Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Is this question really so difficult that the resident nationalists prefer just to ignore it? Surely any proponent of independence worth his salt would be rushing answer it. No?

 

Barrheadboy will be along shortly to ignore your question and then ask you to name him "3 things that can be done in the Union that can't be done with independence".... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrheadboy will be along shortly to ignore your question and then ask you to name him "3 things that can be done in the Union that can't be done with independence".... :D

 

Surely he wouldn’t be so irresponsible as to promote independence without first making it clear he knows what it would mean for us all ... would he?

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've answered Barrheadboy's question more than once. I can envisage him outside the Tunnocks factory, protesting about the packaging, with his pals.

 

I've been posting that same question for the last five years. The only responses I have ever received have been silence of abuse. The blowhards haven't a clue but want you to take the gamble anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain the relevance of "living in the house for a while" vs the tax paid on the property - living in the house justifies a 20k tax bill ? For clarity, I paid that tax willingly and knowing it was the system - doesn't mean it is just or equitable :thup:

 

Yeah it's just the tax system. In the UK, as we've seen on here, people are loath to pay high income tax, so we keep that relatively low and charge loads elsewhere.

 

But key to understanding it is the way tax works here. Tax is generally placed not on essentials but instead on what is perceived as luxury.

 

So with income tax, if you're on a low wage you're on low tax so you can afford the essentials. High wage, then essentials aren't a problem and so you're taxed more as you can afford luxuries.

 

VAT is by definition on luxuries.

 

Stamp duty means you're buying a house, which is now considered a luxury if it's over 300k. The more expensive the house, the more the luxury, the more the tax.

 

Alcohol, tobacco, petrol, flying etc are all considered luxuries which also have a negative impact on society and/or the environment.

 

The point is to tax what people can afford, especially when they have excess, but creating a society where almost everyone can afford the basics.

 

The thing is, that there are far more lower income people than high income, and so they have a lot of power. Push them too far and they will take it - as in many revolutions. If the rich get too greedy they could end up in a communist state where no matter your job you get the same wage - or maybe just something that happened in the UK - 98% tax rates. To understand that, just try explaining to a low paid worker who works incredibly hard to just about pay the bills and live very basically in a run down council house, why you deserve to live so much better than them because of the work you do...

 

You think because you pay a lot of tax, you contribute a lot, but a lot of lower paid people, will see you as a taker as they will think you are a taking far too big a share of the finite resources to start with, and so you should be giving a lot of it back - especially when you're splashing it around on very expensive houses.

 

The point is we need some kind of balance to stop the gap between the haves and have-nots getting too big, otherwise it will eventually try to equalise itself in more angry ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's just the tax system. In the UK, as we've seen on here, people are loath to pay high income tax, so we keep that relatively low and charge loads elsewhere.

 

But key to understanding it is the way tax works here. Tax is generally placed not on essentials but instead on what is perceived as luxury.

 

So with income tax, if you're on a low wage you're on low tax so you can afford the essentials. High wage, then essentials aren't a problem and so you're taxed more as you can afford luxuries.

 

VAT is by definition on luxuries.

 

Stamp duty means you're buying a house, which is now considered a luxury if it's over 300k. The more expensive the house, the more the luxury, the more the tax.

 

Alcohol, tobacco, petrol, flying etc are all considered luxuries which also have a negative impact on society and/or the environment.

 

The point is to tax what people can afford, especially when they have excess, but creating a society where almost everyone can afford the basics.

 

The thing is, that there are far more lower income people than high income, and so they have a lot of power. Push them too far and they will take it - as in many revolutions. If the rich get too greedy they could end up in a communist state where no matter your job you get the same wage - or maybe just something that happened in the UK - 98% tax rates. To understand that, just try explaining to a low paid worker who works incredibly hard to just about pay the bills and live very basically in a run down council house, why you deserve to live so much better than them because of the work you do...

 

You think because you pay a lot of tax, you contribute a lot, but a lot of lower paid people, will see you as a taker as they will think you are a taking far too big a share of the finite resources to start with, and so you should be giving a lot of it back - especially when you're splashing it around on very expensive houses.

 

The point is we need some kind of balance to stop the gap between the haves and have-nots getting too big, otherwise it will eventually try to equalise itself in more angry ways.

 

All very good but it works the other way too. Those that get get taxed more tend (not exclusively) to be those who are more educated, entrepreneurial or have specialist skills. Tax them too much then, if there is a market for their attributes elsewhere, then you end up with a brain drain and those people leaving the country. I think it is getting a bit like that now.

 

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on what way you look at it) those people on a higher wage are those who are providing most to the country from a GDP / tax point of view. Should they not deserve to live somewhere better? It’s a hard question to answer but with all things “capitalism”, why should someone work hard / apply their skill when they are not remunerated accordingly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres been an awful lot of Scot Gov/SNP bashing in this thread & comments about how bad an Independent Scotland would be....

 

Maybe some of the Unionist could highlight some of the Positives that effect each & every one of us, of being in a Union with England???

 

This is something that "Project Fear" completely failed to do at the time of the referendum.

 

How does being in the Union benefit the population of Scotland???

Link to post
Share on other sites

All very good but it works the other way too. Those that get get taxed more tend (not exclusively) to be those who are more educated, entrepreneurial or have specialist skills. Tax them too much then, if there is a market for their attributes elsewhere, then you end up with a brain drain and those people leaving the country. I think it is getting a bit like that now.

 

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on what way you look at it) those people on a higher wage are those who are providing most to the country from a GDP / tax point of view. Should they not deserve to live somewhere better? It’s a hard question to answer but with all things “capitalism”, why should someone work hard / apply their skill when they are not remunerated accordingly?

 

" The poorest 10 per cent of households in the UK pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the richest 10 per cent, new analysis has revealed.

 

Officials statistics show the lowest tenth of earners pay an average of 42 per cent of their income in the form of income tax, national insurance, VAT and council tax.

 

In contrast, the richest 10 per cent see around a third (34.4 per cent) of their earnings go to the taxman, according to analysis by The Equality Trust.

 

 

 

Council tax and VAT were found to hit the poorest households particularly hard. Low earners pay an average of seven per cent of their income in council tax while the wealthiest households pay just 1.5 per cent.

 

A similar trend applies to VAT, on which the poor pay 12.5 per cent of their income while the rich pay five per cent.

 

Reports this week suggested Theresa May and Philip Hammond are planning to hike VAT by 2.5 per cent after the 8 June election, hitting poor families even harder. David Cameron’s coalition government raised VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent in 2011, despite the Tories previously having said they had “no plans” to increase it.

 

In analysis that paints a stark picture of inequality in Britain, The Equality Trust found that the richest 10 per cent of households have an average pre-tax income of £110,632 per year compared to just £19,992 for the poorest. "

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lowest-earners-more-tax-richest-office-national-statistics-inequality-council-tax-vat-equality-trust-a7704331.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres been an awful lot of Scot Gov/SNP bashing in this thread & comments about how bad an Independent Scotland would be....

 

Maybe some of the Unionist could highlight some of the Positives that effect each & every one of us, of being in a Union with England???

 

This is something that "Project Fear" completely failed to do at the time of the referendum.

 

How does being in the Union benefit the population of Scotland???

 

Quite simply, we're be better off financially, lower taxes, higher employment etc etc.

 

It's been highlighted many times but many would prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and just go around saying "project fear"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite simply, we're be better off financially, lower taxes, higher employment etc etc.

 

It's been highlighted many times but many would prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and just go around saying "project fear"

 

Being able to run a £13.3 bn deficit and have your neighbour pay it off every year ... how's that for a benefit of union. Who thinks Nikla's chums in Brussels would do the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.