So not Implementing a Cut is the same as a Hike

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Is it?

The Scottish government are indicating that they will not implement the increases in the Higher tax rate threshold Osborne has planned for 2017 to 2020. If they do this it will mean that by 2020 a Scottish higher rate taxpayer will be paying about £1300 a year more than their English counterparts.

Of course this is being portrayed by critics of the SNP government as a 'tax hike' - when of course it isn't - the Scottish higher rate taxpayer will be paying the same tax as they are today.

Don't you just love how politicians spin figures to make their own political points - even when the spin is obvious nonsense.

Anyway - it wouldn't stop me moving to Scotland given how much cheaper the cost of living in Scotland is compared to many parts of the rest of the UK - and especially the part that I live.

(aside - interesting and coincidental that this £1300 gain for higher rate tax payers is the same as the loss under tax credit changes that many of the poorer will suffer?).

 

[woody69]

In real terms it is a hike though isn't it due to inflation?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In real terms it is a hike though isn't it due to inflation?

Just as well inflation is 0%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34255161

 

[chrisd]

If I was going to pay more tax I'd see it as a hike!

 

[Hobbit]

I can't believe you're selling this as a good thing! Why is taxing the electorate a good thing? Surely balancing the books would be better rather than taking money to fund more stupid policies. The SNP are like old Labour on speed.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I loved this mornings explanation of Scottish Labour's budget finance method.


A deceased farmer has left 17 cows to his three sons in his will.
The first son gets half of the herd, second son then gets 1/6th and third son 1/9th
They were arguing about the split when a wise neighbour passes and they ask advice.

To make things easy I shall add one of my cows to the herd, he says.
Sons then get 9,6 and 2 cows each and the neighbour gets his cow back.

 

[woody69]

Just as well inflation is 0%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34255161

LOL, just because inflation was at 0% for 1 month, doesn't mean it will be year on year and certainly not in 5 years time.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If I was going to pay more tax I'd see it as a hike!

You're just not paying less tax - how can that be a hike

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

LOL, just because inflation was at 0% for 1 month, doesn't mean it will be year on year and certainly not in 5 years time.

So because the current government didn't raise the starting point for higher rate tax over the last few years they can be accused of hiking tax? though I don't recall hear them being accused of it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I can't believe you're selling this as a good thing! Why is taxing the electorate a good thing? Surely balancing the books would be better rather than taking money to fund more stupid policies. The SNP are like old Labour on speed.

If you don't tax the electorate you don't have an public services - tax is a necessary thing.

And I contrast the fact that, under the current government, by 2020 higher rate earners will be £1300 a year better off - and lowest rate earners with be £1300 worse off. Never mind that for higher rate earners that £1300 will pay for a nice holiday or whatever - whilst the loss of £1300 for the poorer is less food on the table. One nation government for all my backside. Frankly utterly disgraceful.

All the SNP government are doing is recognising the absurdity of that scenario. And the are not 'hiking' taxation - they are keeping it the same as it currently is. Many things in Scotland are different to how they are in England - this would be just one more - and I don't think it will drive many hiugh earning folk out of the country,

 

[Doon frae Troon]

So because the current government didn't raise the starting point for higher rate tax over the last few years they can be accused of hiking tax? though I don't recall hear them being accused of it.

Ah ....but you did not factor in 'SNP bad'

Wonder how the Carmichael case is going......taking as long as Chilcott.

 

[Hobbit]

If you don't tax the electorate you don't have an public services - tax is a necessary thing.

And I contrast the fact that, under the current government, by 2020 higher rate earners will be £1300 a year better off - and lowest rate earners with be £1300 worse off. Never mind that for higher rate earners that £1300 will pay for a nice holiday or whatever - whilst the loss of £1300 for the poorer is less food on the table. One nation government for all my backside. Frankly utterly disgraceful.

All the SNP government are doing is recognising the absurdity of that scenario. And the are not 'hiking' taxation - they are keeping it the same as it currently is. Many things in Scotland are different to how they are in England - this would be just one more - and I don't think it will drive many hiugh earning folk out of the country,

I have no problem with income tax, and wouldn't mind if they upped it to pay for the right things. Equally, I feel that taxation should be the same for all. Why should someone be taxed at a higher rate for being more successful?

Some daft figures. Guy earns £20,000 and pays 20% tax on about £10,000, i.e. he loses £2,000 income tax and £1,000 in NI = £3,000. Guy earns £60,000 and ends up paying £13,000 income tax and £5,000 in NI = £18,000. Where is the fairness in that? Tax rise after tax rise after tax rise under Labour, and the SNP will take Scotland in the same direction. And with the price of oil at its current level, the SNP will make sure the level of taxation (ultimately) put in place will fund their dream of an independent Scotland.

And why will the lowest earners be £1300 worse off, and don't forget a number of them don't receive tax credits before you use that as the reason.

 

[Rooter]

Not read the whole the whole thread, but can I still have my holiday to the Bahamas next year?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have no problem with income tax, and wouldn't mind if they upped it to pay for the right things. Equally, I feel that taxation should be the same for all. Why should someone be taxed at a higher rate for being more successful?

Some daft figures. Guy earns £20,000 and pays 20% tax on about £10,000, i.e. he loses £2,000 income tax and £1,000 in NI = £3,000. Guy earns £60,000 and ends up paying £13,000 income tax and £5,000 in NI = £18,000. Where is the fairness in that? Tax rise after tax rise after tax rise under Labour, and the SNP will take Scotland in the same direction. And with the price of oil at its current level, the SNP will make sure the level of taxation (ultimately) put in place will fund their dream of an independent Scotland.

And why will the lowest earners be £1300 worse off, and don't forget a number of them don't receive tax credits before you use that as the reason.

Because all the analysis shows how tax credit changes will result in many (in fact millions) lowest earners being £1300 a year worse off.

Quoting from

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7300

These changes from April 2016 will affect almost all in-work recipients of tax credits. At April 2015, 3.3 million in-work families received tax credits, of whom 2.7 million had children. The average impact across all affected families can be roughly estimated as a reduction in the tax credit award of around £1,300 in 2016-17. The actual impact will vary from family to family however; some will lose more than this amount, others less. Some families will lose entitlement to tax credits completely.

And the fairness in the comparative example you give is that the higher earner can afford to contribute more to the pot.

 

[Beezerk]

Not read the whole the whole thread, but can I still have my holiday to the Bahamas next year?

Not for £1300 you can't, Skegness maybe.

 

[Hobbit]

Because all the analysis shows how tax credit changes will result in many (in fact millions) lowest earners being £1300 a year worse off.

Quoting from

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7300

These changes from April 2016 will affect almost all in-work recipients of tax credits. At April 2015, 3.3 million in-work families received tax credits, of whom 2.7 million had children. The average impact across all affected families can be roughly estimated as a reduction in the tax credit award of around £1,300 in 2016-17. The actual impact will vary from family to family however; some will lose more than this amount, others less. Some families will lose entitlement to tax credits completely.

And the fairness in the comparative example you give is that the higher earner can afford to contribute more to the pot.

There is no fairness in whether or not someone can afford more. Taking more off one than the other is, in my opinion, very unfair. Taking equal is fair, or at least at the same rate. Taking more and at a higher rate is very unfair. Think about how much tax someone on £500k must pay...£198,000 in income tax alone, and £49,000 in NI. And someone wants more to fund their political ideals...? Its obscene to take that much money off some one who's earned it.

As for those losing out on tax credits; some will undoubtedly suffer. And of those suffering, how many will it mean no 2 weeks in Spain next year. Daughter #2 gets the full monty, and I can't believe how much it is. I took her for her weekly shop a couple of months back, and I wouldn't have picked up some of the things she did.

I don't doubt for one minute that there are some very deserving people out there, but the balance is way out of kilter.

 

[williamalex1]

Not read the whole the whole thread, but can I still have my holiday to the Bahamas next year?

I remember in the late 60s we were only allowed to take around £30 holiday spending money out of the country.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I remember in the late 60s we were only allowed to take around £30 holiday spending money out of the country.

Three weeks wages for many.........£1,000 in today's money.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There is no fairness in whether or not someone can afford more. Taking more off one than the other is, in my opinion, very unfair. Taking equal is fair, or at least at the same rate. Taking more and at a higher rate is very unfair. Think about how much tax someone on £500k must pay...£198,000 in income tax alone, and £49,000 in NI. And someone wants more to fund their political ideals...? Its obscene to take that much money off some one who's earned it.

As for those losing out on tax credits; some will undoubtedly suffer. And of those suffering, how many will it mean no 2 weeks in Spain next year. Daughter #2 gets the full monty, and I can't believe how much it is. I took her for her weekly shop a couple of months back, and I wouldn't have picked up some of the things she did.

I don't doubt for one minute that there are some very deserving people out there, but the balance is way out of kilter.

Do you not think that the salary of this fortunate person is set at what it is to reflect the tax regime in place. Would he be getting paid £500k were the tax rate set at say 5%, I think not.

And you are correct about balance. The balance that sets £1300 reduction in income for the poor against £1300 increase in income for the wealthier is indeed way out of kilter - and it is that which is obscene.

 

[Hobbit]

Do you not think that the salary of this fortunate person is set at what it is to reflect the tax regime in place. Would he be getting paid £500k were the tax rate set at say 5%, I think not.

And you are correct about balance. The balance that sets £1300 reduction in income for the poor against £1300 increase in income for the wealthier is indeed way out of kilter - and it is that which is obscene.

We'll just have to disagree at a fundamental level Hugh. We could split hairs about is the benefit/tax credit system fair, and neither of us will agree. But think back to our early adult days. Some summers we couldn't afford a caravan at Scarborough, yet some now who are on benefits/tax credits go to Spain. I agree that there are some that will need a safety net but there's an awful lot that will just have to go to Scarborough instead of Spain.