strichener 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. To be fair, I would like to see the original budget and the contingency that was built in before passing comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 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. I am glad you agree that although part of a wider budget; that individual elements can be costed and allocated for spending across the year. As you highlighted In this case they were able to do this before the tax has actually been raised, so not sure what your point is and why this planned spend couldn't be allocated elsewhere in the same manner? I take your point re poverty and I would suggest you would have been far less circumspect if a no voter had used such terminology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I am glad you agree that although part of a wider budget; that individual elements can be costed and allocated for spending across the year. As you highlighted In this case they were able to do this before the tax has actually been raised, so not sure what your point is and why this planned spend couldn't be allocated elsewhere in the same manner? I take your point re poverty and I would suggest you would have been far less circumspect if a no voter had used such terminology All government budgets are agreed before the taxes have been arranged. In regards to the poverty element, I have seen as bad or worse posted by No voters and didn't feel the need to pass comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So it comes down to the £64m which could either be utilised via direct spending or via a reduction of the same amount in terms of tax income. At the end of the year the impact is the same for the SG, and yet you keep trying to suggest that it is more complex than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So it comes down to the £64m which could either be utilised via direct spending or via a reduction of the same amount in terms of tax income. At the end of the year the impact is the same for the SG, and yet you keep trying to suggest that it is more complex than that. I'm not making it more complicated, I am countering your assertion that this is a give away. For example, your own club did an entry for 10p at the weekend. Normal entry is £20 or thereabouts. Given that the club decided to reduce a charge how much did they give away to the supporters? I would be interested to know exactly how much they withdrew from their bank account on Friday for this give away. I also believe that they are doing 4 games for 1 adult & 2 kids for £20. Well done accies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You were right a few pages back. He doesn't understand how tax works. He thinks a tax cut is a giveaway. It hasn't occurred to him that reducing a tax rate can massively increase the tax take. Thatcher did this when she came into power. How do we get the Tubbster to understand this? Here are the questions you ran away from yesterday: 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 here is another question you won't answer - Are you suggesting that last week's tax cuts will increase the tax income? I notice your self proclaimed leaving of this thread has shown to be as reliable as your usual rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm not making it more complicated, I am countering your assertion that this is a give away. For example, your own club did an entry for 10p at the weekend. Normal entry is £20 or thereabouts. Given that the club decided to reduce a charge how much did they give away to the supporters? I would be interested to know exactly how much they withdrew from their bank account on Friday for this give away. I also believe that they are doing 4 games for 1 adult & 2 kids for £20. Well done accies. Accies are a great club - but I am a ST holder - so I received no benefit -(a bit like the poor and SNP spending decisions). However my pal saved £22 quid and spent it on a takeaway - in the same way as if the chairman had given him £22 quid on the home after standard entry arrangements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Accies are a great club - but I am a ST holder - so I received no benefit -(a bit like the poor and SNP spending decisions). However my pal saved £22 quid and spent it on a takeaway - in the same way as if the chairman had given him £22 quid on the home after standard entry arrangements. Only it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Only it isn't. Setting VAT implications aside, the impact in both scenarios is the same; my pal is £22 quid up (take away time) and the club is £22 down - whilst those not applicable for the offer/ give away / fee reduction get no extra benefit. So it comes back to the £64m which could either be utilised via direct spending or via a reduction of the same amount in terms of tax income. At the end of the year the impact is the same for the SG. Call it what you like - I prefer give away - but it costs the public purse (so it must go somewhere) and it benefits some in a deliberately targeted way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Setting VAT implications aside, the impact in both scenarios is the same; my pal is £22 quid up (take away time) and the club is £22 down - whilst those not applicable for the offer/ give away / fee reduction get no extra benefit. So it comes back to the £64m which could either be utilised via direct spending or via a reduction of the same amount in terms of tax income. At the end of the year the impact is the same for the SG. Call it what you like - I prefer give away - but it costs the public purse (so it must go somewhere) and it benefits some in a deliberately targeted way. Or the club is 10p up if your mate wouldn't have went to the game at full price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Or the club is 10p up if your mate wouldn't have went to the game at full price. Aye, hope they don't spend it all in the one shop (or in getting Jason Scotland back) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirez Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Or looking at it a local business (takeaway) is £22 quid up. I bought a house last year. Paid near enough £1500 stamp duty. If the new rules were in place, that would have been money in my pocket that no doubt would have been spent. Give the working man an extra £100 in his pay packet a month and by and large he spends it. Give a millionaire a tax break and its straight into a tax loophole savings account with no benefit to the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I said I was going to stop responding to you. Haven't you got an anti-SNP-I-dont-understand-how-tax-works demonstration to organise? Wrap up warm - it's freezing out there. Still avoiding those questions about your posts on this subject I see, one of which relates to your complete lack of knowledge on this tax. Better sticking to general statements as the detail is always way beyond you. So, as a tax expert, you were saying that the revamp of LBTT only benefited the very cheapest houses liable to the tax. From what I can see a house purchase of £560k will be liable to £4k less tax than outlined in October - in your world is a £560k house one of the very cheapest liable to this tax ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Yet another catastrophic oaksoft fail. I'm beginning to feel sorry for him. It must be quite the burden to live with that level of stupid. Still not quite up to his Council Tax fail but he's getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Yet another catastrophic oaksoft fail. I'm beginning to feel sorry for him. It must be quite the burden to live with that level of stupid. Still not quite up to his Council Tax fail but he's getting there. Oh I don't know; to conclude by responding to me telling me he wasn't responding to me was good stuff. Also, the posts about the poorest being liable to 2% tax on their houses purchased for over £140k were top quality. And all the while masquerading as some kind of taxation expert and tying to shamelessly to hang on to Strichener's coat tails. I'm just disappointed he didn't try to defend the poor and their destructive life styles comment from his buddy - or maybe he is saving that for an encore ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Has there ever been 2 more tragic posters on here? "Scottish Labour" isn't even a party. It's an accountancy unit. Nothing more than an extention of a UK Party which it claims to be independent of. Why not try supporting a real party in Scotland, instead of deluding yourselves even further. From your recent posts I assume you are referring to the Tories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Why not try supporting a real party in Scotland. Cringe. "Supporting " any political party is the preserve of the utterly dense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 From your recent posts I assume you are referring to the Tories? They have stank of Thatcherism in glad someone pointed it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 In terms of helping the poor without hand-outs as appears to be the way forward; is this another step forward in terms of equality? Private schools levels of appeals for exams well above state schools after charging for appeals was introduced doesn't look like progress to me and surely was worth looking at further rather than being dismissed by the FM?: http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/scots-exam-appeal-charges-fail-the-fairness-test-1-3673344 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Cringe. "Supporting " any political party is the preserve of the utterly dense. But supporting Britain. The preserve of the noble. God save our gray... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.