Nine in Ten Scots households take more than they give
Discussion
mrmr96 said:
RDM said:
mrmr96 said:
Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
Further down the article says:I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."
So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.
Did you read the article...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...
"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."
Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.
cerbfan said:
mrmr96 said:
RDM said:
mrmr96 said:
Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
Further down the article says:I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."
So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.
Did you read the article...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...
"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."
Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.
Surprised none of the budding statisticians on the thread has pointed out 12% is a lot more like 7 out of 8 (12.5%) than it is 9 out of 10 (10%)...
emicen said:
cerbfan said:
mrmr96 said:
RDM said:
mrmr96 said:
Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
Further down the article says:I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."
So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.
Did you read the article...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...
"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."
Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.
Surprised none of the budding statisticians on the thread has pointed out 12% is a lot more like 7 out of 8 (12.5%) than it is 9 out of 10 (10%)...
I'll just leave you with a couple of thoughts though.
If Scotland has a deficit of 7.4%, plus a rather chunky debt (can't forget this) who are you going to borrow from, at what rate and in what currency to service that?
Also don't forget that all of the economies of scale that are currently in play and all the additional public sector jobs that will need to be created (increasing said deficit and debt). E.g. DVLA, Passport office etc.
London424 said:
emicen said:
cerbfan said:
mrmr96 said:
RDM said:
mrmr96 said:
Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
Further down the article says:I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."
So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.
Did you read the article...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...
"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."
Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.
Surprised none of the budding statisticians on the thread has pointed out 12% is a lot more like 7 out of 8 (12.5%) than it is 9 out of 10 (10%)...
I'll just leave you with a couple of thoughts though.
If Scotland has a deficit of 7.4%, plus a rather chunky debt (can't forget this) who are you going to borrow from, at what rate and in what currency to service that?
Also don't forget that all of the economies of scale that are currently in play and all the additional public sector jobs that will need to be created (increasing said deficit and debt). E.g. DVLA, Passport office etc.
FWIW, and IMO, public sectors jobs would wash out about even. We have a disproportionately high number of tax offices up here serving UK PLC, half of them would need the boot so their minions could be re-assigned to central admin for our DVLA and passport offices.
Bottom line, I'm the one from some group of eight, who currently pays massively more in tax than I receive back in services of any kind. If the turkeys vote for xmas, I'll be moving to Oslo, Houston or Rio.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff