PDA

View Full Version : Local Income tax could cause exodus



BetterTogether
03-Aug-15, 15:14
First I've read on this one.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11779005/SNPs-local-income-tax-could-lead-to-England-exodus.html

rob murray
03-Aug-15, 15:30
It was in a couple of the SUndays...Times I think being one : I think that basically if council tax remains frozen then the SNP would have to get the money for services from somewhere or make cuts...so a local income tax......or introduce unfrozen proper bandings......I msy have got this wrong so if anyone knows the score fire away.....

davth
04-Aug-15, 10:49
hmm, fatboy eck using public money to try and silence the telegraph also.

If this goes ahead then good luck in referendum Pt 2.

Alien Adrenaline Reflex
04-Aug-15, 20:37
good. if people are not willing to contribute to their local economy and services then let them move. it will only be the same people that whine and moan about their bins being picked up twice a month or not being abe to get the grass verges cut.

me, id happily pay 5-7% more tax instead of council tax. at least that wya the poorest have to play the least and the richest who can well afford it can pay the most. isnt that how income tax worka or are you going to tell me that is nto fair either.

BetterTogether
04-Aug-15, 23:12
Yes it's always a good idea to get your top earners moving away to places which don't make them pay extra income tax that way your left with lots of Indians and no Chiefs. As we all know that really is the best way to run successful, profitable market leading companies.

Alien Adrenaline Reflex
04-Aug-15, 23:57
so i take it that you are retired and don’t actually care. you will have an income whatever the weather. and why do you think the top earners will move away, because it costs them a little more? Will it actually? or does the calculation in the central belt have anything to do with the reason you moved here?

BetterTogether
05-Aug-15, 09:42
It wouldn't be people earning high wages moving around Scotland it would be more a case of them moving South across the border. If you have the choice between 7% local income tax up here or non south then many who earn large wages will not want to carry the extra tax burden on top of the 40% income tax it starts to remove the incentive of earning good money.

Mr Z
05-Aug-15, 10:06
But to move South there needs to be jobs which pay as good. Will there be with all the qualified migrants arriving? You also have to consider other costs like House prices South which are more than the 7 to 8 % higher South than the tax rise

rob murray
05-Aug-15, 11:11
It wouldn't be people earning high wages moving around Scotland it would be more a case of them moving South across the border. If you have the choice between 7% local income tax up here or non south then many who earn large wages will not want to carry the extra tax burden on top of the 40% income tax it starts to remove the incentive of earning good money.

If a local income tax is levied at 7% then people will push for wage increases, causing a degree of wage push inflation also a 7% tax rise will act as a disincentive towards moving people into work. I cant see any mass exodus, highly paid people yes, but the bulk of the population and SME owners will stay put where they are....and vote the diddies out !! If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership and Scotland is very much in his eyes, then you will hear a real left agenda exposing the SNP's so called anti austierty agenda and a drift back to left labour ( for good or bad ) !!

rob murray
05-Aug-15, 11:52
AHem.......Number 1 question is why consider unfreezing council tax rates or introducing a local income tax......to pay for services ??? Is this lack of finance the fault of the bad boys in westminster......

Local authorities cited high collection rates and low administration costs as evidence the council tax should be retained, but admitted the bands needed reforming as they are based on property prices in 1991. They argued it was unfair those home owners in the largest Band H properties pay only three times the council tax of those in Band A, but their homes are worth at least eight times more....WHY ... anyone know the answer to this gross anomoly ??

You see its all down to timing and the SNP government face very hard and unpopular choices ahead...no one likes to pay taxes.....thats why there wont be any indy vote in the forth comming future.

rob murray
05-Aug-15, 12:47
Why the SNP have to tackle council service financing : either unfreeze council tax or impose local income taxes : ( below was taken from a url posted on another thread )

In real terms, the total Scottish government's total expenditure has not been cut since 2008, but there has been a £2.5bn real terms cut in what it ( the scottish government ) gives to local government. About £1bn of this occurred from 2013-14 when police and fire services were brought under central control, but that still leaves a real term cut of around £1.5bn. In addition to this, the 2015-16 budget enforces a council tax freeze for the eighth year in a row, i.e. the tax councils collect from their residents has been decreasing in real terms for eight years. So the party who stood on an anti austerity platform ( a pretendy one ! ) deliver a decreased budget and up to 2016 no recourse by councils to up their budgets, this has got to mean service cuts or finances obtained from somewhere.....either way they are stuck between a rock and a hard place......and no westimister to blame?

theone
06-Aug-15, 07:51
good. if people are not willing to contribute to their local economy and services then let them move. it will only be the same people that whine and moan about their bins being picked up twice a month or not being abe to get the grass verges cut.

me, id happily pay 5-7% more tax instead of council tax. at least that wya the poorest have to play the least and the richest who can well afford it can pay the most. isnt that how income tax worka or are you going to tell me that is nto fair either.

Interesting point.

But there is a real question here of whether the council 'tax' is a tax in terms of being income linked like PAYE.

If you consider is as a percentage based tax, then fine. I can see the argument for implementing the proposed changes. People should pay more or less based on their wealth.

But if you consider it a payment for services, for bin emptying, grass cutting, water & sewage then you have to ask why shouldn't everyone pay the same?

What other services that you have to pay for would you expect the cost to be linked to your income?

Should the plumber charge less to service the gas boiler of a factory worker than a banker? Should the mechanic charge a higher price to the engineer than to the tradesmen he leads? Should the taxi fares be higher for the store manager than the shelf stacker?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

If you consider the council services as just that - services - then payment should be the same for everybody. The Wheelie bin of a rich man costs the same to empty as that of a poor man, so why should the rich man pay more?

Stop considering council tax as a tax, consider it as a compulsory payment for services and peoples views may or may not change. The conclusion everyone will come up with be down to their own reason and beliefs, but there's definitely more than one side to every argument.


It wouldn't be people earning high wages moving around Scotland it would be more a case of them moving South across the border. If you have the choice between 7% local income tax up here or non south then many who earn large wages will not want to carry the extra tax burden on top of the 40% income tax it starts to remove the incentive of earning good money.

That's a problem every government in history has had to deal with.

People will pay tax to a certain level, after which they will become less productive as ultimately contribute less to taxation and the economy.

It's about finding a balance. Yes, take more from the rich to give to the poor but you can only narrow the gap so far before the incentive to be rich is lost and people give up.

cptdodger
06-Aug-15, 08:50
In my opinion, it wont be any tax hikes that cause an exodus here, if it happens it will be because by (approx) 2025 both Vulcan and Dounreay will be gone. And from a personal point of view this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-33793150 will make me go.

My argument has always been, we all pay National Insurance, I do'nt think we pay less here than somebody in a City, yet the medical services provided here are practically non existent, and going by that news report, it is not going to improve any time soon.

Unless they get these two things sorted - jobs and medical provision for the area, tax increases will be the least of your worries.

rob murray
06-Aug-15, 14:58
Interesting point.

But there is a real question here of whether the council 'tax' is a tax in terms of being income linked like PAYE.

If you consider is as a percentage based tax, then fine. I can see the argument for implementing the proposed changes. People should pay more or less based on their wealth.

But if you consider it a payment for services, for bin emptying, grass cutting, water & sewage then you have to ask why shouldn't everyone pay the same?

What other services that you have to pay for would you expect the cost to be linked to your income?

Should the plumber charge less to service the gas boiler of a factory worker than a banker? Should the mechanic charge a higher price to the engineer than to the tradesmen he leads? Should the taxi fares be higher for the store manager than the shelf stacker?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

If you consider the council services as just that - services - then payment should be the same for everybody. The Wheelie bin of a rich man costs the same to empty as that of a poor man, so why should the rich man pay more?

Stop considering council tax as a tax, consider it as a compulsory payment for services and peoples views may or may not change. The conclusion everyone will come up with be down to their own reason and beliefs, but there's definitely more than one side to every argument.



That's a problem every government in history has had to deal with.

People will pay tax to a certain level, after which they will become less productive as ultimately contribute less to taxation and the economy.

It's about finding a balance. Yes, take more from the rich to give to the poor but you can only narrow the gap so far before the incentive to be rich is lost and people give up.

Informative post...but check out HC web site and you will see that that an LA provides a vast array of services well over and above the basics you quote, services that vary in their complexity, all needing funding.

davth
06-Aug-15, 16:34
My argument has always been, we all pay National Insurance, I do'nt think we pay less here than somebody in a City, yet the medical services provided here are practically non existent, and going by that news report, it is not going to improve any time soon.

By that rationale rural dwellers should pay considerably less than townsfolk as there is no sewer system, pavements, street lighting and a poor, intermittent water supply

theone
06-Aug-15, 17:02
Informative post...but check out HC web site and you will see that that an LA provides a vast array of services well over and above the basics you quote, services that vary in their complexity, all needing funding.

Of course.

And I am not questioning the needs. I'm questioning the concept.

Should people pay for services that they receive judged by 'how much they get' or by ' how much you've got' ?

cptdodger
06-Aug-15, 19:44
By that rationale rural dwellers should pay considerably less than townsfolk as there is no sewer system, pavements, street lighting and a poor, intermittent water supply

You do have a point davth, and I would presume that's where the Council bands come in, as in, hopefully people who lived in rural dwellings would be band A, and somebody in say a five bedroomed house with a couple of bathrooms and all the amenities would be in a higher band. To some extent though, unless you are comfortably off and can afford to pay for private healthcare, we are all at the mercy of the NHS.

rob murray
06-Aug-15, 19:50
Of course.

And I am not questioning the needs. I'm questioning the concept.

Should people pay for services that they receive judged by 'how much they get' or by ' how much you've got' ?

No surely its on how much they actually consume, why should someone paying for basic services contribute to legals, planning, economic developnet / grants etc. surely to each his own. So its very complex isnt it ?

rob murray
06-Aug-15, 19:51
By that rationale rural dwellers should pay considerably less than townsfolk as there is no sewer system, pavements, street lighting and a poor, intermittent water supply

Of course and town dwellers should pay less than city dwellers who "enjoy" a hell of lot more access to services on their door steps than rural / rural towns people

davth
06-Aug-15, 20:11
You do have a point davth, and I would presume that's where the Council bands come in, as in, hopefully people who lived in rural dwellings would be band A, and somebody in say a five bedroomed house with a couple of bathrooms and all the amenities would be in a higher band. To some extent though, unless you are comfortably off and can afford to pay for private healthcare, we are all at the mercy of the NHS.

Unfortunately that is not the case, your banding is based on the value of the property, location and services supplied does not come into it.

cptdodger
06-Aug-15, 20:37
Unfortunately that is not the case, your banding is based on the value of the property, location and services supplied does not come into it.

Oh right, I stand corrected then !

theone
06-Aug-15, 23:12
No surely its on how much they actually consume, why should someone paying for basic services contribute to legals, planning, economic developnet / grants etc. surely to each his own. So its very complex isnt it ?

Of course it's complex. I doubt there's a perfect solution.

Remember though that over 60% of the council's budget comes from central government, not from council tax.

I've no idea of the percentage breakdown between the cost of basic services vs the costs of legals, planning etc, but I imagine more than the remaining 40%, council tax funded, are fundamental front line services.

That being the case, and if we agree we should all pay the same cost for a service, council tax should not be income based, because you've already paid for 'the extras' through general taxation.

rob murray
07-Aug-15, 09:27
Of course it's complex. I doubt there's a perfect solution.

Remember though that over 60% of the council's budget comes from central government, not from council tax.

I've no idea of the percentage breakdown between the cost of basic services vs the costs of legals, planning etc, but I imagine more than the remaining 40%, council tax funded, are fundamental front line services.

That being the case, and if we agree we should all pay the same cost for a service, council tax should not be income based, because you've already paid for 'the extras' through general taxation.

Thanks you explained this very clearly much appreciated