ho, it aint going to force me to turn the heating off over the winter and that's the rub.
davieboy , my council tax gets collected every month by direct debit. (i.e. 12 times a year...)
But, I'll concede that my figures were a bit out. If you were paying £161 a month (instead of my original 150) council tax then you'd need to earn over £70k per year to be worse off.
My council tax is £185 per month (i.e. 12 times per year). As the sole breadwinner with a wife and two toddlers at home, and in receipt of no benefits (other than the standard child benefit that everyone with kids receives), I'll be a good bit better off under the new proposals (cheers for he concern but I aint no imbecile).
As for your argument about the retired company director in the mearns paying nothing by living off unearned income. The current situation is that you don't pay tax on unearned income - perhaps this need a re-think? But jealousy aint my thing. In the meantime and at this point in time, the LIT concept (regardless sof what it is finally named) suits me 100%. At some point (when the wife goes back to work) I will end up in the group of folk worse off. But, hey ho, it aint going to force me to turn the heating off over the winter and that's the rub.
Posted by: davieboy on 6:57pm Wed 12 Mar 08
bijknob
first of all, the LA's have only agreed ot freeze the council tax for 1 year irrespective of what wee specky thinks.
Secondly, i've never voted Labour in my life and have never been slow to complain about council tax either.
Glaswegian,
I am not into jealousy but fairness. At present this hypothetical companny director does not pay tax on unearned income but he pays Council Tax. Under the SNP's LIT he will pay neither.
Personally speaking, I expect to be pretty much break even or slightly worse off (£100 if anything) but the thing that annoys me if that workers on an hourly rate want to work longer hours for say ,a holiday or a car etc. then it is unfair for the government to get an extra 3% of their hard earned. Certainly not jealousy.
bijknob
first of all, the LA's have only agreed ot freeze the council tax for 1 year irrespective of what wee specky thinks.
Secondly, i've never voted Labour in my life and have never been slow to complain about council tax either.
Glaswegian,
I am not into jealousy but fairness. At present this hypothetical companny director does not pay tax on unearned income but he pays Council Tax. Under the SNP's LIT he will pay neither.
Personally speaking, I expect to be pretty much break even or slightly worse off (£100 if anything) but the thing that annoys me if that workers on an hourly rate want to work longer hours for say ,a holiday or a car etc. then it is unfair for the government to get an extra 3% of their hard earned. Certainly not jealousy.
Posted by: Joanna, Oregon on 7:23pm Wed 12 Mar 08
I don't think people want to dodge the bullet. It is in all our interests to have a discussion and achieve a suitable compromise as it seems as long as I have been alive there has never been a system which works.
I don't think people want to dodge the bullet. It is in all our interests to have a discussion and achieve a suitable compromise as it seems as long as I have been alive there has never been a system which works.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 7:29pm Wed 12 Mar 08
You are not going to please all of the people all of the time but so far the objections I have read to Local Income Tax do not in any way negate the positives. Most of them concern individual circumstances which may be of interest to the poster but don't fascinate me. In general and looking at the bigger picture, a few exceptions to the side, it is a much fairer system for the majority of people. This will help single parents, the low waged and pensioners who because they have worked all their lives do not qualify for CTB but are certainly not rich.
And this is a consultation document - I trust all the objectors will participate in the consutation ? Who knows that way we might be able to come up with some answers.
You are not going to please all of the people all of the time but so far the objections I have read to Local Income Tax do not in any way negate the positives. Most of them concern individual circumstances which may be of interest to the poster but don't fascinate me. In general and looking at the bigger picture, a few exceptions to the side, it is a much fairer system for the majority of people. This will help single parents, the low waged and pensioners who because they have worked all their lives do not qualify for CTB but are certainly not rich.
And this is a consultation document - I trust all the objectors will participate in the consutation ? Who knows that way we might be able to come up with some answers.
Posted by: A Scottish Voice, Scotland on 8:04pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Davieboy, your arguement regarding how the o so poorly paid off will be penilised because they want to work a few hours overtime beggers belief.
I currently earn £12000 a years. Unless I suddenly perform vast amount of overtime combined with a higher power changing our standard 24 hour day into a 96 hour day, I cannot see how my 12000 salary can be raised aboved the £58000 to make me worse off.
As for your complaint that a handful of very rich people will benifit from paying no tax, whats new. Read the link,
http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/money/tax/m
ajority-of-superrich
-pay-no-income-tax-4
54178.html
I do not doubt that you are not a fan of the LIT, but then I was not a fan of the Poll tax. Sometimes you just have to accept what is, especially when it is for the greater good.
Davieboy, your arguement regarding how the o so poorly paid off will be penilised because they want to work a few hours overtime beggers belief.
I currently earn £12000 a years. Unless I suddenly perform vast amount of overtime combined with a higher power changing our standard 24 hour day into a 96 hour day, I cannot see how my 12000 salary can be raised aboved the £58000 to make me worse off.
As for your complaint that a handful of very rich people will benifit from paying no tax, whats new. Read the link,
http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/money/tax/m
ajority-of-superrich
-pay-no-income-tax-4
54178.html
I do not doubt that you are not a fan of the LIT, but then I was not a fan of the Poll tax. Sometimes you just have to accept what is, especially when it is for the greater good.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:17pm Wed 12 Mar 08
[quote][bold]davieboy[/bold] wrote:
bijknob first of all, the LA's have only agreed ot freeze the council tax for 1 year irrespective of what wee specky thinks. Secondly, i've never voted Labour in my life and have never been slow to complain about council tax either. Glaswegian, I am not into jealousy but fairness. At present this hypothetical companny director does not pay tax on unearned income but he pays Council Tax. Under the SNP's LIT he will pay neither. Personally speaking, I expect to be pretty much break even or slightly worse off (£100 if anything) but the thing that annoys me if that workers on an hourly rate want to work longer hours for say ,a holiday or a car etc. then it is unfair for the government to get an extra 3% of their hard earned. Certainly not jealousy.[/quote] Council Tax has gone up over 600% in the last ten years. You are going to have to do a hell of a lot of O/T even at double time to have 3% of it equate to what most workers have been paying in council tax Davie aren't you ?
davieboy wrote:
bijknob first of all, the LA's have only agreed ot freeze the council tax for 1 year irrespective of what wee specky thinks. Secondly, i've never voted Labour in my life and have never been slow to complain about council tax either. Glaswegian, I am not into jealousy but fairness. At present this hypothetical companny director does not pay tax on unearned income but he pays Council Tax. Under the SNP's LIT he will pay neither. Personally speaking, I expect to be pretty much break even or slightly worse off (£100 if anything) but the thing that annoys me if that workers on an hourly rate want to work longer hours for say ,a holiday or a car etc. then it is unfair for the government to get an extra 3% of their hard earned. Certainly not jealousy.
Council Tax has gone up over 600% in the last ten years. You are going to have to do a hell of a lot of O/T even at double time to have 3% of it equate to what most workers have been paying in council tax Davie aren't you ?
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 11:40pm Wed 12 Mar 08
The vast majority of the rich will pay at least 10 times more under LIT than the Council Tax!
The vast majority of the rich will pay at least 10 times more under LIT than the Council Tax!
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:47pm Wed 12 Mar 08
Have your say......
LIT Online Consultation
[bold]tinyurl.com/yw8fo7[/bold]
Have your say......
LIT Online Consultation
tinyurl.com/yw8fo7 Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 1:52am Thu 13 Mar 08
Just like with the parliment building the jobsworths will get their sums wrong again and then it will be 6% going up to 12%. What was it observer said about council tax up 600% in ten years on what planet I'm not sure but assuming his figures are correct 6 times 3% is 18% in ten years sounds like vat mark 2 now to me.
Just like with the parliment building the jobsworths will get their sums wrong again and then it will be 6% going up to 12%. What was it observer said about council tax up 600% in ten years on what planet I'm not sure but assuming his figures are correct 6 times 3% is 18% in ten years sounds like vat mark 2 now to me.
Posted by: Jimmy fae the West, Embra on 2:33am Thu 13 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jonny bond[/bold] wrote:
Just like with the parliment building the jobsworths will get their sums wrong again and then it will be 6% going up to 12%. What was it observer said about council tax up 600% in ten years on what planet I'm not sure but assuming his figures are correct 6 times 3% is 18% in ten years sounds like vat mark 2 now to me.[/quote] 18% pah.LOL If it were ever to reach seventyfive percent of our income we could then liken it to the tax on Scottish oil and tax on Scottish Whisky and taxes on the Scottish poor, all imposed by a genius Labour government who have got their sums very wrong every single year for the past eleven years! That Scot's Parly accountancy scandal was entirely due to the London paymasters as was the poll tax which began at £244 pounds per annum and has risen to £1,400 pounds but hey let us all know about your hatred of your country.
jonny bond wrote:
Just like with the parliment building the jobsworths will get their sums wrong again and then it will be 6% going up to 12%. What was it observer said about council tax up 600% in ten years on what planet I'm not sure but assuming his figures are correct 6 times 3% is 18% in ten years sounds like vat mark 2 now to me.
18% pah.LOL If it were ever to reach seventyfive percent of our income we could then liken it to the tax on Scottish oil and tax on Scottish Whisky and taxes on the Scottish poor, all imposed by a genius Labour government who have got their sums very wrong every single year for the past eleven years! That Scot's Parly accountancy scandal was entirely due to the London paymasters as was the poll tax which began at £244 pounds per annum and has risen to £1,400 pounds but hey let us all know about your hatred of your country.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 4:28am Thu 13 Mar 08
A Bond Moment[quote]Just like with the parliment building the jobsworths will get their sums wrong again and then it will be 6% going up to 12%. What was it observer said about council tax up 600% in ten years on what planet I'm not sure but assuming his figures are correct 6 times 3% is 18% in ten years sounds like vat mark 2 now to me.[/quote] Er .. ah ... well ... hmm.
Yes, English loses a lot in translation to Scots.
A Bond Moment
Just like with the parliment building the jobsworths will get their sums wrong again and then it will be 6% going up to 12%. What was it observer said about council tax up 600% in ten years on what planet I'm not sure but assuming his figures are correct 6 times 3% is 18% in ten years sounds like vat mark 2 now to me.
Er .. ah ... well ... hmm.
Yes, English loses a lot in translation to Scots.
Posted by: annonymoose, Glasgow on 5:03am Thu 13 Mar 08
I've posted over the past months and days, that LIT is a non starter.
At the moment I pay council Tax, I pay Class 3 NI and I pay Income Tax.... the Class 3 and income tax is voluntarily, because I believe in paying my way.
What I pay does not reflect what I have at my disposal. It I am now being given an option of LIT versus Council Tax…. No earned income, no LIT. Now I can stop making any payments LOCAL or Nationally and live extremely comfortably on what I can save on Council Tax, Class 3 NI and Income Tax.
Those presenting this LIT, and also making such fiscal decisions seem quite happy to ignore me, probably because I only account for about 4% of what they think is the Scots taxable population.
What about the many thousands of Scots who have residences in Spain and Portugal. These are not as uncommon as you think.
I believe this LIT is ill thought out and will bring in a lot less cash that the politicians think it will.
Local Goods and Services Tax, (added to the VAT collection mechanism) at the point of sale is an eminently simpler option. Yes there is mail order and internet shopping, but you MUST pay by plastic for this. When using Plastic for such a purchase and the Bank Account, the delivery address or the residence is Scotland, then its easy enough to collect this. Its quite workable. In the USA, you buy online and you have to pay the State Tax for the state you are in, even if buying from another state.
There should be a local services payment, that applies to every living and breathing person. The amount should be based on ability to pay, and is placed at such a level, that a family of 4, with an average income, pays no more and no less than they do today in Council tax.
This will allow people living in cramped housing, who have feared moving because of massive Council Tax or its predecessor, Rates, to be more mobile. This means that 10 people wilfully crammed into a let, will not just generate a pittance for the let, but will return a small payment on each one, and also on everything they spend.
The use the same services, walk under the street lights at night, the clean pavements, their refuse is removed, their water is piped, the sewerage is treated… just like every other single person.
If they genuinely cannot afford to pay say even 100 a year, then the usual means testing on ability to pay. A child 0-11 payment 25, 11-16 payment 50, OAP 65 and upwards 50.
This amount collected at council level, stays at council level, and the taxation amount at the point of sale, tops this up.
Introduce councils being able to set their own LIT, and you will have even more division in an already divided social structure. We already have people moving to areas for better schooling and better housing, with lower council tax.
Think this through and listen to all the arguments, and think more about what you will not be able collect, more than what you think you will collect.
I've posted over the past months and days, that LIT is a non starter.
At the moment I pay council Tax, I pay Class 3 NI and I pay Income Tax.... the Class 3 and income tax is voluntarily, because I believe in paying my way.
What I pay does not reflect what I have at my disposal. It I am now being given an option of LIT versus Council Tax…. No earned income, no LIT. Now I can stop making any payments LOCAL or Nationally and live extremely comfortably on what I can save on Council Tax, Class 3 NI and Income Tax.
Those presenting this LIT, and also making such fiscal decisions seem quite happy to ignore me, probably because I only account for about 4% of what they think is the Scots taxable population.
What about the many thousands of Scots who have residences in Spain and Portugal. These are not as uncommon as you think.
I believe this LIT is ill thought out and will bring in a lot less cash that the politicians think it will.
Local Goods and Services Tax, (added to the VAT collection mechanism) at the point of sale is an eminently simpler option. Yes there is mail order and internet shopping, but you MUST pay by plastic for this. When using Plastic for such a purchase and the Bank Account, the delivery address or the residence is Scotland, then its easy enough to collect this. Its quite workable. In the USA, you buy online and you have to pay the State Tax for the state you are in, even if buying from another state.
There should be a local services payment, that applies to every living and breathing person. The amount should be based on ability to pay, and is placed at such a level, that a family of 4, with an average income, pays no more and no less than they do today in Council tax.
This will allow people living in cramped housing, who have feared moving because of massive Council Tax or its predecessor, Rates, to be more mobile. This means that 10 people wilfully crammed into a let, will not just generate a pittance for the let, but will return a small payment on each one, and also on everything they spend.
The use the same services, walk under the street lights at night, the clean pavements, their refuse is removed, their water is piped, the sewerage is treated… just like every other single person.
If they genuinely cannot afford to pay say even 100 a year, then the usual means testing on ability to pay. A child 0-11 payment 25, 11-16 payment 50, OAP 65 and upwards 50.
This amount collected at council level, stays at council level, and the taxation amount at the point of sale, tops this up.
Introduce councils being able to set their own LIT, and you will have even more division in an already divided social structure. We already have people moving to areas for better schooling and better housing, with lower council tax.
Think this through and listen to all the arguments, and think more about what you will not be able collect, more than what you think you will collect.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 6:18am Thu 13 Mar 08
Thats jonny bond you can take it to the bank just not the northern rock. Why are you madmen jumping on the first thing that comes along that's not the dreaded council tax. Correct me if I'm wrong but anybody that owns a house outright should help to pay for the fire brigade that might be needed in an emergency. My problem is paying for the mayor or councilors failed projects. The ones they do not advertise when re-election time comes around again. How many mangers of the health service in the western isles could possibly be needed at 100 grand a time 3 is it that seems a trifle wasteful. thats just the tip of the wasteberg you only see the top 10% at any given time in the papers. Its a bit like the ciggarettes on sale in pubs and markets only 10%(haha) of the ciggarettes sold under the counter are confiscated by the police. The police of the ministers do a much worse job in my opinion but what can you do when the likes of wendy is unprosecuteable.
Thats jonny bond you can take it to the bank just not the northern rock. Why are you madmen jumping on the first thing that comes along that's not the dreaded council tax. Correct me if I'm wrong but anybody that owns a house outright should help to pay for the fire brigade that might be needed in an emergency. My problem is paying for the mayor or councilors failed projects. The ones they do not advertise when re-election time comes around again. How many mangers of the health service in the western isles could possibly be needed at 100 grand a time 3 is it that seems a trifle wasteful. thats just the tip of the wasteberg you only see the top 10% at any given time in the papers. Its a bit like the ciggarettes on sale in pubs and markets only 10%(haha) of the ciggarettes sold under the counter are confiscated by the police. The police of the ministers do a much worse job in my opinion but what can you do when the likes of wendy is unprosecuteable.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 6:26am Thu 13 Mar 08
You could give the procurator fiscal incontravertible proof the she was a hoare and she gave three blokes a good time and show the video to prove she charged them for the privelidge if you could call it that. She would get off scot free with the judge saying she was giving an artistic performance for a resonable sum of money before she was a politician and that it in no way affects her abillity to lead the labour party in scotland and you know what he'd be right sort of.
You could give the procurator fiscal incontravertible proof the she was a hoare and she gave three blokes a good time and show the video to prove she charged them for the privelidge if you could call it that. She would get off scot free with the judge saying she was giving an artistic performance for a resonable sum of money before she was a politician and that it in no way affects her abillity to lead the labour party in scotland and you know what he'd be right sort of.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 6:32am Thu 13 Mar 08
who is she???
Posted by: broozy, Overseas on 6:43am Thu 13 Mar 08
"Those with enough wealth to avoid earning a living would pay nothing."
Am I missing something here, is this not supposed to be the party of the people, this is a disgrace, is this what Sir Sean gets in return for helping out in those stupid broadcasts? Dont get me wrong the rest are as big a parcel but the SNP promised positive change.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the current system, only that maybe people who could not pay needed more support, the SNP are betrayiong the working people while cosying up to the rich.
Myself, I earn close to 100K but still pay council tax for scottish home, now i dont actually use the services very often as im rarely there but its a duty of every homeowner/renter to pay the fair share.
Patently on my salary I wont moan about paying a bit more for local services but does it now mean that whereas the home w
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (109)
