Holyrood '16 polls and predictions

[Wee Willie]

Labour won 56 seats in 1997. You must have been absolutely outraged. Or maybe not, because they're a regionalist party who oppose Scotland's statehood.

 

Guid point

[invergowrie arab]

Labours radical alternative to council tax

"The party unveiled plans for a new form of local government tax based on property value"

So, a sounds like a revaluation.

[Antlion]

Guid point

Note also they won the majority of seats across the rest of the UK, and went on to have a majority of MSPs north of the border, as well as (I think every major council). In essence, they dominated Scotland (and the UK) more than the SNP ever have. Where were the howls of indignation and horror about whitewashes, one party states and damage to democracy?

[renton]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35871121

 

So there's a brief summary of Labour plans. A new tax based on property values. In other words, the council tax with a re-evaluation of the bands.

 

They also have a proposal for a tax on derelict, vacant land - similar to the SNP's proposed consultation on the same as part of their reforms (that at least shows an appetite for doing it, there will be plenty of pressure to get something like it on the statue books).

[invergowrie arab]

Don't forget the tourist tax.

[renton]

Don't forget the tourist tax.

 

Oh aye.

 

I must be wrong though, right? It sounds exactly like a simple re-evaluation of the bands, which in itself is probably more progressive than the SNP plans, but it seems a bit much to call it a 'scrapping' of the council tax.

[Wee Willie]

I can remember those days.

I can also remember when the Tories ruled the UK but only had a handful of MP's in Scotland.

They used tae fill the Scottish Question Time (what was it called?) with English MP's who turned up, never spoke but voted on Scottish matters.

I think it was this.

 

Wikipedia

The Scottish Grand Committee is a committee of the House of Commons. It is not a select committee (see Scottish Affairs Select Committee), but rather a grand committee composed of all 59 Scottish MPs (72 MPs prior to 2005).

It has its origins in a Scottish standing committee set up in 1907 to consider the Committee Stage of exclusively Scottish Bills. Its remit was widened in 1948 to include consideration of Bills "in relation to their principle" and up to six days of Estimates debates. In 1957 up to 2 days of Matter Day debates was added and Committee Stage consideration was transferred to a small Scottish Standing Committee.

The Scottish Grand Committee's function is to oversee UK Parliament Bills specific to Scotland. However, since the creation of the Scottish Parliament none has been presented, and consequently the Committee has met only occasionally since. It is not a defunct body, however, as a Scotland-only UK Parliament Bill is still theoretically possible. The Committee last met in November 2003. For several years it met at the Old Royal High School in Edinburgh. The retention of the Scottish Grand Committee was agreed by the House of Commons on 21 October 1999.

[renton]

Ok, so here's the side by side comparison:

 

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/712232583791288321

 

It's a re-evaluation of all bands, but the main focus is a cut in lower bands and looks like a balance against the flat rise in income tax. In terms of how progressive it is, the current ratio from top to bottom is 3:1, the SNP proposals are 3.7:1 and the Labour plans are 4.5:1. According to Wightman, in order for this to be a progressive tax you need a ratio of 15:1.

 

So, it's a bit more progressive than the SNP bands (although the latter has extended relief for lower incomes, but Labour's system looks simpler), but still way short of being an overall progressive tax. Other than that, it has the same 3% cap on raising the rate as the SNP system.

[invergowrie arab]

Well that's a relief. The SNP plan was shite and left Labour an open goal for a radical alternative.

Kez has Cummingsed it off the bar and out.

[renton]

Dr Craig Dalzell reckons that Labour changes to local government taxation will bring in £141 million less per year (the SNP reckons their plan brings in £100 million more). That's an appreciable offset against the income tax rise they want to put in, which was raising, what? 400-500 million before the uncosted 'rebate'.

 

Would be quite funny, if after those changes they came out revenue neutral, but with the tax cut on the regressive tax scheme, and the tax rise on the progressive tax scheme.

[renton]

What's the betting that the SNP income tax plans amount to not passing on the 40p rate tax cut from the last budget, which they can pass off as progressive, and revenue raising.

[renton]

Well, there you go. A modest increase in the personal allowance over the UK average, and not passing on a Westminster cut, which they will pass off as raising an 'additional' £1.2 billion. Although if Osborne turned around tomorrow and reversed his decision, that 'additional' increase will vanish.

 

So there you are, the two competing tax plans: The SNP with a tweak to the upper bands of CT and an accounting trick to Income tax (and not forgetting a cut in APD). Labour with a CT cut and an income tax rise. One side doing changing everything in the most boneheaded way possible, the other trying not to do anything and hoping no one notices.

[Peppino Impastato]

Well, there you go. A modest increase in the personal allowance over the UK average, and not passing on a Westminster cut, which they will pass off as raising an 'additional' £1.2 billion. Although if Osborne turned around tomorrow and reversed his decision, that 'additional' increase will vanish.

So there you are, the two competing tax plans: The SNP with a tweak to the upper bands of CT and an accounting trick to Income tax. Labour with a CT cut and an income tax rise. One side doing changing everything in the most boneheaded way possible, the other trying not to do anything and hoping no one notices.

Just highlights how inadequate the range of powers available is. You can't grow your economy with income tax.

[renton]

Just highlights how inadequate the range of powers available is. You can't grow your economy with income tax.

 

No, you can, a more progressive system allows for investment in services most used by lower percentile users while cutting their tax burden - it's about creating the optimal tax system for the economic demographics you have, that allows for a decent level of public service while keeping disposable income as high as possible (the other thing I would do is incentivise employers to pay the living wage, not as good as having that function devolved but it could have a limited impact). The trouble here is that as part of a unitary state it's easy for capital to take flight, in other words, for the well off to re-domicile themselves in England for tax purposes. I get that, it's why for months I reckoned it was important to be radical on taxation of property - something that cannot be easily moved, and I'm more than welcoming of any movement towards an LVT.

 

Still, it's insulting to see the SNP try the same 'raise revenue by not allowing a cut' rhetoric that Labour played with over APD.

[renton]

In fairness, the Labour flat rate tax effectively passes on the Tories 40p tax cut from this budget to the scottish tax payer, the net effect being that the Labour tax policy got more regressive since Osborne announced his budget, as well as raising less revenue overall. Combined with a net cut in CT, it seems like a lot of changes for not very extra revenue going to a Labour government.

 

The SNP, by dint of simply not touching the tax bands at all, have a much more flexible policy, that leaves us no worse than the status quo, and has higher tax earners paying more relative to their rUK counterparts, but crucially not paying more than they do in Scotland now. So if your obsession is with our performance relative to future rUK arrangements, then yes, it's more progressive, if you are comparing like with like, then it's a freeze and no more. How you wish to define additional revenue is up to your perspective then. Because of the byzantine funding arrangements between us and the UK, it's probably ok to say that the SNP will raise more money than they might otherwise have done, and the net effect is probably the same, if not better than Labour's pass the cut on and raise an extra penny policy.

 

it's not radical though, and you can't help but feel there were other options open to them: an additional band between the 40p and top rate (wherever that was to be set) that would raise money from higher earners who might find it a bit harder to re-arrange their tax domiciles. Like the changes ot CT, the income changes are timid, but progressive enough to hang your hat on.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Well, there you go. A modest increase in the personal allowance over the UK average, and not passing on a Westminster cut, which they will pass off as raising an 'additional' £1.2 billion. Although if Osborne turned around tomorrow and reversed his decision, that 'additional' increase will vanish.

So there you are, the two competing tax plans: The SNP with a tweak to the upper bands of CT and an accounting trick to Income tax (and not forgetting a cut in APD). Labour with a CT cut and an income tax rise. One side doing changing everything in the most boneheaded way possible, the other trying not to do anything and hoping no one notices.

Which one's which?

[strichener]

In fairness, the Labour flat rate tax effectively passes on the Tories 40p tax cut from this budget to the scottish tax payer, the net effect being that the Labour tax policy got more regressive since Osborne announced his budget, as well as raising less revenue overall. Combined with a net cut in CT, it seems like a lot of changes for not very extra revenue going to a Labour government.

 

The SNP, by dint of simply not touching the tax bands at all, have a much more flexible policy, that leaves us no worse than the status quo, and has higher tax earners paying more relative to their rUK counterparts, but crucially not paying more than they do in Scotland now. So if your obsession is with our performance relative to future rUK arrangements, then yes, it's more progressive, if you are comparing like with like, then it's a freeze and no more. How you wish to define additional revenue is up to your perspective then. Because of the byzantine funding arrangements between us and the UK, it's probably ok to say that the SNP will raise more money than they might otherwise have done, and the net effect is probably the same, if not better than Labour's pass the cut on and raise an extra penny policy.

 

it's not radical though, and you can't help but feel there were other options open to them: an additional band between the 40p and top rate (wherever that was to be set) that would raise money from higher earners who might find it a bit harder to re-arrange their tax domiciles. Like the changes ot CT, the income changes are timid, but progressive enough to hang your hat on.

Not strictly true.  The rise in the personal allowance is based on CPI which has no link to wage growth.

[renton]

Not strictly true.  The rise in the personal allowance is based on CPI which has no link to wage growth.

 

Yeah, your right.

[strichener]

Yeah, your right.

Just the SG's equivalent of fiscal drag to accompany the UK's version with NI.

[renton]

Just the SG's equivalent of fiscal drag to accompany the UK's version with NI.

 

The SNP's plans at least make sense, even if they aren't that radical. Labour's plans look increasingly demented, when you examine both the fine print of the detail as well as the net effect on the nation's public finances.