Holyrood '16 polls and predictions

[strichener]

Notice the word "rate" in your first sentence. This is literally the point.

VAT is regressive even though someone who earns £100kpa probably buys a higher value of standard rate of VAT goods than someone earning £13kpa. The former probably eats-out at Ubiqutous Chip while the latter buys bread and carrots from the Co-Op. Clearly, though, VAT is regressive because the proportion of gross income/wealth surrendered to it is higher for the poor. At least in the instance of VAT the impact is because of the proportion of VAT-liable spending for an individual or a household, and not because the rate of tax is different.

What we are demonstrating to you is that the same principle applies to the across-the-board aspect of council tax. What you did was take a house at the high-end of one band and compare it to one at the low end of another in order to make it look like the rate of tax relative to the value of the property was higher for the more expensive house.

This was disingenuous, and only points out that any tax system with taxable "ranges" of values has anomalies. If you take the typical house value for each council tax band you would find a system, which asks a much lower amount as a proportion of the house value of the most expensive homes than it does of the less expensive ones. The most progressive aspect of council tax is and always has been its exemptions and council tax benefit, and both of them are in any case blunt instruments.

Besides which, to measure progressivity of the council tax purely with reference to the value of the property is itself a blunt instrument, especially when the liability for council tax can fall on an occupier who is not an owner. The value of a property may dovetail quite nicely the wealth and to a lesser extent the income of the occupant, but certainly not imperfectly. And if you were to compare the typical proportion of gross income surrendered to council tax across the income and wealth spectrums for those not eligible for exemptions or council tax benefit, the system would still be regressive.

Less regressive for the Scottish Government's welcome and long overdue changes to the band ratios, but regressive nonetheless.

You are picking and choosing how you are interpreting taxation here. VAT is only regressive in nature if you believe that taxation should be based on lifestyle. The fact that people on lower income choose to spend a higher proportion of their income on Vatable items does not make the tax measure regressive. Given the extent to which cheap clothing and vatable basics are available, this argument does not really hold water.

To claim VAT is regressive is not only wrong but is increasing the scope of interpretation far beyond what could be considered reasonable.

[welshbairn]

You are picking and choosing how you are interpreting taxation here. VAT is only regressive in nature if you believe that taxation should be based on lifestyle. The fact that people on lower income choose to spend a higher proportion of their income on Vatable items does not make the tax measure regressive. Given the extent to which cheap clothing and vatable basics are available, this argument does not really hold water.

To claim VAT is regressive is not only wrong but is increasing the scope of interpretation far beyond what could be considered reasonable.

You are wrong.

[Ad Lib]

You are picking and choosing how you are interpreting taxation here. VAT is only regressive in nature if you believe that taxation should be based on lifestyle. The fact that people on lower income choose to spend a higher proportion of their income on Vatable items does not make the tax measure regressive. Given the extent to which cheap clothing and vatable basics are available, this argument does not really hold water.

To claim VAT is regressive is not only wrong but is increasing the scope of interpretation far beyond what could be considered reasonable.

No I'm not. I'm basing the definition of regressive and progressive on what economists base the definition of progressive and regressive: financial impact relative to income and/or wealth.

People do not "choose" to spend their income on VATable items. The things that are exempt are massively arbitrary in a number of respects and lots of absolute essentials are subjected to VAT. Good luck to you telling women that tampons and sanitary pads are "lifestyle choices" just for starters.

Similarly, let's talk domestic electricity and gas, which are still subject to the reduced rate of VAT but which are absolutely essential to the average home.

Then let's talk adult clothing, shoes, services like a joiner, home phone and broadband, essentially all consumer electronics, lightbulbs, home appliances, your bed, mattress and bedding, toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrush, washing machine capsules, shower gel, cutlery, all multi-media entertainment, furniture, kitchen roll, cling film, baco foil, Dettol, toilet cleaner... honestly, I'm looking around my flat and with the exception of food, newspapers, books and a handful of other small daily goods, almost everything is subject to VAT.

You might think that this means the less well paid choose to spend more of their money on VAT-rated goods, but I don't. This is no more a choice than to say council tax isn't regressive because no one chooses to live in a house.

[strichener]

http://localtaxcommission.scot/html-version-of-just-change-a-new-approach-to-local-taxation/05-can-a-local-tax-be-fair-and-equitable-for-everyone/

By your own post, VAT is not a regressive tax.

[strichener]

The definition of regressive taxation is where the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to the tax increases. By this definition, VAT is not a regressive tax.

[Ad Lib]

Why VAT, in and of itself, is regressive, even if the rate applied to the relevant goods is flat:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/

[welshbairn]

By your own post, VAT is not a regressive tax.

If you have little discretionary income ie. poor, you spend almost all your money on the essentials which are subject to VAT. If you have lots of discretionary income you can invest it rather than spending it, which saves you a minimum of 20% on your capital, even without interest.

[strichener]

If you have little discretionary income ie. poor, you spend almost all your money on the essentials which are subject to VAT. If you have lots of discretionary income you can invest it rather than spending it, which saves you a minimum of 20% on your capital, even without interest.

As your previous post shows, the classification of a tax as regressive is nothing to do with income (unless you are looking at income tax) and is a relative measure between rates and the tax base.

You can continue to try to ignore this but doing so does not change this.

[Ad Lib]

Oxford Dictionary of Economics definition of regressive taxation (emphasis added):

regressive tax: A tax where the ratio of tax paid to the taxable amount falls as the taxable amount rises. A regressive tax system redistributes from the poorer members of society to the richer members. There are many ways a tax system can be made regressive. Two examples are by having a maximum direct tax charge irrespective of income, or by having indirect taxes levied at relatively high rates on goods heavily consumed by the poor.

VAT is an indirect tax, levied at relatively high a rate (20%) on goods heavily consumed by the poor (most goods and services). Indeed, the Tax Research UK blog I linked to earlier is very clear about this: the poorest decile spend a disproportionate share of their income on VAT-levied goods and for the remaining 9 deciles there is a clear downward trend in proportion of income surrendered to VAT. This is precisely what the dictionary definition envisages in the second example.

[strichener]

Oxford Dictionary of Economics definition of regressive taxation (emphasis added):

VAT is an indirect tax, levied at relatively high a rate (20%) on goods heavily consumed by the poor (most goods and services). Indeed, the Tax Research UK blog I linked to earlier is very clear about this: the poorest decile spend a disproportionate share of their income on VAT-levied goods and for the remaining 9 deciles there is a clear downward trend in proportion of income surrendered to VAT. This is precisely what the dictionary definition envisages in the second example.

No it doesn't show this at all, perhaps you need to go and find another definition to try and fit your argument. The important word there is system. Which by the definition that follows would require looking at the total tax SYSTEM and not individual taxes. If VAT were the ONLY taxation method then I would agree that the EFFECT of the tax SYSTEM would be regressive even although the tax itself was not.

If you are trying to argue that the total tax take by the government is redistributed with bias to the rich then make that argument. However the act of collection of a flat rate tax on consumption is not by definition redistributive.

Hypothetically all taxation from VAT may be used to fund pensions or out of work benefits or international aid etc. etc.

[Alan Stubbs]

Ruthie thinks Scotland is "sick of division". How's that referendum on the EU your boss has declared working out when it comes to your desire for a "united" nation of group-thinkers, Ruth? Last I checked you're not even part of a united party.

The Scottish Tories' campaigning strategy can be best described as tone trolling at this point. Before the Referendum the country was on hold and a year and a half after the vote they're bringing out PPB's that barely mention anything other than Independence.

Bit surprised to see them falling back in the polls this early though.

[Antlion]

Aye every "one party " state has proportional representation as its voting system

And a sovereign parliament located outside the state, of which the state's representatives make up a minority.

It's how all the one-party states roll.

[bluenoseshf]

Check out this fanny:

https://m.facebook.com/Thatcher-Wright-963435247076436/

Wonder what way he will be voting in the elections

[bob the tank]

Check out this fanny:

https://m.facebook.com/Thatcher-Wright-963435247076436/

Wonder what way he will be voting in the elections

The man is an entertainer, and I for one was definitely entertained by his page

[Ira Gaines]

Posting a wrestling character on the politics forum.

Full body minter.

[MarkoRaj]

Something tells me he's not 100% serious

[Antlion]

Ian Murray currently claiming that Holyrood is "now as powerful as the provinces in Canada". He must be so proud.

[Ad Lib]

The provinces in Canada are very powerful.

[HTG]

The provinces in Canada are very powerful.

Would they decide whether they wanted nuclear weapons in their province? Ian Murray referencing provinces is just another facepalm.

[Ad Lib]

Would they decide whether they wanted nuclear weapons in their province? Ian Murray referencing provinces is just another facepalm.

No. Defence is dealt with at the sovereign state level. You know this.

Of course, under the SNP's proposed don't ask don't tell proposals, there would be nuclear weapons passing through Scottish waters all the time. American and British ones.