Baxter Parp Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You can dress it up whatever way makes you feel good. I couldn't care less. BTW - "epic climbdown"??? What adult talks like that? The thing about Tubbs is he's too stupid to realise how ignorant he is and too ignorant to realise how stupid he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You can dress it up whatever way makes you feel good. I couldn't care less. BTW - "epic climbdown"??? What adult talks like that? Come on, have some dignity; don't climb down in instalments. Thanks again loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The thing about Tubbs is he's too stupid to realise how ignorant he is and too ignorant to realise how stupid he is. Oh here is another who avoided the horrible detail of the LBTT give away and steams in with general statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 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. What tax breaks have the SG introduced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Oh here is another who avoided the horrible detail of the LBTT give away and steams in with general statements. A revenue neutral policy now equals a give away. I look forward to the SNP keeping the tax rate the same in Scotland as England and your subsequent posts on this "give away". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I That would require Tubbs to realise that you don't solve poverty just by handing poor people cash. I'm not hopeful of anyone ever getting that through to him but you guys are welcome to try. This from the guy who has spent most of this thread making out LBTT was about taxing the rich and helping the poor. Now all of a sudden its not about helping the poor. If anyone can pinpoint where I pushed he idea of hammering the rich that would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 A revenue neutral policy now equals a give away. I look forward to the SNP keeping the tax rate the same in Scotland as England and your subsequent posts on this "give away". In the last week 99.9% of residential property transactions were made cheaper or stayed the same as planned in October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 In the last week 99.9% of residential property transactions were made cheaper or stayed the same as planned in October. And? It will still be revenue neutral. Explain how something that produces the same income can be a "give away". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 And? It will still be revenue neutral. Explain how something that produces the same income can be a "give away". Its a give way (or same position) to those buying property under £945k using cash that was not originally in the budget - the circa £64m. EG someone buying a house at £940k will pay less tax than was planned in October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's about helping the poor to help themselves by giving them equal opportunities in life. Not by giving them free hand outs so they can continue the same destructive life style. Not sure why you're having such a hard time getting this I must have missed such talk of its not just about money in any discussions re welfare cuts. I see you have also categorised the poor as having a 'destructive life style' - what a lovely little socialist you are. You can perhaps outline how cutting school budgets will help give them equal opportunities? Or how a rich person's children now qualify for free meals (and thereby saving the cash) helps equal opportunities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's about helping the poor to help themselves by giving them equal opportunities in life. Not by giving them free hand outs so they can continue the same destructive life style. Not sure why you're having such a hard time getting this You are all over the place here - perhaps at some point you'll realise that defending the SNP at all costs is a fundamentally stupid position to adopt. Then again.,... perhaps not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I don't support welfare cuts. But I also don't believe in an unfair level of taxation being placed on people who go out there and earn their money. You seem to have a vandetta against those who work hard and make something of themselves. Perhaps because you haven't? If people can't benefit from hard work, then people will stop working hard. As for the School budget. Where do you suggest the SNP make cuts so they can continue to provide the same level of funding to Schools? Keeping in mind that Labour have just voted side by side with the tories to impose over 30 billion pound worth of austerity cuts, while supporting the renewal of trident. I don't need to defend the SNP, the SNP aren't the party on the back foot. (With good reason) You say I have a vandetta against rich - any evidence for this? Can you tell me more about your views on the poor and their destructive life styles. In terms of the school budget - They could have spent the £64m on that. Or not giving free meals to rich people's kids or on planning to give free child care to rich people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Its a give way (or same position) to those buying property under £945k using cash that was not originally in the budget - the circa £64m. EG someone buying a house at £940k will pay less tax than was planned in October. See this is where I totally disagree with you. Paying less tax is not a "give away", it is reducing the burden on the tax-payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 See this is where I totally disagree with you. Paying less tax is not a "give away", it is reducing the burden on the tax-payer. Indeed, and reducing a burden on one band of tax payers comes at a cost; like if you had to hand it to them in the street it would come at cost. And means that these funds are not available to reduce the burden on another tax payer or indeed a non tax payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The evidence is in your own posts. You talk about "fairness". Except you don't want to apply that same level of fairness to those who actually work hard and earn their money. Instead, you seem to think that it's the duty of the working class people to carry those who are offering nothing to the economy. (So much for Labour standing up for the working class) Your perception of these policies is laughable. How many rich families send their children to public schools to recieve a public education when they can ensure that their children get the best possible education through private schooling, which would give them the best chance of continuing family success? There's over 5000 publicly funded schools in Scotland, attended by over 670,000 students. If that 64 million was divided between the schools over Scotland, it wouldn't even be enough to fund 1 extra teacher for each school. Yes, as I thought you cant provide any evidence that I want to hammer the rich. And even my examples you can slag them off but you stop short of calling them wrong; people who don't need public funds allocated to them are getting them via free meals or child care. You final point is that £64million a year doesn't make a difference so why bother? really? If you chuck in the cost of free meals and free child care I think we could just about make a difference. Lets be clear here, in this specific thread my so called hammering of the rich is based on me suggesting a return to the position that Swinney was shouting from the roof tops in October - and all the happy clappers were right behind it then. - what's changed? Still shying away from re-visting your poor with their destructive life styles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Indeed, and reducing a burden on one band of tax payers comes at a cost; like if you had to hand it to them in the street it would come at cost. And means that these funds are not available to reduce the burden on another tax payer or indeed a non tax payer. I go back to a previous post. The funds are not available until people actually pay the tax. This is the reason that there is a budget process that weighs up all taxes and spending as one big package and is agreed by the parliament. To isolate one tax policy and state that the fact that it is at a lower level than it could be is equal to removing money from the government is simplistic in the extreme. I go back to my previous post about 100% taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I go back to a previous post. The funds are not available until people actually pay the tax. This is the reason that there is a budget process that weighs up all taxes and spending as one big package and is agreed by the parliament. To isolate one tax policy and state that the fact that it is at a lower level than it could be is equal to removing money from the government is simplistic in the extreme. I go back to my previous post about 100% taxation. OK then so explain to me how the SG last week was able to review a single tax policy/bandings on its own in response to additional funding for 2015/16; and cost the impact of this review? PS What is your take on the poor and their 'destructive life styles' as described by another poster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You are providing the evidence for me in your posts. I can only assume you don't do maths. Because you seem to think that any amount of money applied to anything will just magically be enough to make the difference. What was Swinney "shouting from the roof tops" in October? I don't recall him mentioning imposing a mega tax on the rich, only Labour view this as the magical solution. Your ignorance of the tax policy we have been discussing and of the tax change announced in October by John Swinney are not my problem. Again, would you care to elaborate on the destructive life styles of the poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 http://m.stv.tv/news/west-central/308084-keys-to-new-842m-south-glasgow-hospital-handed-over/ Yet another construction project complete under budget and on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 OK then so explain to me how the SG last week was able to review a single tax policy/bandings on its own in response to additional funding for 2015/16; and cost the impact of this review? PS What is your take on the poor and their 'destructive life styles' as described by another poster? I would have thought it would be quite easy to review a tax that you have already determined will be tax neutral and find a way to raise £64m less from it. It would have been harder in the other direction I am sure. I think there is a direct link between poverty and lifestyle. However, destructive lifestyles are not exclusively lead by poor people. Just as an aside, I think a great deal of the discussions that have been taking place recently have referred to the poor and the poorest. Of course personal circumstances are probably a factor in who you think these people are. From personal experience, I have seen family members get into debt trying to provide for their family and when circumstances improve, this historical debt is not taken into account when the determination of entitlement to benefits is made. Therefore two people with the same income can have massively different levels of disposable income and at the end of the day, the only income that actually matters is that which is disposable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.