As seen from Europe
Posted on
November 06, 2012 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
We have absolutely no idea what to make of this, sent to us by a Dutch friend this morning. But as the UK press obsesses over its own vision of a malignant European omnistate, it’s interesting to get a glimpse of the very different picture of a possible future our friends on the continent foresee. And at least we’re not “Skintland”.
We’ll probably watch and comment on The Big Debate later, incidentally. It just takes an awfully big effort of will to listen to Anas Sarwar these days.
Kilt Republic, sounds just fine to me!
I can live with Kilt Republic. 🙂
Yes, and our currency could be the Kilter which would we not be “out of” if we were an independent country!
Slightly OT
Does anyone know if I can see the “BiG Debate” online – I am outwith Scotland and am not allowed to view iPlayer?
Tony
ps. I could settle for the Kilt Republic as well 🙂
Do you think it’s intentional that the border between the Kilt Republic and the Passive Aggressive Union seems to stop somewhere between Sunderland and Newcastle on the east coast, rather than at Berwick…?
@Aplinal
Hi,
I’ve heard people using ‘Expat Shield’ which allows anyone to use iPlayer anywhere in the world. Apparently the downloaded (free) software emulates a UK IP source tricking iPlayer into thinking your computer is in the UK.
@Doug Daniel
The Passive Aggressive Union re-built Hadrian’s Wall, with border posts and everything. I think they’ve renamed it Rennie’s Wall or something. The border posts are called “Wee Wullies” apparently.
Actually the Big Debate was a huge improvement on the previous 3 which were more Jeremy Kyle than Question Time….I suspect because the audience was made up of 16-17 year olds…..by putting our Politico’s in front of kids they actually made them act like adults.
On the Pro side, Patrick Harvie came across as the better puncher whilst the SNP lassie had a tendency to waffle and labour points.
On the Anti side, well Sawar Jr did his usual schtick of condemning the SNP for making unsubstantiated claims and assertions by making his own unsubstantiated claims and assertions…and Wee Willie Wonkie was the same as always…
Prof Tom Devine was the neutral and whilst he fired a few broadsides at both sides you got the impression whilst not openly declaring he wants Indy, Prof Devine does want Scotland to get shot of the Westminister Govt as soon as possible.
He also had some very interesting things to say on what happens if Scotland votes NO and encouraged the Unionist to set in stone what their alternatives to Independence were prior to the vote.
Now the smoke has cleared on the recent skirmishes I can’t help feeling The YES case has advanced….
Last week the Unionist position was absolute….’Scotland is out and has to join the back of the queue’ and Willie Rennie was making outrageous claims about being made to adopt the Euro…..
Now the Unionist position is ‘Look nobody has ever said Scotland wouldn’t remain in the EU, it’s the negotiations on opt outs etc’….
So new Unionist lines is essentially backing the position that the Scottish Govt took (even if it didn’t have specific advice from it’s Law Officers).
@TheGreatBaldo
Disappointing, however, that no-one had the insight to say what will REALLY happen after a NO vote. Some of the kids in the audience seemed to think we’ll be getting DevoMax. As if!
@TheGreatBaldo
Yes, Patrick Harvie does well in debates. Still be good to see Blair Jenkins in one of the debates as politicians can get boring, sometimes a fresh outside perspective can give the debate a boost.
Almost forgot there was another gem in the broadcast…
Asked about Scotlands role in the world Sarwar came out with the stock answers about ‘Britains influence’
Prof Devine raised his eyebrow in contempt and said ‘THAT….was no more than a list of platitudes’ chastising Sarwar like an Undergrad who’d based his dissertation on Wikipedia.
The Big Debate provided an example of something that has not been seen on British TV screens for several decades – people making the case for why increasing taxes can be a GOOD thing. Depressingly, Angela Constance wasn’t part of it, choosing to focus entirely on how Scotland could lower taxes rather than raise them. It was also perhaps the first time that Patrick Harvie has had a proper challenger to his Speaker Of Common Sense crown.
If only the Greens didn’t have that blind spot in regards to road building…
Oh, and it’s worth watching if only to see Anas Sarwar bizarrely mentioning Nelson Mandela as a possible president of the UK…
The Great Baldo
That’s pretty much how it read to me. By far the most civilised skirmish to date, probably because of the kids.
I’m beginning to fear fur oor Wullie, his head shook so much when Constance, Harvie and Devine spoke, I thought he was having a seizure of some kind.
How can raising taxes be a good thing, if I get taxed any more I’m going to have to sell the wife or weans. I’ve stopped smoking and hardly drink now, but I’m no better off and seem to be working more hours than the store cat, so I hardly get to see the wee one. I don’t care what anyone says but if someone tries to tell me that even though I have not had a wage rise since 2008, more tax is a good thing. Well they will be getting a size 10 steelie surgically removed. I definately won’t be voting for that nonsense.
Somewhat O.T. Rev,
But does anyone know why the latest section of aircraft- carrier to leave the Clyde
is going all the way around the English coast instead of the much shorter route
of around the north of Scotland?, could it be a political/M.O.D. decision to “wave the
flag” as it passes Plymouth,Portsmouth ect, I have been tracking them (two Ocean
going tugs) on www. marenetraffic.com and thy are still way short of Lands-End,
for those who have a passing interest look for two boats close together,Carlo Mango
and Bb Troll, (the barge does not send out a signal )
Well one NEEDS some light relief from watching Joanne,Ruth, and Wullie, at F.M.
questions!!!.
@Alex McL
Since the Thatcher era, the burden of taxation has moved radically from rich to poor. e.g. The top rate in income tax has reduced from around 90% in the 50s/60s to the present 45%, while VAT has increased from 8% to 20%.
A rebalancing might be a good thing.
On the subject of tax:
A new Ipsos MORI poll for Oxfam Scotland has shown that the majority of the public believe the current tax system to be unfair and want taxes increased for those with the highest income and wealth.A little over half of Scots (52%) disagree that the current tax system is fair compared to 37% who think it is fair. Views opposed to the current tax system also appear more deep-rooted than those in support, with 25% strongly disagreeing that the current system is fair versus just 8% who strongly agree. Those working part-time (57%) and those not in work (61%) and those living in the most deprived areas of Scotland (61%) are among the key groups who are critical of the tax system.It appears that one way in which many people would like to see the system become fairer is for people with the highest income and wealth to pay more tax. Three quarters of the public (76%) would back this measure, with support particularly high among those aged 55+ (81%) and those living in the most deprived areas (83%). The strength of feeling among those who support this measure outweighs those against, with 48% strongly agreeing and 8% strongly disagreeing. In addition, a third of Scots (33%) agree with the proposition that taxes should be lower for everyone with over half (57%) disagreeing, giving a further indication of the majority view of what should happen to the tax system.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3072/Ipsos-MORI-poll-for-Oxfam-Scotland.aspx
Alex. All sympathy for your position bud; although I don’t have the responsibility of a family to be worrying about, I do have a millstone, sorry mortgage and like you, I haven’t seen a wage rise proper in 4 years and I too seem to be working longer and longer hours foit what I get.
I think it’s hugely unlikely we’ll see big tax hikes come independence – the removal of Trident’s excessive burden alone will make a huge difference; that and the fact that we won’t be bankrolling an organised crime syndicate in Westminster should see to that. Remember that in a small, independent country you will have voice that a ‘subject of a vassal state’ can only dream of.
Albaman – we have to be careful not to read a conspiracy into everything. The carrier section is going round the South Coast because of the weather, pure and simple. I live on the North Coast, and is blowing a gale here now. They need a weeks calm weather to get that structure through the Minch and the Pentland Firth, and now we are past the equinox the forecast is not great.
They missed the summer window, pure and simple.
What impressed me most was the audience. No sneering, no lon-winded or irrelevent questions.
Gary Robertson kept the panel fairly tightly controlled and even managed a few good questions of his own!
Again, Patrick Harvie spoke without all the waffle. Angela Constance was good too , but did at times veer off the question asked. Enjoyed Tom Devine’s non-political points.
As for the other two..they just comeover as what they represent…the NO’s. Can you imagine being stuck in a room with them aaaaaAAH! THUMP!!!
All-in-all, I liked this debate, and feel a lot more confidant about a YES.
Since the Thatcher era, the burden of taxation has moved radically from rich to poor. e.g. The top rate in income tax has reduced from around 90% in the 50s/60s to the present 45%, while VAT has increased from 8% to 20%.A rebalancing might be a good thing.
Tax certainly needs to be rebalanced.
Another important point to remember about the decrease in direct Taxation was the requirement to fill the massive gap by lost Tax income to the treasury by introducing a whole raft of indirect taxation at various percentages. More groceries are facing taxation, increased petrol and diesel taxation, electricity and gas taxation, insurance premium taxation, stamp duty on house purchases, increased tax on alcohol, vehicle road tax (or what ever government choose to call it today) , increased national insurance contributions and so on.
Off-topic, but I’ve just finished listening to my podcast with Michael Greenwell and I’m rather chuffed with how it turned out:
http://www.spreaker.com/user/michaelgreenwell/scotindypod_11_doug_daniel
@ Andrewfaegovan I would have no problems with the tax being fairer, if I earned £150,000 a year you should pay a bit more ,as you say it’s the people earning £20000 a year with families and a mortgage that seem to take the brunt of it, if we can find a fairer way well as yer man Rennie say whit can ye dae.
@ Maxstafford I sure hope so mate, that’s the reason that I’m putting my shirt on us winning the referendum and Scotland becoming a bit of a fairer society. We all should pay some tax of course. It’s just when it starts affecting your families life quality you want it to change.
O/T I see Our Johan Lamont is interviewed at Holyrood by a GUARDIAN hack in their on line paper today. Not sure how to post the link, but the piece is open for comments.
@Elizabeth Sutherland
Guardian link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/06/johann-lamont-facing-scotland-choice
Means testing = neoliberal model. Universal benefits = social democratic model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Three_worlds_of_the_welfare_state
There is definitely something about Anas Sarwar, he’s just not all there some how. He’s too shiny and rehearsed. I thought Willie Rennie came overe quite well (bare with me) he sounded earnest and honest, as long as you discounted the words he was saying which were all lies and nonsense.
Devine was ok, I think he has equal disdain for all sides of the argument but reserves a special disdain for Westminster. Constance was ok, a bit prolix perhaps but ok.
It was actually a fairly balanced panel, I couldn’t tell from the crowd of young folk (except that fresh faced young chap in the suit, definitely a young conservative) what the prevailing direction was, when they clapped for example it seemed quite loud but you couldn’t really see many people clapping, it just sounded that way.
The biggest round of applause was for getting rid of trident which is heartening.
I don;t think 16/17yo’s voting is going to favour either side, I think its up in the air going by that crowd. (A BBC-picked one at that.)
PS. I know what it is about Sarwar, he’s like an expensive corporate glossy pamphlet. Lots of shiny colours, pictures and bullet points but no substance and unable to answer any question if he doesn’t already contain the answer.
If you see what I mean.
What country is “Gays” (around where Italy is)?
Could there be debates where Labour For Indy is participating? Imagine last night, Labour For Indy instead of the SNP woman. I’d be happy with that.
Don’t worry albaman your not alone. I’m kinda sad like that I tend to track aircraft and ships a lot and yes I HAVE been following the barge. Like you I did get a wee bit concerned when instead of turning right at the bottom end of Arran they continued South. I di hear later that the forecast weather around the the top of Scotland may have had something to do with it.
O/T sorry but just found this on Facebook.
DISGUSTING!
There again what the hell do we expect from the Tories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0XLgg75stn4
The problem I had was that the question of tax wasn’t answered in a simple way.
It depends entirely on who is elected in 2016. Simple as that. We don’t even know if taxes will go up next year, let alone in an newly independent Scotland. But nobody seemed to see/say that.
To be simply dork minded about the question of tax, we could ask the same question of the Westminster parties in the lead up to the next G.E. and we’d probably get the same answer…. no one knows.
Oh, I know we’ll get the usual bull about keeping taxes low, but do they really do that?
@Tyran
‘Gays’ seems to correlate closely to Latium (the region in which Rome sits).
The survey on tax effectively shows that people paying virtually no tax would like other people to pay more tax.
Which is fine, provided you don’t mind not having any “wealthiest” in your independent Scotland. Or at least only the kind of wealthiest who mysteriously don’t have any Scottish source income – and don’t pay any Scottish income taxes.
It’s interesting that Mark Diffley, who wrote an arguably anti-Nationalist article recently in the New Statesman, has now run this survey, which would motivate any rational higher rate taxpayer to vote “no”.
Turnip G. As you have rightly said, nobody really has the slightest clue what the tax situation will be in 2016. Look back to 2005. Who could have accurately predicted the disastrous situation the whole world would be facing just two or three years later when the banks were collapsing all over the place and dragging all of us down with them?
I used to be an insurance agent/salesman and when people used to ask me how much they would get back when their policies matured all I could say was that if conditions prevailed they would get such and such, but to be frank we couldn’t even predict how much a loaf of bread was going to cost next week.
t was all done on trust, and as it turned out we shouldn’t have trusted the bankers.
We still can’t.
@Northbrit
Which is fine, provided you don’t mind not having any “wealthiest” in your independent Scotland.
Are there no wealthy people in e.g Germany, Sweden, France etc?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
I’m always amused when the rich are called ‘wealth generators’ by the right. They obviously don’t understand the first law of thermodynamics and instead believe in magic.
http://www.marinetraffic.com That is just so cool, thanks albaman.
@ scottish_ skier
Thanks for that posting of link. I returned to the story and saw that Sneecky Boy. has done the work I was hoping for and blasted the comments board with the information that is needed to help inform those interested in Scotland’s Indy Campaign.
Crikey, Scott doesn’t hang about. That’s some reading!
Taxation is more than just VAT and Income tax. Burden of taxation must have went up given the many new ways that tax is paid and the loss of tax relief across things like MiRAS etc etc
Taxation is more than just VAT and Income tax. Burden of taxation must have went up given the many new ways that tax is paid and the loss of tax relief across things like MiRAS etc etc
Boy when Sneecky Boy goes to town he really does go to town doesn’t he? 😀
Well done Sneecky!
Taxes
No need to increase personal tax it just close the tax loopholes for corporates and high net worth individuals(what’s so hard about operate in this country pay your tax in this country eh? Starbucks, Apple, Consultants using PSC’s, Tesco et al) and collect what’s already owned by not sacking HMRC staff.
@scottish_skier
You don’t seem to understand much about French taxes. For reasons I won’t go into, I do.
Bizarrely, you have chosen to use tax rates from 7 years ago. French income tax rates unless you are absurdly rich have just risen to 45%. But given that you get huge deductions for children and spouses, the true rate is much lower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_France#Taxes_on_incomes
That doesn’t mean that the French haven’t lost people owing to populist taxes. There are hundreds of “Belgian” and “Swiss” resident French people who have off-shored themselves just over a convenient border to avoid French wealth tax.
Why has Francois Hollande never married any of his “partners”? Is it a coincidence that it doubles his ISF allowance which massively reduces his wealth tax?
When the socialist president of a socialist country structures his affairs in such a way that he minimises his tax burden you are smoking crack on fantasy island if you think that Scots will behave any differently.
Sneddon’s comment is spot on.
O/t, Has anyone had problems with the Guardian webpage in terms of getting posts moderated? I seem to have had ones rejected, I had a few that were deleted because they were a little cheeky, but the rest were sensible and still got deleted.
@muttley79
I have been pre-moderated off the board, and yesterday I closed my account.
The final straw for me was the following comment on Jackie Ashley’s article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/04/labour-european-exit-ed-miliband not passing the censor.
“I’m confused. The Observer has been telling uppity Jocks that they cannot become independent as they will be thrown out of the EU.
But now it appears that there is a risk that Britain is drifting towards the exit.
Which FUD should I believe?”
Given that the Guardian appears to have no problem with comments that say “we don’t care about you but you have a chip on your shoulder and you beastly Jocks are all whingeing subsidy junkies and we’ll bomb you and take all your oil etc. etc.”, I think they have an odd censorship policy.
Once you’re on their blacklist, you can forget about fair comment. Read “Life and Fate” to understand the mindset.
“Comment is censored, and facts are selected”.
OT
This is a big day for people who care about the borders and about the country’s transport infrastructure. As someone involved with the heritage project at Whitrope, I’m very pleased to see this day arrive.
Of course, the usual Uncle Tom suspects have to make snide, negative comments in an attempt to have a sly dig at the SNP. It makes me sick when seen in stark highlight among the overwhelmingly positive comments.
I can’t believe we invited that baloon Lamont to open our short stretch of running line this year!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-20218603
@NorthBrit
I have only been on the Guardian today, a few comments got through, a few got through and then were deleted, despite being below the radar of the story in question. No comments were meant in a offensive way or using swear words etc. One comment I did make was along the lines of ‘I am new to this page and I guess I will just have to learn as I go on.’ This was deleted and I was put on pre-moderation. Seemed very excessive and ott. Sounds like my stay at the Guardian is going to be very short indeed.
Breaking news… Auditors refuse to sign-off EU accounts for eighteenthconsecutive year
@Northbrit
Was e.g. Germany up crap creek economically in 2005? Sorry if that’s the case and the graph is therefore meaningless.
I shall be glad to see the ‘wealthy’ (by that I mean those who horde wealth, not those who earn a lot but spend most of it) go as they contribute nothing to society. Certainly, they are not ‘wealth creators’; anyone who thinks that fails to understand the basic rules of the world around them as I noted before. I could never vote for such ignorance.
On this topic, it is interesting that the countries with the most debt generally have the lowest taxes/poorest tax collection rates. But then that’s hardly a surprise is it now.
@Muttley79
I didn’t realise they did that. I’ve only posted a handful of times myself, so I guess they haven’t noticed me.
Considering all the hateful drivel they let through, I thought they only post-moderated if a comment was actually reported. (I reported one the other day that said the SNP would probably be at the polling stations handing out bottles of Buckfast and methadone to induce the 16 and 17-year-olds to vote yes. It vanished, and I came back a few hours later to find that its author had re-posted it verbatim. I reported it again, and again it went, but that didn’t look like active moderation to me.)
From what you say, it sounds like the BBC boards all over again.
ah, glad to have been of service sir..
I have lived in a high tax country>60% deductions above 26k gbp, it stifled my will to work hard and my wife stopped working as a teacher. I looked at working part time eventually.
The funny thing is, I have heard numerous Tory voters say ‘Higher taxes were a disincentive for me to work, so I gave up’. This is why I don’t vote centre right; I respect hard work not laziness.
@scottishskier
Germany also has a 45% top rate of tax (2012 rate) and has been easing tax rates in recent years – see chart for expected average rate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Income_Tax_Germany_2010.png
I suspect that most Scottish voters would consider that people on e.g. £100,000 are wealthy and therefore a fair target.
My point is straightforwardly that e.g. if Scotland had a 60% higher rate of tax someone on £100,000 would have a c. £10,000 p.a incentive to work (not to live) in England. You might find that you have e.g. a lot of lawyers who worked in Berwick and lived in Edinburgh.
Furthermore, higher income tax wouldn’t in any way target e.g. a non-resident individual who owned a large sporting estate run as a company that doesn’t make a profit. Or a coffee company for that matter.
You could achieve the double whammy of lots of rich bastards and lower tax revenues.
I don’t subscribe to the wealth creator BS either. I also don’t believe the 50% rate drove many people out of the UK, but that was because there was nowhere for higher earners to go (despite all the rubbish about highly skilled people who could move anywhere in the world).
But anyone wondering why the As and Bs don’t have much enthusiasm for an independent Scotland need look no further than the attitudes illuminated by this survey.
@Morag
To be honest I did post a few comments that in hindsight were not clever. There was a blog about Teresa May’s investigation into child abuse and I aimed a few posts at the contrast in coverage between the social media, the internet, and the newspapers. They were not offensive about abuse or what happened but they obviously thought I was trolling. They were not deleted for a few minutes and got a few recommends. I know newspapers have legal reasons for not naming individuals, but I just feel that with the development of social media and internet that it has become a bizarre situation.
@Northbrit
“I don’t subscribe to the wealth creator BS either”
Good. Lot of crap that is for obvious reasons.
I know what you are saying, but the truth of the matter is that higher taxes do not mean a poor economy. Neither do low taxes make for a prosperous country by default. I often ask those on the right wing to provide me with an example of a country which is strongly right wing/low tax yet has a strong society, high standard of living, booming economy and little to no debt. I never get an answer. However, we can give examples of more centrist liberal countries with higher taxes that are pretty successful…
Basically, you cast your vote, accept what the majority want and do your bit until the next chance you get a say, or move. If someone does not want to contribute to the society they live in, then that society would obviously better off without them. Hence I’m happy to wave goodbye to those who don’t want to do their bit (pay their taxes), just the same as I’d fire someone for that at work.
Note I’m not a ‘leftie’, but a centrist, fairly liberal (0, -2). SNP therefore fit the bill quite well.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Miles away from the main UK parties so a ‘Yes’ from me is just basic logic never mind any flag stuff etc.
I do believe in a fair but progressive tax system supporting a good welfare state. I already pay a good lot of tax and would be ok paying a bit more if it is spent well. That’s just me.
Boorach I can’t say that I’m that surprised about the non signing off of the E.U. accounts. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a bigger bunch of fraudsters. I remember Channel four did a programme about the financial waste in the E.U. oh must have been over 10 years ago. Needless to say no one from the E.U. would make any comment as to why their accounts were not signed off. Mind you it might have had something to do with all the “schemes” the M.E.P.’s were using to claim expenses. Let’s face it we are all getting up in arms AGAIN about the expenses being claimed by M.P.’s but these guys are still in kindergarten compared to what the M.E.P.’s get up to.
In fact I think Channel four did another programme about M.E.P.’s expenses last year. Funnily enough he was in the parliament building when M.E.P.’s usually travel home yet there were more than a few queueing up to claim their Friday attendance monies and then immediately bunking off to catch their flights home. One of those “caught out” was a Labour M.E.P. from the Midlands. Funnily enough after being caught out this M.E.P. suddenly found he had some work to be done in parliament.
Crooks the lot of them!
“The funny thing is, I have heard numerous Tory voters say ‘Higher taxes were a disincentive for me to work, so I gave up’. This is why I don’t vote centre right; I respect hard work not laziness.”
Have you ever actually paid 63% tax and NI deduction on a salary which is your single source of income ? My net take home pay was 45% of my gross and any bonus or OT I was only paid 30% of after 63% tax and NI plus pension…..
If you think you’d stoically work through as you are still earning a fair bit I can assure you that it gets tempting to think that to take a month off you only lose €4.50 in every €10 anyway. Certainly working a weekend was never attractive as I’d be paying €7 in every €10 out in deductions.
If you are looking for low tax, wealthy and conservative countries in Europe then Switzerland is a reasonable option as is Luxembourg.
@Kenny
Was teasing a little; although I have conversed online in the past with a rampant right winger who told me he gave up work because he thought taxes were too high. Rather confusing to have someone on the economic right advocating hard work whilst giving up work….
My brother in law – a specialist doctor – just moved from Le Havre to switzerland tempted by a large wage and low taxes. He’s now discovering it was all too good to be true. Cost of living is very very high, particularly property and medical insurance. He’s got something like a 100 year mortgage on a flat in geneva half the size of the big house he had before. Everything is really expensive in the shops and right now he seems to be worse off financially/lower standard of living than he was back in France. If it looks too good to be true, it usually is…
Personally, I’m no fan of Switzerland; only too happy to hide wealth stolen from e.g. the Jews during the holocaust never mind being a haven for tax evaders. Poverty and inequality is rising fast there and while Geneva is pretty, I find the stark contrast between the extremely wealthy and those below the poverty line very discomforting. I prefer Edinburgh.
Luxembourg is not too dissimilar to Switzerland I understand although I’ve never been.
Low tax = you need to pay for half decent services yourself, normally at a much higher cost due to the profit component. Higher tax (should) = better public services at a lower cost if run properly. Health is an obvious case; the USA is mostly private and the money spent on healthcare is far greater than e.g. for the NHS yet the service is really no better – only scores more highly on speed of delivery. An operation there can cost 3 x as much with the extra largely as profit; it’s a huge earner for big business.
There is no perfect solution though. It would be great if we could have super low taxes yet still have an excellent NHS, welfare state etc…
I would love to be paying 63% tax. 😉
I think my point is that taxation needs to be restrained enough that it doesn’t discourage people accumulating wealth and spending money. My personal line is 50%, once I was over that i was getting less than I was losing. at 60-70% deduction it was easy to say no I don’t need the work. In the end I moved country.
Interesting you bring up Geneva as an example of low tax gone wrong….I worked in Geneva for nearly a year, the high cost of living isn’t related to low taxes. The salaries are high as there is high employment demand and companies are migrating there for tax reasons. They are signing up to deals with the local Canton’s around low corporation tax and this drives up demand for Corp HQ type employees. There is a high percentage of expats from corporates and they drive up real estate costs and so living costs soar. Then to bring in employees from outside salaries have to rise and you have a self feeding inflationary environment.
Healthcare and public facilities are excellent in Switzerland.
A fairer Scotland needs to make sure companies who operate here pay tax here, we cut out the un-needed costs like massive defence forces and discourage tax avoidance by making it aimple and fair for everybody. The eat the rich approach only works for short periods as they are usually fly enough and more importantly mobile enough to get round it. As I said before anything over 26K GBP(€35K) I was taxed on at 63%…. 26K isn’t 100K and a lot of people fall into that bracket. It might start with the very rich, it won’t stop there. Income tax is no road to Nirvana.
I don’t think the problem is that people have been discouraged from accumulating wealth and spending money. The problem is that the people who have accumulated wealth aren’t spending it and that most of the wealth is concentrated in too few hands and isn’t getting to the people who would spend it if they had it.
I’m one of those rare people (it seems) who works full-time and who isn’t well off, but who doesn’t only tell pollsters that I’d be happy to pay more tax, I would like to pay more tax. Why? Because, even though I’m not well off, I recognise that there are many people who are less well off than me and also because I recognise that the purpose of a progressive tax system isn’t so much to tax the rich until the pips squeak but because, as a member of a tax-paying society I, like other members of society, enjoy many tangible and intangible benefits from public investment in public goods.
I also recognise that it’s just brute luck that allows some people to be in high-earning occupations and others in low earning occupations. Most high earners, of course, believe that it’s their hard work that makes them wealthy. But if hard work made you wealthy the world wouldn’t be full of poor people. It’s a bit like the adage that money can’t buy you happiness. This is true, but the adage is foreshortened. It should be extended to: Money can’t buy you happiness but poverty sure makes you miserable.
“I’m one of those rare people (it seems) who works full-time and who isn’t well off, but who doesn’t only tell pollsters that I’d like to pay more tax but that I want to”
“I also recognise that it’s just brute luck that allows some people to be in high-earning occupations and others in low earning occupations. Most high earners, of course, believe that it’s their hard work that makes them wealthy.”
I think for me it was luck and hard work but with some sacrifice(dragging my family across Europe multiple times). I found it personally discouraging to lose two thirds of it before I got it. UK taxation has been as high as 90%+ so there is plenty of room for upwards revisions. What you need to ask yourself is where is your pain point…I’m sure even a Saint like yourself has one 😀
No one I know would advocate an I’m OK Jack and feck everyone else attitude that pervades some societies e.g US. However the opposite approach is also just as unworkable. We need to be a progressive society that includes everyone and where everyone needs to play a part. There should be no opt out clause for any individual nor corporation.
@Kenny Campbell
Seems in general we are very much in agreement.
I can assure you, I’m no saint. And, equally, I’m less concerned about my own “pain point” and more concerned about the pain inflicted on others as a consequence of the low pain points of those whose pain thresholds could be raised.
You may not know many people who’d advocate an I’m alright Jack society but, I can assure you, they are out there, in abundance. In any case, you do live in a society that promotes the belief that it’s higher income earners that need to be incentivised by higher income. So, someone on, say, £100,000 can only be incentivised to increase their productivity if they receive, say, a £10,000 increase in their income. Which begs the question: if someone isn’t maximising their productivity on £100,000 a year, should they be earning £100,000 a year in the first place?
What is the cost of human labour ? If someone will pay 100K then that is it you pay or someone else will. Its not a question of maximising productivity, its a question of if someone will pay more(or take less) then maybe I go there instead. That can be company or tax regime.
One piece of advice can make or lose millions if not billions. If someone is earning 100K it doesn’t mean they need to work 140 hours per week and sleep like Thatcher…does it ?
Money is a poor incentive to work, once the novelty and perceived expectation wears off you need other factors to maintain performance. However it is a factor in getting people initially to work or continue to work, a stop/start button if you may. If your wages were suddenly cut in half by your employer you be likely to look for alternatives even if you could financially get by. The line in the sand is already there.
The issue about choosing to work or not based on onerous taxation exists the same as choosing to work or not based on poor wages and good benefits. There needs to be enough differential to make it compelling to continue/change. If you suddenly get taxed at 90% you stop work near the point where you pay 90% and do something else more rewarding, especially if you have means to survive otherwise. If work is less rewarding then its easier to stop as the loss is limited.
“What is the cost of human labour?”
That depends on who you speak to. The average Joe would give a different answer to an economist and, within economics, mainstream labour economists would give a very different answer to heterodox economists. For the latter, the question itself is incorrect as many heterodox economists make the elementary distinction between labour and labour power, where labour power is the commodity that we sell to an employer in exchange for a wage. As a commodity, labour power is the capacity to produce value (at least in a capitalist economy).
Here, the cost of labour power, like the cost of all other commodities, is determined by its costs of production but, with a few caveats in the case of labour power. Labour power also has costs of reproduction, the worker needs to reproduce his capacity to produce value on a daily basis. Also, social and cultural factors are part of the calculus of the value of labour power. Unlike other commodities, labour power has dependents that also need to be reproduced on a daily basis. Labour power also, unlike other commodities, has the capacity to combine and organise with other owners of labour power to agitate for higher wages. Again, unlike other commodities, the commodity labour power is owned by a sentient, reflexive member of a society who, among other things, makes comparisons between his earnings and the earnings of others, who develops needs and wants as a consequence of being a member of society and so on. All these, and many other things, enter into the costs of labour power.
For mainstream labour economists, on the other hand, ‘labour’ is just another factor of production and the calculation of the cost of ‘labour’ is largely a quantitative phenomenon. But, even there, it depends on which school of mainstream economics one subscribes to. What sparked my interest and my first post here, for example, was the belief perpetrated by some mainstream labour economists that there is a ‘backward’-sloping supply curve for labour. In plain language, this has resulted in the perverse belief that, at the lower end of the income scale, workers have a higher propensity to trade-off higher earnings for ‘leisure’ but, at the higher end of the income scale, workers have a higher propensity to trade-off leisure for higher earnings. Such an approach is qualified by the calculus of ‘substitution’ and ‘income’ effects.
But I suspect that we’re looking at these issues from completely different perspectives. You seem to be settling for explaining, (justifying?) the conventional wisdom – “If someone will pay 100K then that is it, you pay or someone else will”. I’m arguing something different, that it’s this conventional wisdom that needs to be challenged.
For example, although, as my previous posts imply, I’m not against redistribution of income, I would argue that redistribution of income, short of ‘perfect’ redistribution, while not an economic ‘bad’ in itself, is not an effective way to sustainably reduce poverty and create greater equality. At best, income redistribution will mitigate the worst effects of poverty and inequality in a capitalist economy.
If we’re serious about sustainably reducing poverty and inequality, as I am, we need another type of redistribution, the redistribution of productive resources. But, in order to do that, as I indicated earlier, we not only need to ensure that wealth is concentrated in more hands, not less as at present, we also need a different set of social values. Social values do change, even within the narrow parameters of a capitalist economy, as your previous reference to the very different tax rates today compared to the 1970s demonstrate. But I’m thinking about something much more fundamental than that. I’m happy, therefore, to leave you to your arguments against “pain points”, “lines in the sand” etc for, as should be clear by now, we’re never quite going to see eye to eye on this.
Social norms can change, a six day week with no paid holidays was the norm maybe 2 generations ago. Maybe at some point a 4 days week becomes the norm.
I know that working 9-5 is virtually a lost idea in my company, people work almost all the time due to accessibility of information(mobile phones,BB,Laptops,WAP,3/4G) and we have and international customer and employee base .
If I get asked a question via email or on the phone by someone in the US I reply, regardless of the time. I don’t do it when its impossible for me to do so, sleeping,driving,cinema,dinner etc. So the expectation is there and the capability is there. The balance is in setting up your own boundaries.
I also work from home as do ~30% of our 20,000 employees so the lines are very blurred between life and labour.