400million Scottish government underspend

[strichener]

100% tax on the rich? Where did you bring that from - you are verging into Softoak territory there!

However, the next time someone criticises welfare changes I look forward to you pointing out to them that they cannot do so without first compiling an entire welfare system as an alternative.

Last week the SG had £64m more than they bargained for and have decided to use 0% of it on the poor and 100% of it on people who are buying property over £135k; that is my point . I would ask if you agree or disagree with that simple statement.

I found 10p in the washing machine. I also want to pay off my mortgage. Guess where the 10p wont be going!

Last week the SG were provided with 64m from Westminster due to changes in stamp duty diwn south. The SG had already stated that their tax would be revenue neutral. This policy was continued after review. Which part of this do you have a problem with?

In my opinion there should be no stamp duty or equivalent for any house below the price of affordable housing.

[Tubbs]

I found 10p in the washing machine. I also want to pay off my mortgage. Guess where the 10p wont be going!

Last week the SG were provided with 64m from Westminster due to changes in stamp duty diwn south. The SG had already stated that their tax would be revenue neutral. This policy was continued after review. Which part of this do you have a problem with?

In my opinion there should be no stamp duty or equivalent for any house below the price of affordable housing.

Once accepted that this does not help the poor (at last the blindingly obvious is accepted); my point is why not in these times of austerity and addressing the gap being the thing that allegedly will underline everything the SG will do?

Yes it sticks by their principle of revenue neutrality (I have never suggested that it doesn't). I would suggest that that principle is not in line with their other commitments re the gap, inequality and poverty etc.

Use £64m 'extra' to help the poor or give it to people who don't really need it whilst sticking to your principles - That seems a simple choice for an allegedly left wing administration.

[strichener]

Once accepted that this does not help the poor (at last the blindingly obvious is accepted); my point is why not in these times of austerity and addressing the gap being the thing that allegedly will underline everything the SG will do?

Yes it sticks by their principle of revenue neutrality (I have never suggested that it doesn't). I would suggest that that principle is not in line with their other commitments re the gap, inequality and poverty etc.

Use £64m 'extra' to help the poor or give it to people who don't really need it whilst sticking to your principles - That seems a simple choice for an allegedly left wing administration.

You really are struggling here to understand taxation. Hypothetically how much revenue will be raised from this tax if not one house was sold in Scotland for more than 100k?

This 64 million that you keep speaking about being given to those that dont need it is not actually being "given" to anyone.

Continuing with my hypothesis. Who gets the 64m that is being given away?

[Tubbs]

You really are struggling here to understand taxation. Hypothetically how much revenue will be raised from this tax if not one house was sold in Scotland for more than 100k?

This 64 million that you keep speaking about being given to those that dont need it is not actually being "given" to anyone.

Continuing with my hypothesis. Who gets the 64m that is being given away?

Come on, are we back to pedantics and barrel scraping here? Your hypothetical scenario has perhaps been analysed by the SG planners and assessed as preposterous and so they have planned, assessed and implemented the policy as revenue neutral. If you don't accept this methodology then you have a problem with the Dep FM not me, they are his figures.

In your last post you accepted that the SG had been given £64m 'extra'.

They have utilised that to scale down their planned tax intake by ........................... that's right £64m. So if you don't accept that this has been 'given 'to people liable (or who were liable) to this tax but instead prefer to say that they will not been charged for it to the same level (or not at all) and so will have a 'saving'; then so be it. The overall impact is the same; this tax revision introduced last week has been costed by the SG at £64m - if it didn't then they couldn't say it was revenue neutral.

So if I don't understand taxation, you can perhaps enlighten me; can you confirm that this £64m could not have been allocated anywhere else within the budget? And if not why not?

[strichener]

Come on, are we back to pedantics and barrel scraping here? Your hypothetical scenario has perhaps been analysed by the SG planners and assessed as preposterous and so they have planned, assessed and implemented the policy as revenue neutral. If you don't accept this methodology then you have a problem with the Dep FM not me, they are his figures.

In your last post you accepted that the SG had been given £64m 'extra'.

They have utilised that to scale down their planned tax intake by ........................... that's right £64m. So if you don't accept that this has been 'given 'to people liable (or who were liable) to this tax but instead prefer to say that they will not been charged for it to the same level (or not at all) and so will have a 'saving'; then so be it. The overall impact is the same; this tax revision introduced last week has been costed by the SG at £64m - if it didn't then they couldn't say it was revenue neutral.

So if I don't understand taxation, you can perhaps enlighten me; can you confirm that this £64m could not have been allocated anywhere else within the budget? And if not why not?

I feel we are going round in circles here. You don't agree with the SG having a revenue neutral tax to replace stamp duty. Fair enough.

In my opinion, buying a house is expensive regardless of the taxation treatment of the purchase and in some cases, I am sure that it is enough to prevent the transaction. Given the "need" for the housing market bubble to grow the economy since the recession, I am not sure that taking a larger tax take from this area of the ecomony would be desirable.

[Tubbs]

I feel we are going round in circles here. You don't agree with the SG having a revenue neutral tax to replace stamp duty. Fair enough.

In my opinion, buying a house is expensive regardless of the taxation treatment of the purchase and in some cases, I am sure that it is enough to prevent the transaction. Given the "need" for the housing market bubble to grow the economy since the recession, I am not sure that taking a larger tax take from this area of the ecomony would be desirable.

I can see where you are with that. But in the last week the SG has made 99.9% of residential transactions cheaper or the same as was planned in October for LBTT. I don't see how that fits with the SG's (not mine) previous commitments and positions re poverty and inequality.

Realistically Swinney could have said?:

'The LBTT rates set out in October were set up as revenue neutral; however as a result of changes and agreements at UK level the SG now has £64million additional each year. I feel the LBTT rates that I have set out reflect the needs of Scotland's property position; compared to the position in October they take 5000 transactions out of taxation, they ensure 45% have no liability, and they reduce the tax liability on purchases up to £325k. Having helped the property market I am going to deviate from the revenue neutral position in the new circumstances and utilise these addition funds towards the First Minister's personal mission of tackling poverty and inequality. This money will be used to........(insert policy priority)'

[strichener]

I can see where you are with that. But in the last week the SG has made 99.9% of residential transactions cheaper or the same as was planned in October for LBTT. I don't see how that fits with the SG's (not mine) previous commitments and positions re poverty and inequality.

Realistically Swinney could have said?:

'The LBTT rates set out in October were set up as revenue neutral; however as a result of changes and agreements at UK level the SG now has £64million additional each year. I feel the LBTT rates that I have set out reflect the needs of Scotland's property position; compared to the position in October they take 5000 transactions out of taxation, they ensure 45% have no liability, and they reduce the tax liability on purchases up to £325k. Having helped the property market I am going to deviate from the revenue neutral position in the new circumstances and utilise these addition funds towards the First Minister's personal mission of tackling poverty and inequality. This money will be used to........(insert policy priority)'

He could have said that.

However, the 64mln "extra" that he is getting is actually the amount that will not be cut from Barnett as a result of the UK government introducing SDLT. At the time of the initial announcement, the UK were still using the stamp duty banding and the subsequent rates announced by GO made the scottish rate look punitive (compared to rUK) for properties in the £250k to £925k. This is the area that Swinney tackled by adjusting the banding taking into account Scottish House prices.

Politically, it is a lot harder to justify the difference between the two taxes when there is extra money to mitigate this. The people buying houses between £135k and £145k, the majority of whom cannot be classed as the rich, benefit from this measure.

If you look at average property prices, the SNP are targetting the wealthiest a great deal more than the UK. Everyone knows how difficult it is to get on the property ladder and any taxes are probably just increasing the amount of people that have to rely on the help to buy schemes anyway.

[Tubbs]

He could have said that.

However, the 64mln "extra" that he is getting is actually the amount that will not be cut from Barnett as a result of the UK government introducing SDLT. At the time of the initial announcement, the UK were still using the stamp duty banding and the subsequent rates announced by GO made the scottish rate look punitive (compared to rUK) for properties in the £250k to £925k. This is the area that Swinney tackled by adjusting the banding taking into account Scottish House prices.

Politically, it is a lot harder to justify the difference between the two taxes when there is extra money to mitigate this. The people buying houses between £135k and £145k, the majority of whom cannot be classed as the rich, benefit from this measure.

If you look at average property prices, the SNP are targetting the wealthiest a great deal more than the UK. Everyone knows how difficult it is to get on the property ladder and any taxes are probably just increasing the amount of people that have to rely on the help to buy schemes anyway.

For me, your point above is the crux of the alternative view from mine and I absolutely get that.

However, I do wonder why we had to go thro the false swings and roundabouts of the technicality of tax income and allocation, no one gets a cheque, what if no houses were sold, you need to construct an entire banding alternative before you can criticise etc etc.

And it does highlight the key challenges of having separate tax regimes within the UK, and the potential for a 'race to the bottom' where the SG has to cut taxes in response to Westminster and vice versa.

[H_B]

You missed a whole tranche of people that I mentioned who will pay 0%.

This is where you failed on Council Tax you utter cretin.

Well, just one of your many fails recently.

Still, good to see you have the nerve to return after your absolute brutalising on your horrendous claims about Scottish graduate migration.

[Tubbs]

This thread is ticking along nicely without you and this type of comment.

Away back under your rock with Reynard.

By ticking along nicely do you mean you deliberately misquoting people, telling lies and showing a complete misunderstanding of what the policy involves?

So can you please elaborate on, or withdraw, your claim that only the cheapest houses that attract the tax will see a cut. And perhaps confirm that the poorest don't buy houses over £145k .

[Tubbs]

Bollox Tubbs. Utter bollox. It's what you engage in though.

Anti-SNP rants everywhere just for the hell of it.

Either way, H_B and his trolling pish isn't needed on this or any other thread.

You can talk to him if you wish though, presuming that sort of talk gives you a thrill.

1) So you deny you misquoted me? 2) Do only the cheapest houses within the tax see a cut? 3) Are homes in the bracket £250 - £325 seeing an increase in tax?

And again if you can point to anything inaccurate in the paragraph you misquoted from that would be nice. You accuse me of talking bollocks and not being able to get things right, so please feel free to outline any specifics.

I don't have time for HB just now, I am far too busy being entertained by your posts.

[Tubbs]

Nope I'm done with you.

Drop your anti-SNP obsession and get a life Tubbs - it's just not worth the hassle.

Away and give H_B a shout. We're finished here.

:lol:

You have been absolutely embarrassed on here yet again, caught out time after time with your lies, deception and total inability to grasp the basics of the subject. You have ended up with an epic climbdown and look like the failure you are.

Thanks for the entertainment, and I look forward to your next embarrassment, which is certain as you have a track record in going away to lick your wounds like a coward and coming back worse than ever . Good job loser

[strichener]

Weh Hey. Tubbs wins the internet.

[Tubbs]

Ah that's nice, the cybernats all coming together to defend their idiot child.

'Tory troll' - wow I am crushed. Better that, than proactively standing up for Tory policies that sees the inequality gap increase in Scotland - LBTT, free school meals, CT freeze, school budgets cut, free nursery places - all policies that give the poor absolutely nothing.

[Tubbs]

I mean.... it's not as if they could just leave the country and move elsewhere or anything....

The socialist speaks. Be nice to the rich or they might f**k off?

If you want to list how those policies in my previous post provided an additional benefit to the poor and did anything to address the gap I would love to hear it

[AUFC90]

The socialist speaks. Be nice to the rich or they might f**k off?

If you want to list how those policies in my previous post provided an additional benefit to the poor and did anything to address the gap I would love to hear it

Vote Labour then. I'm sure you'll fit in with the Murphys and Mcternans of this world.

[Tom McB]

This thread is ticking along nicely without you and this type of comment.

Away back under your rock with Reynard.

[Tom McB]

Ah that's nice, the cybernats all coming together to defend their idiot child.

Remember when they defended Kenny the cnut MacAskill?

[Tubbs]

Vote Labour then. I'm sure you'll fit in with the Murphys and Mcternans of this world.

So is the defence; The SNP have shit policies that don't address the gap and Labour have shit policies that don't address the gap? I will give you something these is a certain honesty about that.

[Tubbs]

Why not? Labour are generally quite nice to the rich. They claim to support all these tax measures against the rich, but anybody with any degree of sense on how the economy actually works can see why Labour will bottle it if they get into power.

Telling the rich to hand over most of their money sounds great in theory, but doesn't work in practice. They will simply move elsewhere, resulting in investment loses worth billions to the economy.

But please, keep deluding yourself into believing that the rich are a real generous bunch who just can't wait to be tax raped by the socialist pretenders.

Bit of a change from the pre referendum rhetoric where the new Scotland was going to be more focussed on fairness and equality and helping the poor; and closing the gap. Who was going to pay for that? My position was always that Scotland was not as left wing as the deluded pretended it was, hence why the SNP has repeatedly gave tax breaks to those that don't need it and indeed continue to do so.