The Very Meh Humza Yousaf Thread.

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

That and hiking taxes to pay for his pay rise settlements he used for political capital.

Can you detail the tax brackets you need to be in to suffer these tax hikes?

My understanding is that you will pay the same or less than you did  last year if you earn under £75,000.

Here's a calculator to check your workings https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/income-tax-calculator/

and here's a note of the tax bands & allowances - note that the increased allowances in the starter, basic & intermediate bands will mean that less tax is paid on the first £43,662 and that the same amount of tax will be paid on income between £43,663 & £75,000

Proposed Income Tax rates and bands

	2023-24		2024-25
	Band	Rate	Band	Rate
Starter	£12,571* - £14,732	19%	£12,571* - £14,876	19%
Basic	£14,733 - £25,688	20%	£14,877 - £26,561	20%
Intermediate	£25,689 - £43,662	21%	£26,562 - £43,662	21%
Higher	£43,663 - £125,140**	42%	£43,663 - £75,000	42%
Advanced	N/A	N/A	£75,001 - £125,140**	45%
Top	Above £125,140	47%	Above £125,140	48%

[Todd_is_God]

24 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Can you detail the tax brackets you need to be in to suffer these tax hikes?

You just did. Your point?

[lichtgilphead]

42 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

You just did. Your point?

Tax rises are only applicable to the top ~5% of earners. That's an important point that you missed out in your previous post.

The vast majority of Scottish taxpayers will see a tax cut in 2024/25 (assuming that they earn the same amount as they did in 2023.24.

[Todd_is_God]

15 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Tax rises are only applicable to the top ~5% of earners. That's an important point that you missed out in your previous post.

I'm not sure I follow. You agree there are tax hikes. Do you disagree that they are required primarily to pay for the SGs unfunded pay rise agreements made for political capital gain? Or that hiking them to do so was not a priority?

Edited February 15 by Todd_is_God

[lichtgilphead]

32 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'm not sure I follow. You agree there are tax hikes. Do you disagree that they are required primarily to pay for the SGs unfunded pay rise agreements made for political capital gain? Or that hiking them to do so was not a priority?

I didn't comment on any of the reasons for the increases in tax for the top earners. I disagree with you (and various uber-Yoons) pretence that "HumZa hAz iNcEeaSed aRe taXEs"

For the vast majority of taxpayers, he hasn't

 

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I didn't comment on any of the reasons for the increases in tax for the top earners. I disagree with you (and various uber-Yoons) pretence that "HumZa hAz iNcEeaSed aRe taXEs"

For the vast majority of taxpayers, he hasn't

 

If you’re going to be an arse then @Todd_is_God didn’t say whose taxes were being hiked, just that taxes are being hiked.  The SG’s own published figures say they are aiming to increase tax revenue so yes, they are being hiked.

Whether the changes result in more or less tax revenue is yet to be seen.

[lichtgilphead]

11 minutes ago, Left Back said:

If you’re going to be an arse then @Todd_is_God didn’t say whose taxes were being hiked, just that taxes are being hiked.  The SG’s own published figures say they are aiming to increase tax revenue so yes, they are being hiked.

Whether the changes result in more or less tax revenue is yet to be seen.

If, as you posit, they result in less tax revenue, how does this constitute a hike?

Interesting that you think that supporting a more progressve tax system that reduces taxes on low earners is "being an arse" though. 

[Left Back]

5 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

If, as you posit, they result in less tax revenue, how does this constitute a hike?

Interesting that you think that supporting a more progressve tax system that reduces taxes on low earners is "being an arse" though. 

Fair point.  They’re attempting to hike taxes then.

You were being an arse by not answering a perfectly valid question.

Here’s another one then.  If the changes don’t result in increased tax revenue has Humza made s complete c**t of it or has he successfully conned the gullible that he’s taxing the rich?

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

Fair point.  They’re attempting to hike taxes then.

You were being an arse by not answering a perfectly valid question.

Here’s another one then.  If the changes don’t result in increased tax revenue has Humza made s complete c**t of it or has he successfully conned the gullible that he’s taxing the rich?

What perfectly valid question? All I saw was @Todd_is_God trying to get me to agree with his view that some pay rises were "unfunded". These rises have been paid. Has the SG gone into debt to pay them, or have they just restructured their budget?

With regard to your question, and leaving aside the fact that overall taxation revenues will pretty definitely rise due to wage inflation, let me set out a simple example.

Lets assume that we have a society whrere 95% of taxpayers pay an average of £3500 in income tax and 5% of taxpayers pay £19500 in income tax per year (That equates to around £30000 & about £75000 pre-tax average incomes.

Now, lets assume that the proposed tax changes reduce the yearly tax payable by an average of £50 for the 95%, and increase the average yearly tax payable by the 5% by £1000.

Result - a slight reduction in income tax for the vast majority & an increased overall tax revenue through a more progressive system. 

Obviously, in reality, it's far more complex than this extremely simple example, but it gets the point over, I hope?

[Trogdor]

Tax has been hiked under the SNP Government. Unless you earn below £27,850 and then you pay slightly less.

That's the factual position, I've posted this a few times but do so again. The divergence in tax is the point I take from it.

You can see lichtgilphead's point in the final column which is Scotland 23/24 v 24/25 where those over £75k pay more. I think the second last column is most instructive tbh.

 

[Left Back]

7 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

What perfectly valid question? All I saw was @Todd_is_God trying to get me to agree with his view that some pay rises were "unfunded". These rises have been paid. Has the SG gone into debt to pay them, or have they just restructured their budget?

With regard to your question, and leaving aside the fact that overall taxation revenues will pretty definitely rise due to wage inflation, let me set out a simple example.

Lets assume that we have a society whrere 95% of taxpayers pay an average of £3500 in income tax and 5% of taxpayers pay £19500 in income tax per year (That equates to around £30000 & about £75000 pre-tax average incomes.

Now, lets assume that the proposed tax changes reduce the yearly tax payable by an average of £50 for the 95%, and increase the average yearly tax payable by the 5% by £1000.

Result - a slight reduction in income tax for the vast majority & an increased overall tax revenue through a more progressive system. 

Obviously, in reality, it's far more complex than this extremely simple example, but it gets the point over, I hope?

Word salad.  The rises were unfunded.  That’s why services are being cut.  You can call it re-balancing a budget but we all know what it is.

As to your nonsense maths deflection attempt .  By the SG’s own admission it doesn’t work like that.  Behavioural change will reduce (if not negate) any of the planned increases in income tax.  You’re then ignoring the unfunded freeze in Council tax.  This is also one of the changes.  I didn’t specify which tax changes I was referring to, I was talking in the round about tax changes in general.

Maybe more overall revenue will be raised.  That’s debatable though.  The council tax freeze is costing around £140m and the income tax raises are aiming to raise about £80m.  Doing this from memory so might be slightly off with those figures but good luck trying to square that circle.

As I asked.  Is this simply an attempt at conning the gullible about progression?  I know you’re one of the disciples and you’d defend the SNP if they announced a policy of bayonetting babies for kicks so I don’t expect any kind of honest response from you.

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Tax has been hiked under the SNP Government. Unless you earn below £27,850 and then you pay slightly less.

That's the factual position, I've posted this a few times but do so again. The divergence in tax is the point I take from it.

You can see lichtgilphead's point in the final column which is Scotland 23/24 v 24/25 where those over £75k pay more. I think the second last column is most instructive tbh.

 

That's a very instuctive table. However, no-one was comparing Scottish taxpayers with rUK taxpayers. They were suggesting that Humza has raised taxes on lower paid taxpayers in Scotland.

I'm not sure where you get your £27,850 figure from, though. Please compare the 2nd column with the 4th column. It's clear that every Scottish taxpayer up to & including the £75,000 earner will pay less tax in 2024/25 than they did in 2023/24

[Trogdor]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

That's a very instuctive table. However, no-one was comparing Scottish taxpayers with rUK taxpayers. They were suggesting that Humza has raised taxes on lower paid taxpayers in Scotland.

I'm not sure where you get your £27,850 figure from, though. Please compare the 2nd column with the 4th column. It's clear that every Scottish taxpayer up to & including the £75,000 earner will pay less tax in 2024/25 than they did in 2023/24

My first sentence refers to the SNP Government who have been in power since 2007, not Humza. Hence the fourth column is where the £27,850 comes from. It is only my last sentence that refers to Humza's tenure.

Edited February 15 by Trogdor

[Mr Waldo]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

If, as you posit, they result in less tax revenue, how does this constitute a hike?

Interesting that you think that supporting a more progressve tax system that reduces taxes on low earners is "being an arse" though. 

Patrick Harvie said on a recent Question Time that the Scottish Government are raising income but because it is a progressive tax, that is OK. so 3ither he is wrong, or you are.

Less revenue from a tax hike is possible, if a lot of taxpayers leave the workforce, or the country.

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

Patrick Harvie said on a recent Question Time that the Scottish Government are raising income but because it is a progressive tax, that is OK. so 3ither he is wrong, or you are.

Less revenue from a tax hike is possible, if a lot of taxpayers leave the workforce, or the country.

Do you mean Debate Night last night?

[lichtgilphead]

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Word salad.  The rises were unfunded.  That’s why services are being cut.  You can call it re-balancing a budget but we all know what it is.

As to your nonsense maths deflection attempt .  By the SG’s own admission it doesn’t work like that.  Behavioural change will reduce (if not negate) any of the planned increases in income tax.  You’re then ignoring the unfunded freeze in Council tax.  This is also one of the changes.  I didn’t specify which tax changes I was referring to, I was talking in the round about tax changes in general.

Maybe more overall revenue will be raised.  That’s debatable though.  The council tax freeze is costing around £140m and the income tax raises are aiming to raise about £80m.  Doing this from memory so might be slightly off with those figures but good luck trying to square that circle.

As I asked.  Is this simply an attempt at conning the gullible about progression?  I know you’re one of the disciples and you’d defend the SNP if they announced a policy of bayonetting babies for kicks so I don’t expect any kind of honest response from you.

Thank you, Nostradamus. We're all doomed!

Would you rather move to the rUK system, where people on above average wages taxed less and those below average income are taxed more? See @Trogdor's table above for examples

And yes, obviously I'm all for bayonetting babies. I post about it all the time, Nutter.

19 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

My first sentence refers to the SNP Government who have been in power since 2007, not Humza. Hence the third column is where the £27,850 comes from. It is only my last sentence that refers to Humza's tenure.

If you earned £27850 in 2007, you would have had a £5225 personal allowance, paid 10% on the next £2230 and 22% on the rest. I make that a total income tax bill of (0 + 223 +4487) which makes a total of £4710. Your table says you would pay only £3259 in 2024.25. 

As far as I recall, the £27850 relates to comparing Scottish income tax with the income tax paid in rUK. So what?

 

34 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

Patrick Harvie said on a recent Question Time that the Scottish Government are raising income but because it is a progressive tax, that is OK. so 3ither he is wrong, or you are.

Less revenue from a tax hike is possible, if a lot of taxpayers leave the workforce, or the country.

I have never denied that the Scottish Government are targeting tax rises on those earning more than £75000. That's what a progressive tax system is all about.

Agreed that less revenue is possible, but falling population will also be affected by the UK Govt's immigration policies. We already need more people in Scotland. More taxpayers means more revenue.

[Trogdor]

10 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

If you earned £27850 in 2007, you would have had a £5225 personal allowance, paid 10% on the next £2230 and 22% on the rest. I make that a total income tax bill of (0 + 223 +4487) which makes a total of £4710. Your table says you would pay only £3259 in 2024.25. 

As far as I recall, the £27850 relates to comparing Scottish income tax with the income tax paid in rUK. So what?

I never said tax had risen in perpetuity since 2007 nor did I say any of the table I shared related to 2007. I said the SNP have been in government since 2007. There was no divergence in income tax until 2017 (if my memory serves me). As a fellow pedant you know this.

The £27,850 directly relates to Scottish vs UK income tax. Which is relevant as the divergence is as a result of the Scottish Government's decisions. Namely more bands and more tax rates and not increasing the thresholds each year (fiscal drag - Jeremy Hunt was so impressed with that one that he's now nicked it).

You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but the tax burden has increased under the SNP relative to the rUK. The exception being those earning less than £28,750 who pay slightly less. That was my original point.

[Left Back]

41 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Thank you, Nostradamus. We're all doomed!

Would you rather move to the rUK system, where people on above average wages taxed less and those below average income are taxed more? See @Trogdor's table above for examples

Still failing to answer the question then.  You’re obviously a fan of what the SG are doing.  That’s what this topic is about.  If you want to question what rUK are doing feel free to go start another discussion about it on another thread.

I’ll ask again.

Will they raise more revenue or is it an attempt to con the gullible?

It’s a simple question.

[lichtgilphead]

42 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I never said tax had risen in perpetuity since 2007 nor did I say any of the table I shared related to 2007. I said the SNP have been in government since 2007. There was no divergence in income tax until 2017 (if my memory serves me). As a fellow pedant you know this.

The £27,850 directly relates to Scottish vs UK income tax. Which is relevant as the divergence is as a result of the Scottish Government's decisions. Namely more bands and more tax rates and not increasing the thresholds each year (fiscal drag - Jeremy Hunt was so impressed with that one that he's now nicked it).

You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but the tax burden has increased under the SNP relative to the rUK. The exception being those earning less than £28,750 who pay slightly less. That was my original point.

So, the vast majority of low earners in Scotland pay less than low earners in rUK. You say that like it's a bad thing.

I have never disputed that a Scottish income tax payer pays more than a fUK taxpayer if he earns above £27850. Personally, I would argue that the Scottish income tax system is more progressive and therefore fairer, even though it impacts my own wage packet.

However, if we're going to compare tax rates in different areas of the UK, let's also look at council tax. Why should the poor citizens of Rutland be penalised by the highest council tax in the land? Why is the Scottish average band D council tax £100 less than the average English equivalent?

Let's also look at the VAT paid on electricity bills. Scotland has the highest electricity prices in the UK, and therefore pays more tax

Funny how those taxes are never mentioned mentioned when a few pennies on a £30000 salary makes the front pages of the Mail/Exoress on a daily basis

15 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Will they raise more revenue or is it an attempt to con the gullible?

It’s a simple question.

I've already said that I prefer a more progressive tax system. Obviously, I hope that it raises more revenue. The proof will be in the pudding as 2024/25 tax year hasn't started yet.

I count you amongst the gullible, however. Is it the Mail or the Express that you gat your opinions from?

Before you ask, btw, I also believe that the baby-bayonetting squad should be given a personal allowance of £1000000 before they pay income tax.

 

EDITED TO ADD: I didn't bring up the comparison with rUK, so I'm not sure why @Left Back is having a go at me

Edited February 16 by lichtgilphead

[Left Back]

Just now, lichtgilphead said:

 

I've already said that I prefer a more progressive tax system. Obviously, I hope that it raises more revenue. The proof will be in the pudding as 2024/25 tax year hasn't started yet.

I count you amongst the gullible, however. Is it the Mail or the Express that you gat your opinions from?

Before you ask, btw, I also believe that the baby-bayonetting squad should be given a personal allowance of £1000000 before they pay income tax.

Never read either in my life but you bash on making a tit of yourself with comments like that

Good luck with advocating this as a progressive tax change.  Is a Council Tax freeze considered progressive these days seeing as the wealthy are supposed to benefit from it more?

You seem to have rapidly back-tracked from your certainty that income tax rises would definitely bring in more revenue to a hope that these changes overall only might?  Is that as a result of actually thinking about something rather than swallowing the propoganda?

I’m sure you can forgive us mere mortals that can’t see beyond the figures I presented.  SG obviously have thought this all through carefully and crunched the numbers.  No reasonable person could possibly think this is on the hoof and reacting to Humza’s briliant public sector wage negotiation strategy.  No reasonable person could possibly think it’s a con trick.  It must be a right wing media conspiracy theory.

I note you saying you’ve never proposed bayonetting babies.  I never claimed you did.  I also note you didn’t deny that you’d defend the SNP if they did introduce such a policy.  I disagree with your idea for personal allowances for people that want to undertake in such activities though.