I gratefully received this enjoyable press release yesterday:
Speaking in this morning’s Green Party debate on Public Services in Scotland, Derek Brownlee MSP, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Finance & Sustainable Growth, said:
“There is a simple option for Patrick Harvie, the Greens and the usual collection of self proclaimed socialists who lecture us on a daily basis on the need to tax and spend more.
“They can follow the example of Hazel Blears, write a cheque for whatever amount of extra tax they feel they should pay and send it off to HM Revenue and Customs.
“The cheque will be cashed. Their guilt will be assuaged. Another part of Labour’s debt will be repaid.
“There is nothing stopping any socialist in this country putting their money where their mouth is and paying more tax – the new progressive coalition government will not prevent any socialist in this country from putting their deeply held principles into practice.â€
Let’s step back a minute here. The City is already rolling in cash again, if it ever really stopped to be. You can certainly see it at every turn where I work just off Threadneedle St in London. Traders, bankers and investors suppressing grins, checking booming property and share portfolios and hoping above hope that the political spotlight won’t fall on them any time soon or the game may be up. Like a gully that had experienced recent drought, the luscious water is pouring back in as unsustainably cheap share prices and volatile markets start to reap massive dividends for a select few once more.
And against this backdrop, Derek Brownlee would seemingly have us allowing the rich to pay less tax and welfare cuts and job losses to bite hard amongst the poor.
It has always struck me as unfair that when any party proposes raising taxes, the instant rebuke is that families are already struggling to meet the cost of bills, rent and food, as if any tax cut would automatically zero in on those who can least afford to pay, which is so rarely the case.
There is little doubt that a rebalancing of our economy is overdue. There was a strong will for this to happen at the height of the financial storm and now, despite Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems all having been in power at a UK level over this period, and (admittedly hamstrung) SNP in power at a Scottish level, the status quo has continued.
Of course Holyrood has limited powers but this Land Value Tax idea that the Scottish Greens are proposing can, and should, be part of the solution. Not that this press release chooses to deal with that, or any, detailed policy proposal head on. That’s not the only enjoyable disappointment though.
The linkage of Patrick Harvie with Hazel Blears is bizarre. It is at best clumsy and at worst, well, I probably shouldn’t say. Hazel paid a cheque for a tax liability that was quite clearly due from her and occurred in the heat of the expenses scandals. Neither of these factors apply to the leader of the Greens.
Furthermore, Derek Brownlee is proposing ‘self-proclaimed Socialists’ pay tax as some sort of charitable donation. As it happens, there is no process or mechanism for an individual to pay HMRC more tax than he or she is due to pay. The Treasury is not Barnardos or Oxfam. I daresay most of these Socialists are thinking hard about where to spend their money, where cash can be targeted in local economies in order to best aid struggling businesses and those most in need. There is a short-cut to bring about the necessary fairness, fairness that every party seemed to be falling over each other to promise less than a year ago but are yet to deliver.
At opposite ends of the spectrum, and perhaps even creating the real, meaningful dividing line, are a Conservative Party that believes that community spirit via The Big Society can paper over the cracks and fissures that spending cuts will inevitably cause and a Green party that believes in decreasing the inequality gap and increasing social mobility through something more reliable and substantial as the tax system.
I’m not going to do something as imbecilic as trying to pay extra money to the Treasury directly but I make no secret of the fact that I would happily pay more tax and would vote to do so accordingly.
‘Tax and spend’ is the strangest of insults from a politician. It is what Government’s are in business to do after all.
#1 by Gregor on January 21, 2011 - 9:49 am
Such a shame when you see Derek Brownlee go so badly off the rail, but I suppose the Conservatives get a bit giddy when it comes to making the state smaller. He’s usually one of the sensible ones, and I think Parliament will miss him after May.
However, I can’t agree with the LVT. To my eyes, it’s no different to Council Tax in that it’s a tax based on an arbitrary measurement. I think that taxation should be based on the ability to pay, not based on the what the value of your house would have been in 1991 (or is it 97?) nor what some surveyor thinks the land my house is on may be worth.
#2 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 10:21 am
I agree Gregor. I did mean the post to be quite light-hearted as DB is still one of Holyrood’s very best performers and personalities for my money. I thought he was top spot for South Region but you seem to think he’s leaving Parliament? That’d be a shame if so.
I don’t really have a problem with Local Income Tax to be honest but I don’t see how you can say LVT is ‘arbitrary’. Is it not based on how much land a person takes up? How can that be an arbitrary measure when wealth and land are so heavily intertwined?
Indeed, land and how effectively we use it could be argued as being a fundamental question of how efficient a society is. Reflecting that in the tax system makes sense to me.
But, as I say, so too does linking tax (both local and income) to how much income a person makes. The overall point I was trying to make is, we have been in a state of inertia for too long and for anyone to casually dismiss someone who is trying to widen the parameters of debate is disappointing.
Council Tax has to go in 2011-2015 term, it just has to. I hope we get the debate on this that we deserve.
#3 by Gregor on January 21, 2011 - 10:31 am
I was under the impression he was second on the list for the South of Scotland? It’ll depend on John Scott winning or losing his seat I suppose – certainly based on your predictions from the other day that doesn’t look likely? He lost the constituency he was going for in a bit of a shocker…
I don’t think the land you’re using up is an indicator of wealth, which was my point. Compare trendy extremely expensive flats in desirable areas that are into six figures, which a semi near me which will take up far more space and will cost less than a tenth of that. Are you saying the person in the semi in the deprived area beside me is able to pay more than the person in the heart of Edinburgh in the penthouse flat? You get the same issues that you do with Council Tax, where Mr and Mrs Smith save up all their cash over the years to build up the family home, then you end up with one person on the state pension trying to pay the same as the folk next door with three full time wages coming in.
I can’t get my head away from the thought that the main tax should be based solely on the ability to pay. Yes, include incentives (or penalties) to encourage certain things, but don’t base a whole system around it.
And yes, I look forward to hearing ALL sides of the debate. It’s just that I’ve made up my mind haha
#4 by Malc on January 21, 2011 - 11:17 am
Yeah, he lost it because Peter Duncan (former Scottish Tory MP) managed to get the people on his side… how we’ll never know. Brownlee is the candidate in East Lothian, against Mr Gray. I guess that seat is redder than red, but being a kent face may help him a little. Or not, if he says things like the above.
#5 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 11:54 am
Derek Brownlee is Top of the South of Scotland list and, consequently, a shoo-in for the 2011 election.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Tory-MSP-rankings-revealed-.6657947.jp
#6 by Indy on January 21, 2011 - 9:55 am
It is the case in the devolved context that tax increases would hit low and middle earners the hardest. The Greens can go on denying that reality until the cows come home, it won’t change a thing.
The variable inome tax power which the Greens are so keen to use ONLY APPLIES TO THE BASIC RATE. The impact of rising inflation, VAT increases and NI increases already means that Scottish households are going to be worse off – on average by £1,340 per year or £112 a month according to Professor David Bell. Add pay restraint to that mix and it is evident that ordinary families are really up against it and will be up against it for the next few years. The Greens want to make it worse by increasing the amount of council tax people have to pay. Land Value Tax is just a fig leaf – the Greens own policy paper proposes to introduce it in 2015, not 2011 and it seems pretty clear that it could not be implemented until that time. So for the Greens increasing the amount of revenue raised in tax = increasing council tax.
Believe it or not I quite like the Greens, I think they have contributed a lot to the Scottish Parliament but if they go into this election committed to tax increases in order to compensate for Westminste’s cuts agenda they will crash and burn – and rightly so because no political party so completely disconnected from the reality of most people’s lives would deserve to be elected.
#7 by James on January 21, 2011 - 12:04 pm
We just found £75m that John could bring in simply by bringing long-term empty business properties into the UBR. It could be done overnight, costs low earners nothing, brings us into line with the rest of the UK, and ends an effective subsidy on urban blight. There’s plenty more that could be done within existing powers without going to LVT or resurrecting the SVR.
A senior Tory said to me yesterday with a grin “The Council Tax freeze is progressive. You save progressively more the better off you are.” That’s the reality of the SNP policy, the reason the Tories love it, and the reason why I’ve given up defending the SNP against the charge that they’re just Tartan Tories.
#8 by Indy on January 21, 2011 - 12:31 pm
£75 million will not offset the cuts.
You just don’t get the council tax issue so I won’t go into it again except to say that I heard Patrick Harvie refer to the poll tax in his speech.
Increasing council tax at this time would be as unpopular as the poll tax. And it would lead to much the same reaction
#9 by Paul on January 21, 2011 - 11:09 am
“I’m not going to do something as imbecilic as trying to pay extra money to the Treasury directly but I make no secret of the fact that I would happily pay more tax and would vote to do so accordingly.”
I agree with Jeff.
#10 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 12:17 pm
Mighty kind of you Paul. Mind you, that line never worked out so well for ‘Nick’ so that’s a thanks with caveats… 😉
#11 by Paul on January 21, 2011 - 1:24 pm
I was going to make that comparison and hold you against it, but realised it would cast me in the role of Gordon Brown and changed my mind.
Everytime I see something about the council cutbacks and how they hurt people I think ; well I could pay a little bit more council tax to help pay for that.
Or seen as much of the budget comes from the government, I could pay some more income tax. I’m not the highest earner in my town by any means but I’d forgo a free more pints so that services could be maintained.
Combine that with some hard hitting rules on the banking sector …
well look, Scotland can only do that with full fiscal autonomy and at present the only real control holyrood has is Council Tax so whether it is progressive or regressive, it is a tax freeze that makes the cuts deeper.
#12 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 2:13 pm
” realised it would cast me in the role of Gordon Brown and changed my mind.” <- which in itself is a good Gordon Brown impersonation. Boom boom! (as opposed to Boom Bust)
Totally agree with your other points; not that I spend much on beer but I did spend £8 on breakfast this morning which a good bowl of corn flakes/muesli at home could easily replace.
#13 by Indy on January 21, 2011 - 4:43 pm
If you only see political choices in terms of how they affect you then you will never see the bigger picture,
#14 by Paul on January 21, 2011 - 5:22 pm
The picture I see is a lot of cuts in public services – that don’t happen to affect me but I think should still be provided. If I was just after myself, I’d say cut tax – cos I can do a lot of the services I do use from the council myself – please cut my council tax, I will take my own rubbish to the tip.
Anyway, my name point was the tools Scotland have are too blunt and small. With a name like Indy I thought you’d want full fiscal autonomy?
#15 by Indy on January 21, 2011 - 5:45 pm
Of course I do. But I am dead against using the tax raising powers of the Scottish Parliament and/or the council tax in order to off-set Westminster’s cuts. Why should low and middle earners in Scotland be forced to pay more while the bankers continue to rake in their milllions?
#16 by James on January 21, 2011 - 9:17 pm
Indy, John’s cuts won’t hurt the poorest. They’ll hurt those who depend on public services. Conversely, almost any tax apart from VAT and duties comes from those with assets or in work. I’m seriously disappointed by what I can only assume is the loyal and partisan way you claim it’s otherwise.
#17 by Gregor on January 21, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Jeff – glad to be corrected on that one.
James – I’m sorry, but I’m going to call that one out for being utter tripe. Council Tax is an extremely regressive form of taxation, costing (relatively) far more to those on low incomes than those on higher incomes. Freezing it, until we can agree on a replacement is entirely the right thing to do.
I can’t accept that attempting to help the worst off is a “Tory” thing to do. They wish to retain the regressive taxation, the SNP wish to replace it with something more progressive. How you can say that’s the same thing is beyond me…
#18 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 12:16 pm
To be fair Gregor, you can’t really have it both ways. Council Tax, as you say, is regressive so as it stands it is hurting the poor more. Four years of freezing the Council tax has continued that regression if not, mercifully, exacerbated it. Millionaires pay the same for local services as they did in 2007, same for the poorest. That is a saving of perhaps thousands of pounds for the rich and hundreds of pounds, perhaps even only tens of pounds, for the poorer. I’m not convinced you fully considered James’ point before steaming in with the “tripe”.
I appreciate that the SNP didn’t have the votes for LIT (though putting it to the vote would’ve been nice) but there is something jarring about championing a tax freeze that, while welcome, has still maintained a deep unfairness in the existing system.
#19 by Doug Daniel on January 21, 2011 - 2:38 pm
But the SNP can’t do anything about that unfairness at the moment, so while the council tax freeze may not be doing anything to correct the inherent unfairness of the system, it at least makes sure the problem isn’t made worse. Perhaps if the Lib Dems had shown a bit more willingness to work with the SNP on their shared aim of LIT, a bill could have been put through Holyrood and something done about it. Without that, any bill put to parliament on LIT was destined to fail, so what’s the point in wasting parliamentary time and money putting it to the vote when the outcome is pre-determined? I think that criticism is as unfounded as those that say the SNP were “scared” of putting their independence bill to the vote, when everyone knew beforehand it would fail.
As for the argument about how much different types of people are saving due to the freeze, well I lived in a band G flat in Glasgow (it was not exactly fancy either), in a block of flats where the bands varied from D to G apparently randomly. Neither I nor my flat mates were anywhere close to being millionnaires, not even by combining incomes. Conversely, my parents’ semi-detached house in Aberdeen is a band D I believe, and that hasn’t changed in 20 years, despite my dad now being retired (or are retirees exempt from council tax?) So even within my own family, I see a lot of discrepancies arising through council tax.
#20 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 3:02 pm
You make some valid points there Doug. I disagree that the SNP are in no position to do anything about the Council Tax when they have formed the Government for the past four years. Yes, they met with typical intransigence from certain parties but did the Nats try hard enough on this topic? We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on that one.
The banding for Council Tax is just bizarre, definitely with you there. I went to view a flat to rent down here in London just this week and it boasted the cheapest Council Tax rates in the entire UK (£600 a year or so). The place wasn’t quite a yuppy wonderland but the overflowing Pizza Express restaurant, funky bars and Ducati motorbike showroom was clear evidence that it didn’t need any subsidies.
Stamp duty is the same. The two flats I bought in Edinburgh were in Abbeyhill and The Shore. Great areas, young professionals etc etc but exempt from stamp duty due to some decades-old rule about it being a regeneration area. The whole system needs a drains-up rework but do any of the ‘main parties’ really have the gumption to push something radical through? I’m sceptical.
#21 by Indy on January 21, 2011 - 4:41 pm
The SNP haven’t done “nothing” about the Council Tax for the past 4 years. They have funded a freeze on Council Tax. In order to abolish the Council Tax they would have required support in the Scottish Parly i.e. the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems chose otherwise.
It is pretty ludicrous to blame the SNP for the fact that the Tories, Labour, Greens and Lib Dems opposed a Local Income Tax. Those parties are responsible for their own positions.
#22 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Why are you putting the “nothing” in quotation marks Indy? I didn’t say the SNP had done “nothing” on the matter.
The freezing of the rates is welcome when compared to rising charges, that will of course benefit the SNP in the coming contest against Labour. However, that is not the only consideration to be made – we still have a regressive Council Tax in place and the SNP has formed the Government for the past 4 years. You can’t just duck that responsibility while pointing to the other benches, particularly in a Parliament where a majority will never exist. As I say, I remain sceptical that the SNP had the stomach for really pushing for a workable compromise on LIT and advancing the argument in the face of fierce media criticism.
And what’s the proposed solution? Election upon election with two, three, four parties slumped against each other unable to find a way through?
As I say, I appreciate the intransigence of other parties but the onus is on the existing Government to broker a deal, to knock some heads together, to get some quid pro quo on the go. To sit back and say we were right and all those other parties were wrong might feel good but it doesn’t really fix the problem.
If the SNP get in again and we’re still no further forward on this by 2015, then Scots have a right to be disappointed with all parties but the Government has to attract a certain extra blame.
#23 by Gregor on January 21, 2011 - 5:16 pm
That’s all well and good, but doesn’t take into consideration people like Mike Rumbles. The man cannot be moved from his default position of hating Salmond above all else. Whilst the LibDems keep him as their deal-broker, no compromise will ever be met.
#24 by Indy on January 21, 2011 - 5:48 pm
What??/
OMG don’t you think John Swinney got down and grovelled and licked the Lib Dems flaming feet. Of course he did.
Get a grip. No-one had as much riding on abolishing council tax as the SNP. Of course we tried.
#25 by CassiusClaymore on January 21, 2011 - 12:31 pm
James
The Council Tax increase definitely helps the poorest more than the richest. a 5% or 10% rise in Council Tax makes zero difference to me, as a high earner, but could make the difference between solvency or insolvency for someone on a low income.
As for empty buildings relief, your policy is naive to say the least. Unfinished and unoccupiable buildings are exempt, and so all that will happen is that developers will delay practical completion/safety certification until a rate-paying occupier is found.
If the building is already completer, landlords will just instal an uncapitalised special purpose corporate vehicle as tenant and thus responsible for the rates. When it is finally liquidated having not paid its rates, they’ll just repeat the process.
So, not only will councils not get the rates, but they’ll incur all sorts of irrecoverable costs in trying to get them.
Why do politicians never ask real-world inhabitants if something will work, before suggesting it?
CC
#26 by John Ruddy on January 22, 2011 - 9:45 pm
Here in Angus, there are many empty business properties which are exempt from UBR. However, its not because developers have delayed practical completion/safety certification. Its because the landlords/owners want too much rent, and they can afford to keep them these older properties empty until either someone is foolish enough to pay the high rent or hell freezes over.
You also show little understanding of how a property developer works. He or she has large amounts of capital tied up in their project – or if they’re luck, large amounts of debt. Its simply not in their interest to delay completion – the savings from not paying UBR are miniscule compared to the money they are being charged by the bank every month.
Charge them UBR and maybe we’ll start to re-generate our town centres AND raise much needed income.
#27 by steve on January 21, 2011 - 12:43 pm
fGregor, I agree that the local income tax is progressive but surely the council tax freeze is regressive? In cash terms people living in expensive homes get more, and people on council tax benefit don’t get anything. Surely the freeze money could be spent in a more progressive way, perhaps by extending council tax benefit to cover water charges too.
#28 by Indy on January 21, 2011 - 4:41 pm
Council tax benefit is reserved,
#29 by steve on January 21, 2011 - 6:50 pm
Indy, I was using shorthand to refer to the current water discount scheme which at the moment gives a 25% discount to someone’s water bill if they get 100% council tax benefit. If they get 50% of their council tax paid for by council tax benefit then they get 12.5% off their water bill, you get the idea.
That 25% discount causes all kinds of trouble, both for people on benefits struggling to pay their bills, and for councils who have to try to collect water charges from people who can’t afford to pay them. So why not extend the 25% discount to 100% instead, that’s devolved, it targets money at those who need it most, it is also much more efficient than the council tax freeze. This is because the council tax freeze reduces (in real terms) everyone’s council tax bills, including those receiving council tax benefit. So that means the department for work and pensions save money thanks to the council tax freeze. So when the Scottish Government spend £70 million freezing council tax, scottish households get about (my estimate here) £58million and £12million is swallowed up by the DWP in savings to them.
The council tax freeze is a votewinner because it’s a clear idea, and people don’t like council tax. But if you point out the effect, which is to distribute £58million fairly randomly across most scottish households, with the explicit exception of the poorest (on council tax benefit) at a cost of £12million, it doesn’t look quite so good in my opinion.
#30 by steve on January 21, 2011 - 7:47 pm
And another issue which (whilst I don’t support a land value tax for domestic property) might help the greens, the CON/DEM government plans to devolve council tax benefit to councils a couple of years from now, at the same time as reducing it by 10%. That means if council tax isn’t reformed or scrapped then things will get worse for people who currently get council tax benefit. Under a land value tax, you’d probably actually reduce the council tax benefit cost, and so could enhance the current benefit regime in Scotland at the same time as ift is getting worse elsewhere, I’d have thought that would be a vote winner.
It also makes my preferred option of a local income tax more affordable, as previously the UK government said that under a Local income tax Scotland would lose around £400million of council tax benefit. Under current UK government plans we’d get to keep 90% of it to put towards a local income tax (and we’d have lost the 10% anyway.)
One final point if I may, if it were up to me, under calman tax proposals I wouldn’t bother putting up national income tax at all, just leave it at 10p on basic rate and 30p on higher rate. That way HMRC can’t get away with trying to charge us for retain ing the status quo. then I’d bring in a loal income tax at 10p on basic and higher to make up for the national income tax shortfall, plus whatever extra you need to replace the council tax lost income. We could then effectively reintroduce the 10p tax rate for low earners by not imposing a local income tax on incomes below say 12K, making the taxation system in Scotland the most progressive found in any part of the UK. I’d also stick a bit extra on higher rate tax payers to mitigate the effect of the cuts.
#31 by Gryff on January 21, 2011 - 2:48 pm
Actually, I think you CAN give more money to the taxman – not saying that is the solution mind. But if you send a cheque to HMRC, they will bank it without fuss. They may even send a nice letter.
#32 by Jeff on January 21, 2011 - 2:55 pm
Yes, and then a few months later you will get a rebate for the same amount.
There is no mechanism or process to permanently overpay income tax.
#33 by cynicalHighlander on January 21, 2011 - 6:50 pm
The Lower Edge of Luxury
Either lie back and accept these unnecessary cuts or start making noises.
#34 by Allan on January 21, 2011 - 7:52 pm
Self proclaimed socialist alert!
I always find it mildly amusing when a Tory engages his (for it is always a male) mouth,but forgets to switch their brain on. It’s like, Oh its not a myth, you really don’t give a flying one for the poor. And they wonder why no one votes Tory in Scotland.
The problem with the tax system is that it disproportionatly affects the low paid, who will continue to take the hit with the 2.5% hike in VAT and Labour’s proposed Council Tax rises. Meanwhile companies and various individuals (some Premiership footballers were reported to be paying only 2% tax) are getting away with not paying their tax liabilities. Brownlie’s proposal kind of fits into the Victorian workhouse ethos which forms the cold heart of Cameron’s “Big Society” idea – that rich people can volenteer to pay more tax if they want, socialist or not. Sorry but thanks to the Tories scorched earth policy (which in turn is a rather botched attempt to fix Labours attempt to keep the economy afloat) no one has any money – well unlwss you hapen to work in the City.
BTW Jeff, I agree with you over LIT, it’s one of the disappointments of the SNP administration that we still have Council Tax in operation here, and that no compromise could have been found with the Lib Dems and the Greens.
#35 by NoOffenceAlan on January 21, 2011 - 9:50 pm
I’m confused now.
You say council tax rises would hit the low-paid hardest, but I’ve seen other people say that the council tax freeze is benefitting the better-off (i.e. those who live in higher band homes) most.
I find it odd that it is only now that the Scottish Tories are talking about a smaller state/lower taxes. They have had 12 years to propose the use of the ‘Tartan Tax Cut’ by reducing income tax in Scotland by 3%, but never have.
I think their problem is that the Scottish Tories are run by ‘devolution-deniers’ who believe Scotland will always be best suited by having exactly the same policies as ‘middle England’.
#36 by Observer on January 21, 2011 - 7:56 pm
The problem with the Council Tax freeze is that it has to be funded so year on year you are seeing an opportunity cost as money is used to hold down front line tax which benefits the rich as well as the poor, which could obviously be spent on something else.
The Council Tax freeze was only brought in as a measure in preparation for Local Income Tax, which we haven’t seen yet. I don’t know if we will see it even if another SNP government gets elected because their scheme as I see it is flawed & also depends on getting Council Tax benefits from the Treasury & the Tories are tinkering about with all that so I don’t know how long CTB will actually be in place.
The Council Tax freeze is NOT a long term policy & it is not a particularly progressive one either, especially as people on lower incomes, people who have children, people who are disabled, pensioners, etc all use Council services more.
The SNP may be able to go into this election on the basis that the Council Tax freeze is an advantage, but there are plenty of people who don’t like it & it is a short term measure at best.
Like Jeff I would be quite willing to pay more tax, but not to support George Osborne’s cutting mania if I can help it. I don’t see why people like me should subsidise bankers even more than I have already done.
#37 by aonghas on January 23, 2011 - 1:42 pm
“I daresay most of these Socialists are thinking hard about where to spend their money, where cash can be targeted in local economies in order to best aid struggling businesses and those most in need.”
Wait… these ‘socialists’ think they are better placed spend their own money than the state!???
This seems confusing, till you remember that for socialists it’s other peoples’ money that’s important – hence the constant jealous muttering about bankers. No point doing good (as you define it) with your money if some other guy isn’t forced to do the same good (again, as you define it).
On the subject of convenient scapegoat #1 – Bankers. Why doesn’t someone start a more efficient investment bank that doesn’t cream off so much – it would surely be very popular with customers… Maybe it could be run as a co-op.
#38 by Indy on January 23, 2011 - 9:34 pm
Lol what a stupid comment.
I think you will find that it is BANKERS who rely on other peoples money! That’s kind of the definition of banking.
#39 by Douglas McLellan on January 25, 2011 - 1:51 pm
I was interested in the number of people who are willing to pay more tax.
I am not.
I got from month to month saving little or nothing into the next month. I could probably save more money than I do but I dont. I could certainly spend less than I do.
I could stop spending lots at the Edinburgh Farmers Market. I could stop getting coffee and lunch at my local independent cafe, I could stop buying my beer and wine at the local independent off license, I could stop going to their tasting events, I could stop going to my local independent cinema (Penicuik Cinema – highly recommend it), I could even stop giving to the charities that I think are best placed to spend my money in the most effective way. Doing all this would mean I have more money to hand over in taxes.
Which is to be? Me supporting what I want the way I want or the never end cash black hole of unrestricted, ill-thought through and occasional useless public services?