lichtgilphead Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 28 minutes ago, Left Back said: Never read either in my life but you bash on making a tit of yourself with comments like that Well, you're practically quoting their nonsense about taxation in Scotland. Lie with rthe dogs, you get fleas. 28 minutes ago, Left Back said: Good luck with advocating this as a progressive tax change. Here's the relevant definition "A progressive tax involves a tax rate that increases (or progresses) as taxable income increases. It imposes a lower tax rate on low-income earners and a higher tax rate on those with a higher income. This is usually achieved by creating tax brackets that group taxpayers by income range." It is more progressive than both the previous Scottish tax regime and the far flatter rUK tax regime. 28 minutes ago, Left Back said: Is a Council Tax freeze considered progressive these days seeing as the wealthy are supposed to benefit from it more? I don't support the Council Tax freeze. Look back to my posts when it was announced. 28 minutes ago, Left Back said: 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? Stop making stuff up. I specifically stated that "overall taxation revenues will pretty definitely rise due to wage inflation" If you don't understand the difference between a rise in revenue due to wage inflation and a rise in revenue due to changing tax rates, then you shouldn't be commenting on tax matters. 28 minutes ago, Left Back said: I’m sure you can forgive us mere mortals that can’t see beyond the figures I presented. What figures you presented? Your back of a fag predictions about the cost of freezing council tax & raising tax on high earners? If you had quoted a repurable source, I might have responded. 32 minutes ago, Left Back said: 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. Ah, back to the sarcasm when you have nothing left to say. Well done you. 34 minutes ago, Left Back said: 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. I've already said that I'm a huge fan of both the bayonetting babies policy and the introduction of tax-free status for the people that carry it out. Obviously, I was taking the piss out of your original claim that I would support anything the SNP put forward. There are plenty SNP policies I disagree with, but I actually look at each case on its merits, rather than using the Bain Pri/nciple so beloved of Scottish Labour 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said: Stop making stuff up. I specifically stated that "overall taxation revenues will pretty definitely rise due to wage inflation" If you don't understand the difference between a rise in revenue due to wage inflation and a rise in revenue due to changing tax rates, then you shouldn't be commenting on tax matters. What figures you presented? Your back of a fag predictions about the cost of freezing council tax & raising tax on high earners? If you had quoted a repurable source, I might have responded. Sigh. If Humza had got a free toy in his cereal box on the morning of his speech and not had so much time on his hands wages would have risen, fiscal drag would have happened, Council Tax would have gone up and more money would go into the Scottish and local governments budget. If Shona Robison had spent her time as Cabinet Secretary for Finance getting her nails done and sipping pina coladas the same wages would have risen, the same fiscal drag and the same extra money going to the budgets. That’s the baseline. It would have happened anyway. To keep it simple for you we’ll call that neutral. Even better actually, we’ll call it 0. Do nothing = 0. Humza didn’t get a free toy though and in his snap, crackle and pop rage he said he’d take an anticipated rise in government finances off the government by saying the taxpayers don’t have to pay it (Council tax raise) Estimated cost £144m. Hope this source is reputable enough. https://www.thenational.scot/news/24123250.glasgow-city-council-passes-budget-backing-council-tax-freeze/ Here’s where it gets complicated. It’s a brutal formula but I’ll try and break it down. Baseline-cost=result. That means 0-144=-144. I hope you followed that but in case you didn’t we’re now £144m down from where we were if nothing had been done. With a supposedly regressive tax change as well. Now Shona comes along with her income tax changes. Estimated at £82m gain. Again I hope this source is reputable enough. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25/pages/4/#:~:text=These changes are proposed to,82 million in 2024-25. Back to the maths. Try and stay with me. Loss+gain=net result. That means -144+82=-62 The tax changes have therefore made SG (and public services) a best case estimate of £62m worse off. I say best case because I’m 100% sure the government estimate of an £82m gain in income tax is in no way a best way they can spin the estimate based on behavioural change, tax avoidance etc. To summarise. The recently announced tax changes have put the public finances in Scotland in s worse state, while being spun as a cost of living relief and taxing the wealthy. Cost of living relief you could just about sell but income tax gains from the wealthy are offset by their Council tax relief. An absolute fucking con trick. Edited February 16 by Left Back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 8 hours ago, lichtgilphead said: They were suggesting that Humza has raised taxes on lower paid taxpayers in Scotland. I certainly didn’t say this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 10 hours ago, Todd_is_God said: I certainly didn’t say this I didn't mean to refer to you - apologies if it read that way. It's @Jedi2 that claims that the SNP has raised the income tax on the low paid 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 16 hours ago, Left Back said: Sigh. If Humza had got a free toy in his cereal box on the morning of his speech and not had so much time on his hands wages would have risen, fiscal drag would have happened, Council Tax would have gone up and more money would go into the Scottish and local governments budget. If Shona Robison had spent her time as Cabinet Secretary for Finance getting her nails done and sipping pina coladas the same wages would have risen, the same fiscal drag and the same extra money going to the budgets. That’s the baseline. It would have happened anyway. To keep it simple for you we’ll call that neutral. Even better actually, we’ll call it 0. Do nothing = 0. Humza didn’t get a free toy though and in his snap, crackle and pop rage he said he’d take an anticipated rise in government finances off the government by saying the taxpayers don’t have to pay it (Council tax raise) Estimated cost £144m. Hope this source is reputable enough. https://www.thenational.scot/news/24123250.glasgow-city-council-passes-budget-backing-council-tax-freeze/ Here’s where it gets complicated. It’s a brutal formula but I’ll try and break it down. Baseline-cost=result. That means 0-144=-144. I hope you followed that but in case you didn’t we’re now £144m down from where we were if nothing had been done. With a supposedly regressive tax change as well. Now Shona comes along with her income tax changes. Estimated at £82m gain. Again I hope this source is reputable enough. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25/pages/4/#:~:text=These changes are proposed to,82 million in 2024-25. Back to the maths. Try and stay with me. Loss+gain=net result. That means -144+82=-62 The tax changes have therefore made SG (and public services) a best case estimate of £62m worse off. I say best case because I’m 100% sure the government estimate of an £82m gain in income tax is in no way a best way they can spin the estimate based on behavioural change, tax avoidance etc. To summarise. The recently announced tax changes have put the public finances in Scotland in s worse state, while being spun as a cost of living relief and taxing the wealthy. Cost of living relief you could just about sell but income tax gains from the wealthy are offset by their Council tax relief. An absolute fucking con trick. I must have missed the lecture on the effect of free toys, manicures & cocktails on economic theory. Strip away the padding, however, and we're left with 3 assertions from @Left Back 1) The baseline would be zero if no tax changes had been made Absolute nonsense. Wage inflation running at 6.2% would have meant additional tax income, changes to the block grant from Westminster will have an effect etc, etc etc 2) Not allowing the Local Authorities to raise Council Tax means that the SG will lose £144m More nonsense. The SG have offered LA's £144m not to raise council tax (I've already stated that I disagree with this policy - it should be more). This offer is funded from the SG's budget - which MUST balance. What does it matter if LA's receive slightly more money from central taxation rather than local taxation, when the total income remains the same. 3) Tax changes only raise £82m If you look properly at the article linked by @Left Back, you only need to read the next f*cking line to get the full picture. The SFC estimate that introducing the new 45p Advanced rate band and increasing the Top rate by 1p will raise an additional £82 million in 2024-25. The Scottish Government estimate that freezing the Higher rate threshold in 2024-25 has added an additional £307 million to the Scottish Income Tax forecast, relative to it increasing in line with CPI inflation of 6.7 per cent In conclusion, the fact that none of @Left Back's assersions stand up to the most basic scrutiny only confirms his economic illiteracy. I think I'm done here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 39 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: I must have missed the lecture on the effect of free toys, manicures & cocktails on economic theory. Strip away the padding, however, and we're left with 3 assertions from @Left Back 1) The baseline would be zero if no tax changes had been made Absolute nonsense. Wage inflation running at 6.2% would have meant additional tax income, changes to the block grant from Westminster will have an effect etc, etc etc 2) Not allowing the Local Authorities to raise Council Tax means that the SG will lose £144m More nonsense. The SG have offered LA's £144m not to raise council tax (I've already stated that I disagree with this policy - it should be more). This offer is funded from the SG's budget - which MUST balance. What does it matter if LA's receive slightly more money from central taxation rather than local taxation, when the total income remains the same. 3) Tax changes only raise £82m If you look properly at the article linked by @Left Back, you only need to read the next f*cking line to get the full picture. The SFC estimate that introducing the new 45p Advanced rate band and increasing the Top rate by 1p will raise an additional £82 million in 2024-25. The Scottish Government estimate that freezing the Higher rate threshold in 2024-25 has added an additional £307 million to the Scottish Income Tax forecast, relative to it increasing in line with CPI inflation of 6.7 per cent In conclusion, the fact that none of @Left Back's assersions stand up to the most basic scrutiny only confirms his economic illiteracy. I think I'm done here. You really are making an arse of yourself aren’t you? Go back and read and attempt to comprehend. I said all the stuff like wage inflation would raise additional tax revenue. That’s a given. Go and look back at the changes versus doing nothing. Read the SG’s own publication. Lets try again. SG doing nothing = Councils raising council tax so an extra £144m (at least) being transferred from the pockets of the public to government coffers, instead of being shuffled between government bank accounts. SG doing nothing means the £307m additional revenue from freezing (i.e. doing nothing) would still happen, and is the plan, because of wage rises and fiscal drag. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion. It would have happened if the SG did nothing, it still happened when the SG did stuff. Great attempt at a face saving smokescreen from yourself but it’s easy to see through it. SG doing nothing means the extra £82m wouldn’t be raised. The changes (i.e.doing something) like taking the actions they have, are what has cost government coffers £62m. If you genuinely can’t grasp this simple maths you’re beyond help. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 32 minutes ago, Left Back said: You really are making an arse of yourself aren’t you? Go back and read and attempt to comprehend. I said all the stuff like wage inflation would raise additional tax revenue. That’s a given. Go and look back at the changes versus doing nothing. Read the SG’s own publication. Lets try again. SG doing nothing = Councils raising council tax so an extra £144m (at least) being transferred from the pockets of the public to government coffers, instead of being shuffled between government bank accounts. SG doing nothing means the £307m additional revenue from freezing (i.e. doing nothing) would still happen, and is the plan, because of wage rises and fiscal drag. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion. It would have happened if the SG did nothing, it still happened when the SG did stuff. Great attempt at a face saving smokescreen from yourself but it’s easy to see through it. SG doing nothing means the extra £82m wouldn’t be raised. The changes (i.e.doing something) like taking the actions they have, are what has cost government coffers £62m. If you genuinely can’t grasp this simple maths you’re beyond help. So, you admit that the baseline is not zero. Fair enough. I thought that you claimed to be left of centre? Your preferred policies appear to be aimed at taxing the poor more heavily! Council tax: SG doing nothing = Councils raising council tax so an extra £144m (at least) being transferred from the pockets of the public to government coffers, instead of being shuffled between government bank accounts. You want to increase a regressive tax (Council tax) instead of moving to a more progressive income tax system. A low-paid band A council tax payer in Argyll & Bute would pay an extra ~£50 instead of getting an income tax cut, whilst someone in a band H house on a salary of £100000 would pay an extra ~£181 council tax instead of having an income tax rise of around £750. Income tax: SG doing nothing means the £307m additional revenue from freezing (i.e. doing nothing) would still happen Again, you want to increase taxes on the lower-paid. Doing nothing means that the increases of the allowances in the starter, basic & intermediate bands wouldn't happen either. This will result in the SG getting additional income tax receipts. Will this pay for the toys, manicures & cocktails? Effectively, you are transferring the extra £86m tax burden from the people who earn over £75000 onto the people that earn under £75000, who will all pay more than they would have had the allowances not been raised. This will affect the taxpayer on £25000 to lose proportionately more than the taxpayer on £70000. SG doing nothing means the extra £82m wouldn’t be raised. Tax cuts for the rich all round! Hurrah! No wonder the Tories on here give you greenies. You're as bad as they are. Anyway, I'm done with your nonsense. Away and peddle your regressive taxation theories elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 The baseline is 0 because that would have happened anyway. If you read my posts I’ve already stated this. You’re trying a play on words but still getting nowhere. Unlucky. I never claimed to be anything. Never have on this forum. If you want to make assumptions about whether I’m left or right you feel free. Doesn’t make you correct. Also these aren’t my policies, they’re the Scottish Governments. Unlucky. The people that gain most out of s council tax freeze are the wealthy so yes this is regressive. Unlucky. The £307m rise would have happened whether or not Shona and Humza spent the day in the pub or decided to do some tinkering so is still irrelevant. I never said if that threshold should or shouldn’t be frozen. I merely stated the facts. I never said income taxes should be raised on the lower paid. Unlucky. The lost £62m (not 82) would not have come from the poorest. It’s been lost by freezing Council Tax. Council Tax isn’t only paid by the poorest. Unlucky (although it wouldn’t all have come from the wealthy) You’ve also (with your spin and deflection) failed to address the question of whether the actions of the government have cost the Scottish finances £62m or not. It’s obvious you’ve finally accepted that fact with your wee rant trying to justify it though. Keep bashing on. You can’t change the facts no matter how much you try. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said: ) Not allowing the Local Authorities to raise Council Tax means that the SG will lose £144m More nonsense. The SG have offered LA's £144m not to raise council tax (I've already stated that I disagree with this policy - it should be more). This offer is funded from the SG's budget - which MUST balance. What does it matter if LA's receive slightly more money from central taxation rather than local taxation, when the total income remains the same. The source of income matters though. When the money comes from the SG, it is at the direct expense of some other funded service (as you said the budget must balance). If a council tax rise was allowed and the Scottish Government funding is accurate the that £144m would have been additional income to the public sector. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 16 minutes ago, strichener said: The source of income matters though. When the money comes from the SG, it is at the direct expense of some other funded service (as you said the budget must balance). If a council tax rise was allowed and the Scottish Government funding is accurate the that £144m would have been additional income to the public sector. I take your point, but practically all government income (be it local or national) is provided by taxpayers. The state's total tax take is a subject for another day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 My god I think he’s finally got it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 I see the 10% rise in Council tax by A & B council yesterday has prompted a new offer today by the SG in return for a freeze. The original pool of 147m is to be increased by a further 62.7m in return for all LAs agreeing a freeze. No idea what happens at A & B given their announcement yesterday but it looks like this might be enough to prevent others following them with a raise. Utterly mental policy !!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 Tbf it was "making it up as he goes along" that gave birth to the policy in the first place. Still: how come it was a 'final offer' with 'no more funds'... then suddenly after some break ranks precisely 30% more appears? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 Good to see Humza ignoring the doubters and digging deep for Gaza. I wonder if the good people of Brechin can expect to see similar generosity soon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 Torygraph going full zoomer you love to see it ,they really are desperate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 3 hours ago, AyrExile said: Good to see Humza ignoring the doubters and digging deep for Gaza. I wonder if the good people of Brechin can expect to see similar generosity soon You appear to be comparing the plight of the people of Gaza with Brechin. If you are give your head a wobble ffs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 4 hours ago, Billy Jean King said: You appear to be comparing the plight of the people of Gaza with Brechin. If you are give your head a wobble ffs. This is along the lines of the reply that I was going to post but couldn't be bothered to. I'm sure @AyrExile is proud of his contribution that infers that Scotland is inadequate or not worthy of offering compassion 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 2 hours ago, sophia said: This is along the lines of the reply that I was going to post but couldn't be bothered to. I'm sure @AyrExile is proud of his contribution that infers that Scotland is inadequate or not worthy of offering compassion Advisors recommended an amount to contribute and the FM chose to ignore this. As this is taxpayers cash is there a good reason to select a different figure? This happened shortly before his relatives were granted a pass out. Even if nothing dodgy has happened it does look rather wrong. I'm sure this can be cleared up early next week with the official paperwork. Happy to admit Humza did good when this happens 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 4 minutes ago, AyrExile said: Advisors recommended an amount to contribute and the FM chose to ignore this. As this is taxpayers cash is there a good reason to select a different figure? This happened shortly before his relatives were granted a pass out. Even if nothing dodgy has happened it does look rather wrong. I'm sure this can be cleared up early next week with the official paperwork. Happy to admit Humza did good when this happens Citation and explanation for your subjectivity required 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 4 minutes ago, sophia said: Citation and explanation for your subjectivity required Why? A quick search of media channels and you will read this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.