Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Let's go flat out for simpler taxes



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 April 2008
TAX doesn't have to be taxing, the Revenue and Customs says. Tell that to the politicians, say I. This week we have had one tax bombshell after another. A double-whammy of conflicting policies – all of which add to the misery of the nation.
There has been the removal of the starting 10p rate of income tax (accompanied by the drop in the standard rate from 22p to 20p). This has been widely criticised for hurting the poor the hardest.

Then there was the Treasury ruling out Alex Salmond's local income tax idea because it correctly identified it as being national, not local. Never mind that the 3p in the pound would, if the sums were done correctly, be closer to 6p extra tax – the fact that the rate would be the same in enchanting Eaglesham as it would be in exciting Edinburgh exposed Salmond's lie.

As I have argued before in this column, the first step that has to be taken is to simplify our tax system. You should not need an industry of accountants to help with tax returns. The rest of the world is moving towards a flat tax system – with brilliant results.

If Alex Salmond truly wanted a tiger economy in Scotland he would be proposing a single flat tax – the 13 per cent of Russia, the 23 per cent of Estonia or even the 37 per cent of Iceland. Instead all we hear is how he wants to tax working families more, while millions who benefit from local services would end up paying nothing. Not so much a poll tax as a jobs tax.

Salmond should recognise not all income comes from working. Add an extra six pence on to Scottish income tax and watch the mobile smart set go south never to come back.

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have nothing to crow about, however, for they simply don't understand how to cut taxes in a way to encourage people to work harder and increase the treasury revenues.

Removing the 10p rate was good, because it reduced the number of tax rates from three to two – but to protect the low earners the starting level at which we all pay tax, our individual tax allowance, should have been raised considerably.

Indeed, were we to raise the starting rate to after the first £10,000 of income we could help the poorest in society by taking them out of tax altogether. How? Because the savings to be had in processing fewer tax codes are huge and the incentives for people to increase their productivity would bring higher revenues.

This ain't just some free market theory. When, in the 60s, John F Kennedy cut taxes the revenues increased. When Reagan and Thatcher did it in the 80s the same thing happened. The reverse is also true. Often when tax rates are increased, revenues fall. Tax doesn't have to be taxing, but let's face it, that's just how most politicians want it to be.

Colourful country
I ENJOYED a quick business trip to Iceland last weekend and used it to reconnoitre for the forthcoming Iceland versus Scotland match later this year. It's a beautifully weird country with geysers, hot pools and stunning scenery. A restorative swim in the Blue Lagoon is obligatory and the food is surprisingly exotic as the influences of Asia are currently in vogue there.

Still, the best restaurant I found was, with intentional irony, called Fish and Chips. It sold haddock freshly fried in batter – served with the best onion rings ever and a mango salad (just to be trendy!). The Tartan Army should set camp outside.

The weirdest site was reserved for some Icelandic fashions – with the clash of colour and styles on any one person reminding me of Edinburgh Art College on speed.

I thought this garishness couldn't be bettered until I passed through Glasgow Queen Street on the way home. Fortunately they were not tasteless Edinburghers returning east – they all got on the first train to Cumbernauld.

Woolly thinking
THE silence of the wee lambs. That's what you could call the world's meek and mild response to Robert Mugabe's attempt to ignore his electoral defeat two weeks ago.

Let me put it in context. If this had happened in Israel, if its government of the day had been trounced and told it was time to go – but stalled and refused – all the limousine liberals and champagne socialists would be banging their drums calling for action. Sanctions against UEFA football matches, boycotts of Jaffa oranges, resolutions in the UN – Israel would be loudly castigated and become the pariah state for the next six months (until America did something to deserve it instead, like electing John McCain).

For the South African President Thabo Mbeki to suggest Mugabe's behaviour is perfectly acceptable sums up the world's appalling double standards and cowardice in the face of one of the most repugnant despots alive. The quicker Mbeki goes – a man who was allowed to address our Scottish Parliament, by the way – the better.


The full article contains 845 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 April 2008 9:47 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Brian Monteith
 
1

Bob Christie,

11/04/2008 11:34:27
The by line forgot to mention Brian Monteith (Failed Politician)
2

SC,

11/04/2008 11:43:08
You wouldn't expect accurate reporting from a Labour propaganda sheet like The Scotsman, but the rate will not be 6%, but 3% as the SNP have clearly stated. The black hole is a typical unionist scare story. £400m is clearly due from the council tax rebate - designed to alleviate problems of local taxation for the poorest, as is LIT - and the rest the SNP has pledged to deliver through smaller government. This is most likely through sharing the proceeds of economic growth between public services and reduced taxation as the Conservatives are proposing. It is effectively a tax cut, with those with the lowest income the greatest beneficiaries.

Whilst there is a risk to adding 3% to the top rate of income tax - it could be capped like NI at marginal cost - this is significantly offset by removing the trap of council tax benefit, where the poor who we need to worker harder are faced with an effective 100% marginal rate.

Finally, the author is asking for tax simplification. What could be simpler than removing 32 duplicate council tax bureaucracies and utilising a single national one to collect the tax?

Does this help you, Hootsman? You seem to be struggling a bit. Must be those worries of 41% support for independence - sorry, separation - that is affecting your judgement.
3

Tynietiger,

11/04/2008 12:14:39
Opponents of Local Income Tax are deliberately misleading the public.

The average earning "hard working" couple will on average be £3.40 a week better off under 3% Local Income Tax.

80% of people in Scotland will be better or no worse off.

4

Tynietiger,

11/04/2008 12:24:51
Monteith seems to ignore fact that Council Tax will be abolished that is no more council tax bills.

However whole issue illustrates that Scotland must have full fiscal autonomy or independence if we want to
have a decent tax system which will be both fair and encourage companies to relocate here.
5

Doh,

11/04/2008 12:28:02
#1
Not not failed, he managed to bring down his leader.


Taxi for Monteith, straight to the brain shop.
6

Arfur,

11/04/2008 12:49:59
what a load of tosh...who the hell is this idiot?
7

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 11/04/2008 13:02:10
Thanks Brian for pointing out "The 13 per cent of Russia, the 23 per cent of Estonia or even the 37 per cent of Iceland." and remember that these are all independent countries who can and do structure their tax systems to suit themselves.
8

Speedy Gonzales,

Edinburgh 11/04/2008 13:02:58
#3
What figures, salary, present council tax band are you using for this statement?
I've worked out at 3% LIT, my household which comprises, me/wife/child would be worse off by the time water rates is added compared to the present system where water rates comes off at source along with council tax.
We are average salaried(according to recent surveys in the papers) and live in a suburban 3 bed semi.
I'm sure nobody enjoys paying tax's, but I've said it before, rather than tax people who 'wish' to earn more, be it through hard work or other means, we should implement a sales tax. That way only those who can afford to spend money will be the one paying tax's!


9

familymanwith2jobsandawifeworkingfulltime,

Edinburgh 11/04/2008 13:04:29
Couldn't agree more with simplifying the tax system. However having a starting band of £10K would only encourage people not earn anymore than that. The only way to simplify the PAYE and make it fair, is to have one fixed percentage on everything we earn. No 10% or 40% rate, or even NI - just one fixed rate to cover everything. This way everyone would contribute something and quite simply the only way to get more money would be to work harder, or longer, as it should be. There is nothing fair about robbing from those who are prepared to work their butts off and giving it to those who will do nothing to help themselves.

10

Upandunder,

11/04/2008 13:07:48
Ultimately, the whole tax system should be designed to make working attractive no matter what a person earns.
11

John Knox furr First Meenister,

High St, Embra 11/04/2008 13:18:46
#2 - Council tax rebate is paid to make the current system more fair - it's not a set amount but is dependent on the number claiming benefit. If Scotland was better off, that 400M could be halved. How can the current amount be factored into local income tax in perpetuity - and why should it - LIT ensures fairness without the need for the rebate.
12

Jackie Priest,

11/04/2008 13:58:32
Yes, this is priceless.

The Scotsman prints the story about the desire for independence continuing to increase to unprecedented levels, then quickly nudges the story aside and replaces it with this piece of absolute amateurish opnionated unionist propagandist garbage.

No more humble pie for me.

This newspaper is desipicable.
13

Iain fae Elgin,

London 11/04/2008 14:44:28
"Then there was the Treasury ruling out Alex Salmond's local income tax idea because it correctly identified it as being national, not local"

Oh, so we're a nation are we? With the power to send our own troops to war. To deal with foreign countries on our own terms. To decide whether or not to join the Euro. etc etc.. No need for Independence then, as according to the Treasury we already have it. Cheers for that!

What a nice end to the week.

14

Sanny,

11/04/2008 14:44:44
With this stupid piece of nonsense the Westminster unionists and the Labour party in particular, have not just shot themselves in the foot, but have shot the Scottish Labour Party in the head. They will now join the Cleese Parrot in extinction.

This is a principal part of the SNP manifesto! Rightly or Wrongly the SNP believe they can make it work for Scotland. If it works then great for the SNP; the rest of the UK will see an alternative way to fund Councils. If it fails then the SNP would be dead in the water. BUT if there is interference by Westminster, as is already the case, then blame for the failure, rightly or wrongly, will be laid squarely at Westminster’s door.

Brown’s hatred of Salmond in particular and the SNP in general has driven him and the Imbeciles in the upper echelons of the Westminster Labour Party to make a fundamental mistake. In so doing they have gifted Salmond and the SNP with a WIN – WIN situation at their expense.

Carry-on Brown and the Yes-men; you’re doing wonders for Scotland by making Scottish Labour unelectable and boosting the SNP thereby accelerating the day of Scottish Independence!
15

SC,

11/04/2008 15:06:02
14#,

"...the Westminster unionists and the Labour party in particular, have not just shot themselves in the foot, but have shot the Scottish Labour Party in the head."

Lol
16

SC,

11/04/2008 15:11:19
11#, sounds like another reason for fiscal autonomy!

Why should we lose our tax money back to London if we improve our economy and no longer need this benefit? Or, for that matter, why should the English be forced to give us some of their improved performance to us if we were to fail economically.

You might say its because we are all 'British'. Unfortunately for you, not many English people share that same sentiment when they bother to think about it! Still you have their apathy on your side.
17

Steven P,

edinburgh 11/04/2008 15:12:11
Monteith - what taxation system is it you actually advocate (apart from the one that minimises your own personal tax contribution)...

In one throwaway line about local income tax, you complain that -
"millions who benefit from local services would end up paying nothing"

Yet half a dozen lines later, you propose that -
"were we to raise the starting rate to after the first £10,000 of income we could help the poorest in society by taking them out of tax altogether."

In other words -
"millions who benefit from local services would end up paying nothing".

And you get paid for this rot?

18

Jimmy the Pie,

11/04/2008 15:53:29
I was getting muddled up there. I thought the idiot who wrote this was Bob Maxwell, former Labour MP and giant of the media world.

"The quicker Mbeki goes – a man who was allowed to address our Scottish Parliament, by the way – the better."

I can't recall you objecting to Mbeki?In fact I can't remember any Sleaze Party member objecting, but no doubt you'll tell us who did
19

Joe M.,

Edinburgh 11/04/2008 16:25:25
Brian,

Leaving aside your attempts to claim the SNP are planning tax increases when in fact they are making local taxation fairer by relating it to income, if you want lower taxes then you should also want our elected Government to have the power to implement our own tax system. That means independence.

The reason you don't want it is because you think your views would not prove popular which shows you are not a democrat.

No wonder your old party is so dead in the water. If you don't trust your fellow man you should not aspire to elected office.
20

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 11/04/2008 16:29:01
"With this stupid piece of nonsense the Westminster unionists and the Labour party in particular, have not just shot themselves in the foot, but have shot the Scottish Labour Party in the head."

Well I guess that what happens when your licking the boot of somone aiming at their own foot.

All with one bullet, pretty impressive.
21

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 11/04/2008 17:14:25
" The quicker Mbeki goes – a man who was allowed to address our Scottish Parliament, by the way – the better."

But wait till you see who is replacment will be, Jacob Zuma.

South Africa unfortunately is the way Scotland used to be, Voting for any monkey with a Red Rosette, but in their case any Monkey with an ANC Rosette.


22

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 11/04/2008 17:21:22
In Canada a while back they were looking at a Guaranteed Minimum income along with a flat tax to streamline the Tax and Social Welfare system while at the same time reducing impediments to employment.

The idea of the program is to provide a simplified Guaranteed Minimum Income that could be used as a cornerstone for all other social programs. Whether the person was out of the workforce to, Care for a Child or Elderly Parent or was unemployed or over the age at which employment was an option. The Level would be set at the poverty line and would be geared to inflation.

Example: Say the Minimum Level was 5,000 and the tax rate was set at 20%
An Unemployed Person Would receive 5,000 - 20% in Tax for an income of 4,000
Someone in an apprenticeship would receive 5,000 + Employment income of 5,000 for a total of 10,000 - 20% in Tax for an after tax income of 8,000
A person in full time employment would receive 5,000 + Employment Income of 20,000 for a total of 25,000 - 20% for after tax income of 20,000 making them Tax Neutral.
People earning more than 20,000 in employment income would be net tax payers.
To be eligible for the supplement you would have to be:
• In Full Time Employment.
• Staying home to Care for a child under two
• Looking for Full Time Work in an active program.
• In a Training Program
• Disabled
• Retired (over 65)
• In part time employment of twenty hours per week. (if over 50)
• Attending College or University Full Time
• In an apprenticeship program
• Caring for a family member who is ill or infirm.
• Working as an unpaid volunteer a minimum of 20 hours a week.
23

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 11/04/2008 17:45:28
It's time to admit that letting African countries run their own affairs was a mistake and that we should quite simply restore the British Empire.
24

yoric,

11/04/2008 20:51:55
This guys dead right.
Salmonds tax figures dont, and never will add up.
Income tax shouldn't be payable on salarys of less than 10,000 a year.
Whats the point of paying a minimum wage, than taxing people on it.
The fact is Brown has tied up Britain in a tax knot, and we employ thousands of people to pay benefits that were paid automatically previous to Brown coming along.
25

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 11/04/2008 21:28:28
My God Brian, you'll have to do better than this if you want to play with the big boys. It's nothing more than a party political whinge of a story where arguments were only given shallow thought, and where Russia, Estonia, Thatcher and Reagan were praised for their tax policies.

Need I say more?
26

Samoyed,

Costa del Menie 12/04/2008 01:02:54
FORMER MSP Brian Monteith today called for a new non-party campaign to "reverse the tide of nationalism" ahead of any referendum on independence.

The ex-Tory and Evening News columnist claimed many celebrities and business leaders supported the union, but would not want to get dragged into the "murky world" of party politics.

And he said internal turmoil was currently hampering efforts by the opposition parties to mount an effective challenge to Alex Salmond's SNP government.

He said: "Salmond is hardly even breaking a sweat into his first term and at the moment. The unionists must bury their partisan difficulties and garner support by building a robust cross-party and non-party campaign to reverse the tide of nationalism."

Writing on the website ThinkScotland, he argued there needed to be a new campaign group to "bang the drum loudly for the benefits of the union".

Needs he say more?
27

Alfred E. Neuman,

12/04/2008 06:58:14
Alex Salmond has gone too far with this one. The SNP will be voted out for this I have no doubt.
28

Alfred E. Neuman,

12/04/2008 09:35:25
19 Joe M

You are proving yourself to be an imbecile and incapable of rational, logical thought again.

We should all aspire to trust our fellow man? You say that as though the English, Welsh, Northern Irish are not our fellow men? Also, why do you not trust a Westminster government? That in a few years will be ran by different and perhaps trustworthy fellow men.

Also, just by relating a tax to income does not make it "fair". 100% of all earned income anyone?

Also, just because a system is judged incorrectly to be "fair" does not mean it is not a tax rise!

As usual you must be stupid, stupid, stupid.
29

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 12/04/2008 10:31:10
We are going to end up with a poll tax.
30

Jimmy the Pie,

12/04/2008 10:52:07
#28 Alfred E. Neuman,

Are you Highland Mighty/British Pride??

I would imagine we'll never hear from HM/BP again after yesterday's monumental blunder. A blunder of titanic proportions, wasn't it Alfie???
31

Alfred E. Neuman,

12/04/2008 11:08:47
30 Jimmy Pi

What blunder? Sounds intreaguing?

I only post under one username (at a time) - until inevitably some SNP twit reports me because they hate free speech.

I have managed to keep this one for a whole week now - a new record!
32

Boggle fey the Bog,

12/04/2008 11:10:42
28 Alfred E. Neuman,12/04/2008 09:35:25

Well what can one say Alfie me boy, still not mastered reading yet I see me owld son.

I didn't see Joe M asking anyone to "aspire to trust our fellow man" so for you benefit I shall reproduce it below!

Quote< No wonder your old party is so dead in the water. If you don't trust your fellow man you should not aspire to elected office. >unquote.

Now, maybe, as I ain't English, I ain't got a full grasp of the language yet, but my interpretation of the above paragraph is as follows:-

' It comes as no surprise that the political party you were once a representative of, is finished as a political force,and if you or anyone doesn't trust your fellow man sufficiently to make a reasoned assessment of your worth,then you should not even consider standing as an elected representative of your fellow man'

As for the rest of your post poorly constructed, parsimonious to the extreme and totally inaccurate.

Viz-a-viz, Joe M didn't mention Irish, English, Welsh or any other particular National group of people...You DID!!!

As for relating tax to income not being fair it is a fairer system than relating it to expenditure....go figure!!!!

As usual you must be stupid, stupid, stupid
33

Wardog,

Buckie 12/04/2008 11:25:39

Great!

We have the Tories attacking LIT because it fairly distrubutes the bruden of lcoal taxation based on ABILITY TO PAY, that means Mr Monteith will pay more.... the Tory Council Tax was always aimed at letting the rich off the hook by putting the higher proportion of taxburden on the working low earners....

Not surpirsing, they are conservatives after all..... the sounds of pig grunts and the scraping of the trough was heard....

Then we have Labour attacking LIT because it potentially puts a great burden on well paid working couples rathee than those on low salaries, not surprising given their income tax cuts policy of hammering the low earners to pay for thei middle england 'heartlands'......

Very surprising(?) since this is the party that claims to be 'socialist'..... there only policy thus far is to cut water charge payment by pensions and heap that tax cut back onto everyone else, including the working low earner..... whom they make no attempt to aid.

Can any of the deractor's of LIT please give us a worked out scenario where those that have the ability to pay are seriously worse off than those that do not.

We are waiting!

34

Boggle fey the Bog,

12/04/2008 11:49:21
Why can't we comment on Mad Gorbals Mick, Investigating MP's expenses, it's not sub-judice, it's a 'parliamentary enquiry'.

Or does the Hootsmaun, have something to hide?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.