Nine in Ten Scots households take more than they give
Discussion
Tartan Pixie said:
London424 said:
I'm pretty sure those numbers are completely made up.
Indeed, hence the wobbly face. There's also a lot of stuff like defense spending and oil revenue that get calculated separately. There is one thing certain about the tory conference though, any statistics regarding Scotland will have been massaged to within an inch of their life.As someone who's undecided which way to vote on independence I've tried to look in to this and come to the conclusion that there's more bull manure surrounding this issue than the whole of old MacDonald's farm.
Best I could work out (using 2010 spending levels) is that if Scotland gets its full geographical share of oil reserves then it should be able to handle its per capita share of the national debt. How close we get to that situation will depend on negotiations.
For example here's some stats for the current deficit. That doesn't include the current debt figures.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...
As soon as government spending goes over the price of a lamp post then it is almost impossible to keep track of where money goes. Especially when there are people hired smarter than you and I to deliberately muddy the waters.
Time to crack out re-runs of Yes, Minister/Prime Minister to get the most accurate portrayal of political spending.
Time to crack out re-runs of Yes, Minister/Prime Minister to get the most accurate portrayal of political spending.
A quick skim read of the article, and it seems to be talking about the consumption of public services rather than benefits.
If thats what they mean, then it sounds right. We pay the Government taxes, and they provided services. It should really be a zero sum at the end of the day (ie tax take should equal spending).
Also personal tax isn't the only form of taxation.
If thats what they mean, then it sounds right. We pay the Government taxes, and they provided services. It should really be a zero sum at the end of the day (ie tax take should equal spending).
Also personal tax isn't the only form of taxation.
heebeegeetee said:
It's a shame Scotland hasn't got any natural resources, like, I dunno, oil or something. They'd be alright then, they could sell that to the world.
Or a stiff drink that people could enjoy a recharge on a slow afternoon or inspiration while working late. I've no idea if others appreciate a few quiet moments of reflection with a glass in hand but some of my best work is owed to whisky, in so much as one could ever attribute inspiration to anything. Of course there is no way to attribute that extra productivity to Scotland using conventional accounting principals.
Guybrush said:
If they want independence, why not let them have it?
I don't care either way but you have to promise not to humiliate us by doing what Ireland has managed and overtaking the UK economically (Already in GDP Nominal and PPP per capita as well as currently approaching the UK in GNI PPP per capita). We don't want to have to become resentful of Scottish success, it would be too much of a thorn to us.bad company said:
heebeegeetee said:
It's a shame Scotland hasn't got any natural resources, like, I dunno, oil or something. They'd be alright then, they could sell that to the world.
Or bankers? I should think most households are net recipients of state spending. It seems to me to be more or less inevitable when you combine a progressive taxation system, higher use of services and benefits by poorer households and a long right hand tail on the income frequency distribution curve.
When the top 1% of earners pay 27% of the income tax take and the top 10% pay 56% of it - while being least likely to receive benefits, most likely to pay for private health or education and I strongly suspect less likely to make use of other public services - that outcome seems inevitable.
When the top 1% of earners pay 27% of the income tax take and the top 10% pay 56% of it - while being least likely to receive benefits, most likely to pay for private health or education and I strongly suspect less likely to make use of other public services - that outcome seems inevitable.
otolith said:
I should think most households are net recipients of state spending. It seems to me to be more or less inevitable when you combine a progressive taxation system, higher use of services and benefits by poorer households and a long right hand tail on the income frequency distribution curve.
When the top 1% of earners pay 27% of the income tax take and the top 10% pay 56% of it - while being least likely to receive benefits, most likely to pay for private health or education and I strongly suspect less likely to make use of other public services - that outcome seems inevitable.
I'd love to see a similar graphic showing the percentages of tax paid by level of net worth rather than income. I think you'd then find the middle and lower ends pay a lot more.When the top 1% of earners pay 27% of the income tax take and the top 10% pay 56% of it - while being least likely to receive benefits, most likely to pay for private health or education and I strongly suspect less likely to make use of other public services - that outcome seems inevitable.
oyster said:
I'd love to see a similar graphic showing the percentages of tax paid by level of net worth rather than income. I think you'd then find the middle and lower ends pay a lot more.
You think? I would have thought that there is considerable overlap between the highest net worth and highest income individuals, and that while they may be managing to minimise the amount they pay in proportion to their wealth, they are still likely to be paying a very large absolute amount of money.bad company said:
thinfourth2 said:
We don't
We have a minority of flag waving idiots who make lots and lots of noise
I hope you're right. I like the Union and honestly believe that we all benefit from being members.We have a minority of flag waving idiots who make lots and lots of noise
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff