New Energy Price Guarantee - a fair measure for all or a slightly unfair redistribution?

SnakePlissken

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lisyloo said:

I’d like to question this idea that we’re all equally liable to repay.
I'm going to retire in a few years a lower my tax and NI contributions.
sweeping generalisation of course but doesn’t this burden fall disproportionately on the young or in more general terms future tax payers.
I guess the devil may be in the detail of exactly how it’s going to be collected.

It falls disproportionately on the young in general, as well as higher earners. Those who do not make a net contribution will not be repaying it at all. It appears it will be added to the national debt, which is serviced from general taxation, so again the burden falls on net contributors. 

It is insane that Truss is proposing tax cuts when we are still borrowing to cover day to day expenditure, that's even before she adds £150-200 billion with this scheme, even more so when the bottom two thirds of taxpayers have the lowest effective rate of income taxation in the EU (ok, I know we unfortunately left. Also the top third have the fifth highest).

The UK has one of the worst inequality in the western world, our top 50%

The UK does have higher inequality than some countries, less than others, we are 73rd on a list of 180 countries, hardly "one of the worst".

Chrysalis said:

our top 50% are currently under taxed 

The top third of earners have the fifth highest rate of income taxation in the EU, our top rate is 48.25%, in Germany it is 47.475%, France 49%, Norway 46.4% and Ireland 49%. We are slightly above average in terms of our top rate of tax compared to major economies.

Chrysalis said:
and bottom 10% over taxed. 

The bottom 10% do not have their income taxed and because of our benefits system means that they have an effective negative rate of income taxation. Additionally because of the way that VAT works, with the exclusions we apply VAT in the UK functions in a progressive way even though it is applied at a flat rate. The bottom two thirds have the lowest rate of income taxation in the EU, the lowest of any major economy, the lowest of any advanced economy.

Chrysalis said:
I think this is a lot down to our wealthiest massively resisting tax increases more than they do in Germany, France etc. 

In the UK depending on how the question is asked 80-90% of people support raising income taxes, however less than 10% support raising their level of income taxation, they want things to be paid for by "someone else". The Wealthiest are already paying a comparable rate to the wealthiest in Germany or France, it is the bottom two thirds of earners who pay considerably less in income taxation in the UK than they to in France or Germany. France has the same rate of VAT as we have, but also apply VAT to food (at a reduced rate), Germany has a VAT rate of 19%, lower than ours, but also apply VAT at 7% to most foods. Germany and France have comparable levels of property taxation. Germany has slightly higher corporation tax, France has corporation tax quite a bit higher (30%) but actually collects less in corporation tax than the UK despite having a slightly bigger economy. It is not the wealthiest that do not pay enough tax.

Chrysalis said:
We have too much regressive and not enough progressive taxes. 

The UK has one of the most progressive taxation and benefits system in the world, overall our tax system is more progressive than those of Germany or France.

Chrysalis said:
Truss has took us backwards sadly, 

Truss has or will take us backwards in many ways, tax cuts being one of them, she should be raising all levels of income taxation and slashing the tax free allowance. 

Chrysalis said:
we badly needed the corp tax rise

The corporation tax rise was not really needed, it would have been somewhat helpful, but we also need to reform corporate taxes, the UK corporate tax system does little to nothing to encourage investment, compared to those of Germany or Norway which actively benefit businesses who invest in plant, equipment, R&D, training etc. Corporation tax of around 20% is probably about right, or 25% with reforms to the way investment in the business is taxed, but it is not a major issue overall.

Chrysalis said:
and the NI changes she made are regressive.

The National Insurance changes Truss has made are regressive when taken in isolation, however our income taxation system is still highly progressive, just slightly less highly progressive than it would have been with Sunak's National Insurance rise.

Chrysalis said:

I do agree with the decision to put it on general taxation instead of future energy bills, 

I do not agree with passing the burden on to future generations, since 1999 the UK has lived beyond it's means, borrowing money for the benefit of those now and relying on future generations to repay that debt. Taxes in the UK need to rise for everyone, the abolition or near abolition of the tax free allowance, the merging of IC and NI so higher income pensioners to not avoid paying it (as well as a simplified tax system) and putting 4% on the base rate of income taxation 2% on the higher rate and 1.25% on the additional rate.

Chrysalis said:
putting the SOLR costs on the SC was a horrific decision.

It was not "horrific" it was reasonably sensible at that point in time.

For reference borrowing and government debt is normal practice.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
https://www.statista.com/statistics/872472/gini-index-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/oct/11/uk-no-further-forward-on-tackling-gender-inequality-eu-league-table-shows

Debt and borrowing at a level during times of need is normal, borrowing for investment is normal. The UK has been borrowing to cover day to day costs since 1999 and Truss is borrowing even more to allow her to cut taxes. In the short term that is bad, in the long term it is economically disastrous. 

Chrysalis said:

Do you think people in the bottom 10% pay no tax?  Have I misunderstood something?

I did not say that they pay no tax, I said that they do not pay net tax, they receive more in benefits than they pay in tax, so they have a negative taxation rate even before you account for a proportion of service that they receive from the state, so yes, you have misunderstood, I expect deliberately. 

Chrysalis said:

so they pay none of these?

VAT
Fuel Duty
Council tax

The lowest 10% of earners pay very little VAT because most of their expenditure goes on food which attracts no VAT, rent which attracts no VAT, water which attracts no VAT and energy which only attracts 5% VAT, so overall they pay very little VAT. The bottom 10% of earners often do not own private vehicles so on average pay very little in Fuel Duty. They will also have their Council Tax pay for via the benefit system, so not paying it themselves. 

Chrysalis said:

The one thing I probably agree with you on is that government rarely see past the next election and as such we are extremely short termist.  That short termism has led to progressive taxes been over cut though.

The UK tax system is more progressive than that of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc. Progressive Taxes have not been "over cut", our tax system has actually got more progressive in nearly every year for the last thirty years, with a slight regression in the last two years due to inflation and then a future slight regression if Truss implements her tax cuts. 

There is not 1 tax system in all of UK on income tax.

Scotland sets its own rates and bands which differ from England & Wales and are more progressive. And tax the lower paid less and higher paid more. UK gov could choose to reform Englands similar to Scotland, but choose not to.

Band	Taxable income	Scottish tax rate
Personal Allowance	Up to £12,570	0%
Starter rate	£12,571 to £14,732	19%
Basic rate	£14,733 to £25,688	20%
Intermediate rate	£25,689 to £43,662	21%
Higher rate	£43,663 to £150,000	41%
Top rate https://www.gov.uk/scottish-income-tax England has just 3 bands and rates above the personal allowance Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £150,000 40% Additional rate over £150,000 45%	over £150,000	46%

michaels

SnakePlissken said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lisyloo said:

I’d like to question this idea that we’re all equally liable to repay.
I'm going to retire in a few years a lower my tax and NI contributions.
sweeping generalisation of course but doesn’t this burden fall disproportionately on the young or in more general terms future tax payers.
I guess the devil may be in the detail of exactly how it’s going to be collected.

It falls disproportionately on the young in general, as well as higher earners. Those who do not make a net contribution will not be repaying it at all. It appears it will be added to the national debt, which is serviced from general taxation, so again the burden falls on net contributors. 

It is insane that Truss is proposing tax cuts when we are still borrowing to cover day to day expenditure, that's even before she adds £150-200 billion with this scheme, even more so when the bottom two thirds of taxpayers have the lowest effective rate of income taxation in the EU (ok, I know we unfortunately left. Also the top third have the fifth highest).

The UK has one of the worst inequality in the western world, our top 50%

The UK does have higher inequality than some countries, less than others, we are 73rd on a list of 180 countries, hardly "one of the worst".

Chrysalis said:

our top 50% are currently under taxed 

The top third of earners have the fifth highest rate of income taxation in the EU, our top rate is 48.25%, in Germany it is 47.475%, France 49%, Norway 46.4% and Ireland 49%. We are slightly above average in terms of our top rate of tax compared to major economies.

Chrysalis said:
and bottom 10% over taxed. 

The bottom 10% do not have their income taxed and because of our benefits system means that they have an effective negative rate of income taxation. Additionally because of the way that VAT works, with the exclusions we apply VAT in the UK functions in a progressive way even though it is applied at a flat rate. The bottom two thirds have the lowest rate of income taxation in the EU, the lowest of any major economy, the lowest of any advanced economy.

Chrysalis said:
I think this is a lot down to our wealthiest massively resisting tax increases more than they do in Germany, France etc. 

In the UK depending on how the question is asked 80-90% of people support raising income taxes, however less than 10% support raising their level of income taxation, they want things to be paid for by "someone else". The Wealthiest are already paying a comparable rate to the wealthiest in Germany or France, it is the bottom two thirds of earners who pay considerably less in income taxation in the UK than they to in France or Germany. France has the same rate of VAT as we have, but also apply VAT to food (at a reduced rate), Germany has a VAT rate of 19%, lower than ours, but also apply VAT at 7% to most foods. Germany and France have comparable levels of property taxation. Germany has slightly higher corporation tax, France has corporation tax quite a bit higher (30%) but actually collects less in corporation tax than the UK despite having a slightly bigger economy. It is not the wealthiest that do not pay enough tax.

Chrysalis said:
We have too much regressive and not enough progressive taxes. 

The UK has one of the most progressive taxation and benefits system in the world, overall our tax system is more progressive than those of Germany or France.

Chrysalis said:
Truss has took us backwards sadly, 

Truss has or will take us backwards in many ways, tax cuts being one of them, she should be raising all levels of income taxation and slashing the tax free allowance. 

Chrysalis said:
we badly needed the corp tax rise

The corporation tax rise was not really needed, it would have been somewhat helpful, but we also need to reform corporate taxes, the UK corporate tax system does little to nothing to encourage investment, compared to those of Germany or Norway which actively benefit businesses who invest in plant, equipment, R&D, training etc. Corporation tax of around 20% is probably about right, or 25% with reforms to the way investment in the business is taxed, but it is not a major issue overall.

Chrysalis said:
and the NI changes she made are regressive.

The National Insurance changes Truss has made are regressive when taken in isolation, however our income taxation system is still highly progressive, just slightly less highly progressive than it would have been with Sunak's National Insurance rise.

Chrysalis said:

I do agree with the decision to put it on general taxation instead of future energy bills, 

I do not agree with passing the burden on to future generations, since 1999 the UK has lived beyond it's means, borrowing money for the benefit of those now and relying on future generations to repay that debt. Taxes in the UK need to rise for everyone, the abolition or near abolition of the tax free allowance, the merging of IC and NI so higher income pensioners to not avoid paying it (as well as a simplified tax system) and putting 4% on the base rate of income taxation 2% on the higher rate and 1.25% on the additional rate.

Chrysalis said:
putting the SOLR costs on the SC was a horrific decision.

It was not "horrific" it was reasonably sensible at that point in time.

For reference borrowing and government debt is normal practice.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
https://www.statista.com/statistics/872472/gini-index-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/oct/11/uk-no-further-forward-on-tackling-gender-inequality-eu-league-table-shows

Debt and borrowing at a level during times of need is normal, borrowing for investment is normal. The UK has been borrowing to cover day to day costs since 1999 and Truss is borrowing even more to allow her to cut taxes. In the short term that is bad, in the long term it is economically disastrous. 

Chrysalis said:

Do you think people in the bottom 10% pay no tax?  Have I misunderstood something?

I did not say that they pay no tax, I said that they do not pay net tax, they receive more in benefits than they pay in tax, so they have a negative taxation rate even before you account for a proportion of service that they receive from the state, so yes, you have misunderstood, I expect deliberately. 

Chrysalis said:

so they pay none of these?

VAT
Fuel Duty
Council tax

The lowest 10% of earners pay very little VAT because most of their expenditure goes on food which attracts no VAT, rent which attracts no VAT, water which attracts no VAT and energy which only attracts 5% VAT, so overall they pay very little VAT. The bottom 10% of earners often do not own private vehicles so on average pay very little in Fuel Duty. They will also have their Council Tax pay for via the benefit system, so not paying it themselves. 

Chrysalis said:

The one thing I probably agree with you on is that government rarely see past the next election and as such we are extremely short termist.  That short termism has led to progressive taxes been over cut though.

The UK tax system is more progressive than that of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc. Progressive Taxes have not been "over cut", our tax system has actually got more progressive in nearly every year for the last thirty years, with a slight regression in the last two years due to inflation and then a future slight regression if Truss implements her tax cuts. 

There is not 1 tax system in all of UK on income tax.

Scotland sets its own rates and bands which differ from England & Wales and are more progressive. And tax the lower paid less and higher paid more. UK gov could choose to reform Englands similar to Scotland, but choose not to.

Band	Taxable income	Scottish tax rate
Personal Allowance	Up to £12,570	0%
Starter rate	£12,571 to £14,732	19%
Basic rate	£14,733 to £25,688	20%
Intermediate rate	£25,689 to £43,662	21%
Higher rate	£43,663 to £150,000	41%
Top rate https://www.gov.uk/scottish-income-tax England has just 3 bands and rates above the personal allowance Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £150,000 40% Additional rate over £150,000 45%	over £150,000	46%

Does the 12/13.125% NI band end at 43k in Scotland too or do they have very high marginal rates between 43k and 50k?

For those earning less than 43k do the tweaks to tax rates max more than a few pennies difference, the 19/21p rates look particularly cynical, one save a whole £20 (ie window dressing), the other costs up to £180?  Are Scottish voters really fooled by this?

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

The UK tax system is more progressive than that of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc. Progressive Taxes have not been "over cut", our tax system has actually got more progressive in nearly every year for the last thirty years, with a slight regression in the last two years due to inflation and then a future slight regression if Truss implements her tax cuts. 

What do you consider as progressive taxation?

The definition of progressive taxation, the rate increases as the amount increases.

Chrysalis said:

Historical treasury income is showing a constant shift from ability to pay taxes to consumption taxes, you making statements at complete odds to reality its as if we living in alternate universes.

Treasury data shows a small shift from income taxation to indirect taxation, the majority of that drive was caused by the huge increases in the personal allowance. VAT is higher from the historical 17.5% and the temporary 15% which also covers part of that shift. It is not an alternate reality because you choose to view the figures in a way which does not correspond with real world changes, eg. less tax is raised from income taxation, but that is almost entirely to the benefit of low earners. 

Chrysalis said:

I find your statements on low earners interesting as if you feel you have a complete understanding of them.  The problem is I think you dont such as the assumption they dont use cars.

I did not say all low earners do not use cars, but the percentage who own and operate personal vehicles is far lower than average and higher earners. You said the bottom 10% of earners which is not just low earners, but very low earners, long term unemployed, pensioners etc. in the leas likely demographic group to own personal vehicles. 

Chrysalis said:

Curious, do you find which of these most progressive?

1 - Taxation that wealthier people pay a higher %.
2 - Taxation that is a flat % of income.
3 - Taxation that is a flat amount.

The first is the most progressive, which is the system we have. Someone with an income of £12k pa will pay no income taxes, someone on £25k pa will pay 16.52% in income taxes, someone on £50k pa will pay 24.89% of their income in income taxes, someone on £200k pa will pay 42.41% of their income in income taxes and someone on £10 million pa will pay 48.14% in income taxes (all PAYE for simplicity). Those on higher incomes also tend to pay a higher percentage of their income as VAT as they generally buy more products and use more services which attract VAT compared to lower earners. 

Option two is neither progressive or regressive, being flat, option three is regressive. It is hardly rocket science but I suspect you are attempting to build a straw man. 

Chrysalis said:

SC is a flat amount of course per billpayer akin to #3, takes no account of usage or number of earning adults living at the property and you felt it was a good way to recover SOLR costs.

The Standing Charge is regressive, however it is also not a tax, but a living cost, conflating the two does not help your position. 

Chrysalis said:

Also I didnt misunderstand you deliberately, tax is tax.  Tax is I look at what you pay, 

You can look at it how you like, GINI compares raw income data, but generally more useful international comparisons account for cash benefits as negative taxation as to ignore them distorts the real picture.

Chrysalis said:
NHS treatment etc.  

To take a proper look one also needs to accounts for a share of national costs, we all benefit from the NHS even if we do not use it due to otherwise needing to have private insurance, the same with policing, defence, the legal system etc.

Chrysalis said:
That to me is a logical way to look at it, however I found your "net tax" idea interesting, its the first time I have come across someone looking at it that way,

Net contributions are the important factor although they are binary. Most people cost the state money over their lifetimes, we have the lowest level of net contributors in the EU not because high earners do not pay enough in tax, but because on the bottom two thirds of earners we have the lowest rates of income taxation in the EU, largely due to our very large tax free allowance. 

Chrysalis said:
seems a odd selfish way to look at it but thats just me.

If you think it is "odd" and "selfish" to want a sustainable system that is evidenced to work (Germany, Norway, Netherlands etc.) rather than our current system which is not working (continually growing debt, standards dropping across all public services). I want to deal with the issues now, rather than expect future generations to pick up the tab, I know that will mean that I would have to pay more tax myself, but that brings a benefit to everyone overall. It is not "selfish" that I say that I and everyone else needs to pay more tax to cover the services we all need and the debt we accumulated so that we do not screw over our children and grandchildren. 

SnakePlissken

michaels said:

SnakePlissken said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lisyloo said:

I’d like to question this idea that we’re all equally liable to repay.
I'm going to retire in a few years a lower my tax and NI contributions.
sweeping generalisation of course but doesn’t this burden fall disproportionately on the young or in more general terms future tax payers.
I guess the devil may be in the detail of exactly how it’s going to be collected.

It falls disproportionately on the young in general, as well as higher earners. Those who do not make a net contribution will not be repaying it at all. It appears it will be added to the national debt, which is serviced from general taxation, so again the burden falls on net contributors. 

It is insane that Truss is proposing tax cuts when we are still borrowing to cover day to day expenditure, that's even before she adds £150-200 billion with this scheme, even more so when the bottom two thirds of taxpayers have the lowest effective rate of income taxation in the EU (ok, I know we unfortunately left. Also the top third have the fifth highest).

The UK has one of the worst inequality in the western world, our top 50%

The UK does have higher inequality than some countries, less than others, we are 73rd on a list of 180 countries, hardly "one of the worst".

Chrysalis said:

our top 50% are currently under taxed 

The top third of earners have the fifth highest rate of income taxation in the EU, our top rate is 48.25%, in Germany it is 47.475%, France 49%, Norway 46.4% and Ireland 49%. We are slightly above average in terms of our top rate of tax compared to major economies.

Chrysalis said:
and bottom 10% over taxed. 

The bottom 10% do not have their income taxed and because of our benefits system means that they have an effective negative rate of income taxation. Additionally because of the way that VAT works, with the exclusions we apply VAT in the UK functions in a progressive way even though it is applied at a flat rate. The bottom two thirds have the lowest rate of income taxation in the EU, the lowest of any major economy, the lowest of any advanced economy.

Chrysalis said:
I think this is a lot down to our wealthiest massively resisting tax increases more than they do in Germany, France etc. 

In the UK depending on how the question is asked 80-90% of people support raising income taxes, however less than 10% support raising their level of income taxation, they want things to be paid for by "someone else". The Wealthiest are already paying a comparable rate to the wealthiest in Germany or France, it is the bottom two thirds of earners who pay considerably less in income taxation in the UK than they to in France or Germany. France has the same rate of VAT as we have, but also apply VAT to food (at a reduced rate), Germany has a VAT rate of 19%, lower than ours, but also apply VAT at 7% to most foods. Germany and France have comparable levels of property taxation. Germany has slightly higher corporation tax, France has corporation tax quite a bit higher (30%) but actually collects less in corporation tax than the UK despite having a slightly bigger economy. It is not the wealthiest that do not pay enough tax.

Chrysalis said:
We have too much regressive and not enough progressive taxes. 

The UK has one of the most progressive taxation and benefits system in the world, overall our tax system is more progressive than those of Germany or France.

Chrysalis said:
Truss has took us backwards sadly, 

Truss has or will take us backwards in many ways, tax cuts being one of them, she should be raising all levels of income taxation and slashing the tax free allowance. 

Chrysalis said:
we badly needed the corp tax rise

The corporation tax rise was not really needed, it would have been somewhat helpful, but we also need to reform corporate taxes, the UK corporate tax system does little to nothing to encourage investment, compared to those of Germany or Norway which actively benefit businesses who invest in plant, equipment, R&D, training etc. Corporation tax of around 20% is probably about right, or 25% with reforms to the way investment in the business is taxed, but it is not a major issue overall.

Chrysalis said:
and the NI changes she made are regressive.

The National Insurance changes Truss has made are regressive when taken in isolation, however our income taxation system is still highly progressive, just slightly less highly progressive than it would have been with Sunak's National Insurance rise.

Chrysalis said:

I do agree with the decision to put it on general taxation instead of future energy bills, 

I do not agree with passing the burden on to future generations, since 1999 the UK has lived beyond it's means, borrowing money for the benefit of those now and relying on future generations to repay that debt. Taxes in the UK need to rise for everyone, the abolition or near abolition of the tax free allowance, the merging of IC and NI so higher income pensioners to not avoid paying it (as well as a simplified tax system) and putting 4% on the base rate of income taxation 2% on the higher rate and 1.25% on the additional rate.

Chrysalis said:
putting the SOLR costs on the SC was a horrific decision.

It was not "horrific" it was reasonably sensible at that point in time.

For reference borrowing and government debt is normal practice.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
https://www.statista.com/statistics/872472/gini-index-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/oct/11/uk-no-further-forward-on-tackling-gender-inequality-eu-league-table-shows

Debt and borrowing at a level during times of need is normal, borrowing for investment is normal. The UK has been borrowing to cover day to day costs since 1999 and Truss is borrowing even more to allow her to cut taxes. In the short term that is bad, in the long term it is economically disastrous. 

Chrysalis said:

Do you think people in the bottom 10% pay no tax?  Have I misunderstood something?

I did not say that they pay no tax, I said that they do not pay net tax, they receive more in benefits than they pay in tax, so they have a negative taxation rate even before you account for a proportion of service that they receive from the state, so yes, you have misunderstood, I expect deliberately. 

Chrysalis said:

so they pay none of these?

VAT
Fuel Duty
Council tax

The lowest 10% of earners pay very little VAT because most of their expenditure goes on food which attracts no VAT, rent which attracts no VAT, water which attracts no VAT and energy which only attracts 5% VAT, so overall they pay very little VAT. The bottom 10% of earners often do not own private vehicles so on average pay very little in Fuel Duty. They will also have their Council Tax pay for via the benefit system, so not paying it themselves. 

Chrysalis said:

The one thing I probably agree with you on is that government rarely see past the next election and as such we are extremely short termist.  That short termism has led to progressive taxes been over cut though.

The UK tax system is more progressive than that of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc. Progressive Taxes have not been "over cut", our tax system has actually got more progressive in nearly every year for the last thirty years, with a slight regression in the last two years due to inflation and then a future slight regression if Truss implements her tax cuts. 

There is not 1 tax system in all of UK on income tax.

Scotland sets its own rates and bands which differ from England & Wales and are more progressive. And tax the lower paid less and higher paid more. UK gov could choose to reform Englands similar to Scotland, but choose not to.

Band	Taxable income	Scottish tax rate
Personal Allowance	Up to £12,570	0%
Starter rate	£12,571 to £14,732	19%
Basic rate	£14,733 to £25,688	20%
Intermediate rate	£25,689 to £43,662	21%
Higher rate	£43,663 to £150,000	41%
Top rate https://www.gov.uk/scottish-income-tax England has just 3 bands and rates above the personal allowance Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £150,000 40% Additional rate over £150,000 45%	over £150,000	46%

Does the 12/13.125% NI band end at 43k in Scotland too or do they have very high marginal rates between 43k and 50k?

For those earning less than 43k do the tweaks to tax rates max more than a few pennies difference, the 19/21p rates look particularly cynical, one save a whole £20 (ie window dressing), the other costs up to £180?  Are Scottish voters really fooled by this?

In holyrood where scottish taxes are set, the SNP recently were elected the sytem is not  FPS as uk has  and got 47.1% of vote share  and 64 out of 129 seats. The system used here is AMS (additional member system) 

This basically means that the more constituency seats a party wins, the fewer list seats it will win. Remember, that’s what makes this system fair – if a party has already got lots of constituency seats, their voters are already represented. The list seats then make sure that other voters get their fair representation.

A full explanation is here 

https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/ams-explained


So yes as the last holyrood election shows the majority of Scottish voters were  happy for SNP to continue to be in goverment and ergo  happy with how Scotland sets its income taxes.

As a comparison in last uk election in 2019  the Tories got 43% of vote share for all UK but  in Scottish westminster seats the tories got only  25.1% and 7 seats whilst the  SNP got 45% of vote share in scotlands westminster vote winning 48  out of 59 seats. 


NI is not devolved so scotland cannot currently change NI rates as it can with income tax. Scotland does have its own benefit agency and has take measures in Scotland to mitigate the tory bedroom tax and other similar measures for those on low income.