Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

DavidF

Generali wrote: »

It seems rather unfair that Scotland, being apparently so rich that they put huge sums into the Exchequer, have such very high levels of spending. London has some of the poorest boroughs in the country yet is a massive net payer into the system, effectively subsidising the rest of the UK.

London has many poor areas. It also has quite a bit of investment thankyou very much. Crossrail £14 billion right now. HS2 £50 billion+ shortly. New airport/runway - Heathrow just expanded "recently", Thameslink £6 billion...

Additional rail capacity and improved reliability on other key commuter and overground routes. Current
plans from Network Rail and Transport for London include work to electrify the Great Western and Midland
main lines, increase capacity on West Anglia line services into Liverpool Street, electrify Gospel Oak to
Barking on the Overground and redevelop Waterloo station

no change out of £200 million there.
Here is a link to what London alone is getting and what it wants in the near term future
http://londonfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/London-Infrastructure-top-ten-priorities-web.pdf

So while there are very poor areas of london - their is also "plenty" of cash being spent there too. As I stated to Clapton last night - Maybe it is time to lobby your local Mp or even the local parties to see why all these billions are being spent in areas where you feel there are still more deserving cases for that cash. I think we all agree most inside the Westminster bubble have little idea of what is happening outside it.....So get down to your Mp's office/surgery ect and tell them you want change.

DavidF

chewmylegoff wrote: »

There isn't an unlimited amount of money. The only way that one area can receive more is at the expense of another, whether that is a direct cut in the other region's funding or through increased borrowing which someone else pays for.

It is surprising the cash you can find down the back of the sofa if you shake it hard enough. We seem to find it easily enough for a new conflict/war here there and everywhere.
To recap I have already said I would be happy to pay more tax. I also would like to see tax avoidance loopholes closed. The cash generated right there is in the billions of pounds per annum. The debt mountain is not going to disappear overnight. We are where we are. We have what we have, It is time we dealt with it all properly and taxing poor people for having an extra bedroom is NEVER going to pay the debt down....neither is sanctioning JSA claimants nor throwing sick and disabled off benefits.
That debt mountain needs serious cash, Im afraid the seriously wealthy are going to have to be the ones who shoulder the burden to meaningfully reduce that ever growing figure.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Have you looked into the root cause of why London with it's wealth should have some of the poorest boroughs? Genuine question.

TBH I think it's a mix of a lot of different things. The biggie is probably the removal of about £50,000,000,000 from London's economy every year. When I talk about London, I mean what the Government calls two areas: London and the South East of England. LINK IMHO, London and the South East are effectively a super city. The idea that London in economic or social terms is the 30 boroughs and two cities (London and Westminster) hasn't been true for decades.

To put that into context, London 'overpays' (bad word but can't think of a better one) in tax more than twice the Council Tax raised in the UK each year.

As an example, people outside London complain about the cost Crossrail. The fact is that the £16,000,000,000 cost will is paid for by Londoners' tax 'overpayments' (sorry) by 27th April each year. If Londoners weren't subsidising the rest of the UK by this amount, three Crossrails could be afforded every year with plenty of money left over.

London is expensive to run largely because her infrastructure is completely overrun. The average speed on London's roads is lower than it was in the C19th and it would be illegal to carry animals in the way Londoners are carried on the tube in summer. The schools and hospitals are full (for example, it is completely normal to send your child to a nursery connected to a school to guarantee a place and some good primary schools have a catchment area with a radius of a few hundred yards). Emergency vehicles can't get to patients, fires and crime scenes in good time.

The interesting part is that this huge payment London makes to the rest of the country is wholly unremarked on by Londoners, it simply isn't a political issue in London. By comparison, Scotland roughly pays her own way (including oil revenues) according to any sensible analysis I've ever read. Yes there are plenty that claim Scotland either gets a massive subsidy or 'overpays' massively but those are generally written by idiots. Scotland will likely get a big subsidy this year due to the drop in the oil price but that is a one-off I suspect. The non-oil economy will grow to replace the lower oil price in time. The South West pays its won way too but all the other regions receive a massive subsidy each and every year and then grumble about how London gets everything!

I remember hearing a similar grumble when London got the Olympics and Lord Coe was being interviewed on Radio 5. His response? "Well we're never going to see the Poole Olympics!".

CLAPTON

DavidF wrote: »

You are just repeating yourself. You state leftie = I should support equal share of "pot" - fine you have HS2 - we can have free prescriptions.
Im glad you agree on a taxation system that is properly managed and closes all loopholes and schemes. Don't see how you could claim it would not be "enough" I personally would challenge that.

Again at the end of your post you just regurgitate the old "But we could just borrow more"......It's a tired old tory line. The fact is THEY have borrowed more during this parliament than labour did during their 13 years.......But Labour are the bogey man.

Maybe I should put a stock answer in my sig - I don't believe Scotland is subsidised by anyone other than it's tax payers.

BTW it is nice to note your local services are in good shape....not sure why you are upset about cash going to others if your services are in good shape.....Is it just a bit of envy ?

The issue is one the one hand the per capita block grant which is higher in Scotland
and secondly how each region chooses to spend it.

My point is about whether it is 'fair' to have a higher block grant for one set of peoples as an election bribe or whether it is unfair and indeed corrupt for both the given and the receiver.

So your example of the free prescription is about how you chose to spend the money allocated to your region to subsidise the richer Scots is entirely reasonable, if that is the choice of the Scottish people: the fact that that regions get more than it's fair share is unfair.

The fact that you 'believe' Scots are subsidised by no-one but themselves in infantile;

and the conclusion you reach that, because Coalition borrowed more that Labour so it's OK to go on borrowing more and more for ever, is equally infantile.

chewmylegoff

DavidF wrote: »

It is surprising the cash you can find down the back of the sofa if you shake it hard enough. We seem to find it easily enough for a new conflict/war here there and everywhere.
To recap I have already said I would be happy to pay more tax. I also would like to see tax avoidance loopholes closed. The cash generated right there is in the billions of pounds per annum. The debt mountain is not going to disappear overnight. We are where we are. We have what we have, It is time we dealt with it all properly and taxing poor people for having an extra bedroom is NEVER going to pay the debt down....neither is sanctioning JSA claimants nor throwing sick and disabled off benefits.
That debt mountain needs serious cash, Im afraid the seriously wealthy are going to have to be the ones who shoulder the burden to meaningfully reduce that ever growing figure.

If it was that easy do you really think the government would be running an enormous budget deficit? All politicians want to be elected and the easiest way for any party to ensure it retains power would be to wave the magic tax wand and wipe out the deficit. You may have noticed that the government already aggressively taxes anything it can think of. If Cameron could secure his position as prime minister for another 2 or 3 terms by simply taxing a few of his "seriously wealthy" mates do you think he would act in their interest or his own?

Generali

DavidF wrote: »

It is surprising the cash you can find down the back of the sofa if you shake it hard enough. We seem to find it easily enough for a new conflict/war here there and everywhere.
To recap I have already said I would be happy to pay more tax. I also would like to see tax avoidance loopholes closed. The cash generated right there is in the billions of pounds per annum. The debt mountain is not going to disappear overnight. We are where we are. We have what we have, It is time we dealt with it all properly and taxing poor people for having an extra bedroom is NEVER going to pay the debt down....neither is sanctioning JSA claimants nor throwing sick and disabled off benefits.
That debt mountain needs serious cash, Im afraid the seriously wealthy are going to have to be the ones who shoulder the burden to meaningfully reduce that ever growing figure.

The wealthy already pay the vast majority of tax in this country. If you earn less than the median wage, it is highly unlikely that you are a net taxpayer once the cost of the Government supplied goods and services is subtracted.

For example, the top 50% of earners earn 3/4ers of the income yet pay over 90% of the income tax (link). The top 1% alone pay approaching 30% of income taxes despite only earning 1/8th of the country's income.

It is hard to see how you can squeeze much more out of them quite honestly. Better IMHO to look at how we can help the bottom 50% to help themselves so they start to pay some tax (as they get richer) and need less welfare.

The 'bedroom tax' isn't a tax BTW, it's an expectation that people who are consuming more housing than they need will pay for that overconsumption. If that's a bedroom tax, people who buy more food than they need, but don't receive extra benefits to pay for it, are paying a food tax.

DavidF

The top 50% of earners pay 90% of the tax take.....Does that include the Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Vodaphone, British American Tobacco,Tate * Lyle, Vedanta or Npower.....and these are just the tip of the iceberg.
All of these companies use our healthy educated workforce. They also use our police and fire services among other things. It is not just the people of the country who benefit from public services....The companies who operate and trade here use them too.
These companies operate within our shores and yet do not pay tax in the same way as if you or I opened up a bookshop/coffee shop ect ect. So not only are they failing to pay what I would refer too as a "proper" intended tax bill, they are also potentially driving businesses too the wall who DO "try" to pay their way.

DavidF

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue is one the one hand the per capita block grant which is higher in Scotland
and secondly how each region chooses to spend it.

My point is about whether it is 'fair' to have a higher block grant for one set of peoples as an election bribe or whether it is unfair and indeed corrupt for both the given and the receiver.

So your example of the free prescription is about how you chose to spend the money allocated to your region to subsidise the richer Scots is entirely reasonable, if that is the choice of the Scottish people: the fact that that regions get more than it's fair share is unfair.

The fact that you 'believe' Scots are subsidised by no-one but themselves in infantile;

and the conclusion you reach that, because Coalition borrowed more that Labour so it's OK to go on borrowing more and more for ever, is equally infantile.

Name calling always give me a nice warm glow in the morning, Water off a ducks back my old chum.
I still refuse to enter into debate about how much tax Scotland (And her waters)generates compared to what it gets back with regards to the block grant.....If you had caught me this time last year then maybe I could have been "bothered" enough to dig out some figures for you to then dig out your figures and go round in circles until we got to the point that neither of us had backed down anyway.
You also stated that your local services are in good shape (Not those words but to the same effect) - So why do you feel the need for a larger share of the block grant ?
I am fairly confident that you are aware of how and why the block grant is spread around in the manner it is. Lots of factors are taken into account not least the fact that London holds almost as many people as Scotland itself. You squeeze all those people into a tight space then yes less £ per head will be the result.

Like I said before go down to see your local mp and go and see his/her competition for the upcoming GE. Failing that move to Scotland, Ireland or Wales......I mean the streets are paved with gold in these places so therefore it is a win win for any incoming immigrants from England.....then you too can have more £xxxx spent on your public services.:rotfl:

Generali

DavidF wrote: »

The top 50% of earners pay 90% of the tax take.....Does that include the Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Vodaphone, British American Tobacco,Tate * Lyle, Vedanta or Npower.....and these are just the tip of the iceberg.
All of these companies use our healthy educated workforce. They also use our police and fire services among other things. It is not just the people of the country who benefit from public services....The companies who operate and trade here use them too.
These companies operate within our shores and yet do not pay tax in the same way as if you or I opened up a bookshop/coffee shop ect ect. So not only are they failing to pay what I would refer too as a "proper" intended tax bill, they are also potentially driving businesses too the wall who DO "try" to pay their way.

Read my post again.

BTW you seem to have changed your mind as to who should pay more tax. It was the "seriously wealthy" now it's large corporates. If we wait a while longer will it become Bankers or Jews or fat people?

CLAPTON

DavidF wrote: »

Name calling always give me a nice warm glow in the morning, Water off a ducks back my old chum.
I still refuse to enter into debate about how much tax Scotland (And her waters)generates compared to what it gets back with regards to the block grant.....If you had caught me this time last year then maybe I could have been "bothered" enough to dig out some figures for you to then dig out your figures and go round in circles until we got to the point that neither of us had backed down anyway.
You also stated that your local services are in good shape (Not those words but to the same effect) - So why do you feel the need for a larger share of the block grant ?
I am fairly confident that you are aware of how and why the block grant is spread around in the manner it is. Lots of factors are taken into account not least the fact that London holds almost as many people as Scotland itself. You squeeze all those people into a tight space then yes less £ per head will be the result.

Like I said before go down to see your local mp and go and see his/her competition for the upcoming GE. Failing that move to Scotland, Ireland or Wales......I mean the streets are paved with gold in these places so therefore it is a win win for any incoming immigrants from England.....then you too can have more £xxxx spent on your public services.:rotfl:

I made no claim or comment about how much each region of the UK generates in tax.
My comments were what is a 'fair ' distribution of the money collectively available.
I would expect a socialist to believe in 'fair ' distribution which would reasonably be a combination of per capita and need.

What we have is a corrupt system designed by the Barnett to help win a general election for Labour but now has corrupted both the givers and the receivers, as evidenced by your mindless and ignorant defense of the indefensible.

It would seem 'unfair' to me that the people of a 'rich' region should get higher spending than people in a poorer area.

One is amused, you think that London has almost as many people as Scotland: never let facts get in your way.

And yes, I do think it infantile to believe that because the Coalition borrowed more than Labour, that makes it alright to continue borrowing more and more for ever.