Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 29th August 2008

RBS Ambassador, Luke Donald

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 The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Sign In
Register

Financial experts tell SNP: Local income tax won't work



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: 14 July 2008
By HAMISH MACDONELL
ALEX Salmond's plans to introduce a local income tax in Scotland suffered a fresh setback last night when accountants who deal with council finances said the scheme would not work.



The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, which represents tax professionals working in all of Scotland's councils, said the SNP's plans for a local income tax would leave councils short of cash and would affect front-line services.

T
he IRRV also warned that it would increase collection and enforcement costs and lead to opportunities for tax avoidance.

The Scottish Government has published plans to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax, set nationally at 3p in the pound.

The proposals have already met with severe criticism inside and outside the parliament.

Over the weekend, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland questioned the wisdom of the scheme.

Hillary Kelly, IRRV Scotland Association president, said last night: "The public needs to be aware that a local income tax will be more expensive to administer and will be more intrusive into people's lives than a property-based tax and will place more burdens on business."

And she added: "The fairest approach to local taxation would be a reformed property-based tax taking into account the ability to pay."

The SNP administration argues that the local income tax will be fairer than the council tax because it will be based on ability to pay.





The full article contains 245 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 July 2008 11:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

druidh,

edinburgh 14/07/2008 00:07:51
Of course. If there's no tax related to property value, why would you need an "Institute" dedicated to that very purpose?
2

,

14/07/2008 00:08:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Vivas,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 00:14:09
"ALEX Salmond's plans to introduce a local income tax in Scotland suffered a fresh setback LAST NIGHT when accountants who deal with council finances said the scheme would not work."

EH ? LAST NIGHT ?? SUNDAY NIGHT ???

Christ I know accountants are boring but we're expected to believe they got together on a Sunday night to come out with this little gem ??? LOL ! One of my best friends is an accountant, and believe me he'd be watching Top Gear on BBC2 ... NOT thinking about the implications of local income tax.

Ooops. My mistake. I retract. I forgot that The Northbritishman is Edinburghs finest daily comic. A comic where accountants apparently gather together at weekends to condemn SNP policy... LMFAO !
4

ThomasP,

14/07/2008 00:26:51
It is quite embarressing that this is being discussed constantly.

The SNP and Lib Dems will force this through Parliament and we will be using LIT in the future.

It is time we got over it.
5

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 00:28:22
The article says nothing to validate the headline. Scotsman, grow up!
6

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 14/07/2008 00:34:36
Oh they of little faith! The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, which represents tax professionals working in all of Scotland's councils are bound to be critical since LIT would not be administered through the local authorities where Council Tax currently is but by HM Revenue & Customs, who have the existing structures and only a tweek of their software would do the trick. I think they fear only for their own jobs.

LIT cannot be so complex that it cannot be grafted on to the existing taxation system. I'm sure there will be some extra work but PAYE systems for most businesses are largely automated, and are already geared to deal with such peculiarities as Statutory Sick pay, student loans, maternity pay, debt recovery etc. The current 'Self Assesment Tax Returns Guide for Revenue & Customs staff and tax practioners is the size of a fat yellow pages.

Whatever defects the LIT might have (such as directors paid through dividends), its calculation and collection is not a major one of them.
7

The Spook in Leith,

14/07/2008 00:46:16
From The Scotland on Sunday..

"Local income tax doesn't add up, say experts Date: 13 July 2008
By Terry Murden"

Is this not just a copy of yesterdays news , barrow scraping stuff naws it ?
8

Royster,

14/07/2008 00:53:48
Badly thought out, back of an envelope stuff from the SNP.
9

Richardinho,

14/07/2008 00:54:17
This is the same story the Scotsman sees fit to print every single day. All they've done is dredged up a new bunch of 'expert' lackeys to spout their nonsense.
Pretty shoddy from the scotsman. Hamish MacDonnell, you should be ashamed to be associated with this rag.
10

subrosa,

14/07/2008 01:04:17
This is the third time in a week we've had a similar article. Oh Scotsman can't you find another drum to beat?
11

Richardinho,

14/07/2008 01:06:28
Any lingering doubt that the Scotsman wasn't just a cheap propaganda rag has finally been dispelled in my mind.
a disgrace.
12

The Spook in Leith,

14/07/2008 01:14:24
#11 subrosa,14/07/2008 01:04:17
This is the third time in a week we've had a similar article. Oh Scotsman can't you find another drum to beat?

Bet you AM2 was beating his drum on july 12th!!
13

Iainbroch,

14/07/2008 01:15:02
Oh dear - The very idea that tax accoontants and thier parasitic ilk might have to do an honest days work for an honest days pay instead of bleeding everyone else dry! well what a shocker!

Broonie spent 10 years doing nothing more than making the tax system as complicated as possible - to cover up the extent to which working men and women were getting shafted!

Nothing of course suggesting that introducing a fair form of taxation based on ability to pay is actually the way to go. That would be novel idea in her Brittanic Majestys Realm?
14

donald,

glasgow 14/07/2008 01:15:19
Didn't Hamish try that one before, with Labour "experts".
15

Arnold Codger,

Glasgow 14/07/2008 01:23:48
The introduction of LIT is the best resource to tackle poverty in Scotland.
Poverty in Scotland 2007 - Chapter 8

The Scotsman - your a disgrace to your profession, i won't say to Scotland because you don't understand what Scottishness is, and to your selfs personally.
16

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 14/07/2008 01:50:23
Councils need not be short of cash, just stop wasting the hard earned pounds of the people, and pull yer heid from the trough.
17

Brahann,

Fife 14/07/2008 02:23:04
Lets have a flogging before Glasgow East... even if it's only a dead horse.......


18

Ewan Kerr - Juans brother,

14/07/2008 02:31:35
#13 - I assume he beats of a lot............
19

W Smith,

Middle East 14/07/2008 03:54:37
#13
Ramadan is coming up soon - the SNP will be joining in with the 'Scottish' muslims like Osama Saeed then, eh?

Islamfest here we come!

Sharia Law = really good laugh, eh Salmond?
20

LEAL,

14/07/2008 04:32:51
LIT is the way forward.The more you earn,the more you pay.Simple.Scotsman...please at least try to offer a fair and balanced view.You do your Londonist cause no favours by costantly sniping at things which are popular with your readers.
21

somerferg,

perth 14/07/2008 06:30:55

#9 - badly thought out back of the postage stamp stuff from royster.
22

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 07:02:29
Lying cheating thieves. Yes, you can buy a flat or a small hoose... but not only do you have to pay transfer tax, but you also have to pay Council tax in the amount of approximately 1200 Pounds per year. Am I buying a home, or a liability? Who is the fool, he who pays, or he who demands?
23

walter,

14/07/2008 07:11:15
Numerous individuals and organisations have said the LIT does not add up.
They are all wrong every single one of them, They are only saying that it does not add up because they have been paid to do so by the Scotsman or they are Labour party members or they are unionists and traitors to Scotland.
24

yockel,

14/07/2008 07:12:00
"SNP's plans for a local income tax would leave councils short of cash "
About time too.
25

bluehead,

edinburgh 14/07/2008 08:08:18
then that would be a lesson for Edinburgh, where they are in the middle of throwing away many millions of pounds on that maniacal tram system.
If ever a council threw money down the drain ,this is the worst yet.
26

Linda,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 08:38:24
Another rehashed story from Pravda. Local Income Tax works in numerous countries.

Scotsman's attempt to rubbish SNP isn't working.. SNP popularity increasing while Scotsman shares have crashed from £5.62 to 33p. See full story in yesterday's Sunday Herald business / media pages.
27

clola,

eastern india presently. 14/07/2008 09:02:51
A lot of 'professionals' say LIT will not work. Anybody know anywhere in the world it does work, in the way it will have to function through the Tax office in at HMRevenue and Taxes?? a lot of wooly words around this but few hard facts.
#28 never a truer work written. Why did they not use trolley busses instead of trains. It would not have been necessary to dig the roads up and saved hundreds of millions of pounds from non-routing of pipelines etc., to say nothing of the inconvenience for every soul in and who visits the city. What an appalling waste of cash.
28

Foresight,

By the Water of Leith 14/07/2008 09:13:46

Seems to me that LIT is a Poll Tax by another name. Why one should appear to be so popular when the original was the subject of great abuse of its perpetrators I cannot fathom out.
29

Scottish 'N British,

14/07/2008 09:15:52
If this is passed (highly unlikely), it will become the SNP's Poll Tax.

Swinney knows he's flogging a dead horse. It has more holes than a, er, moth eaten jumper. And he knows t.

His only hope is that the other parties vote it down.

Then he can point the finger of blame at Unionists (as is the usual tactic) at Holyrood and Westminster - and thank his lucky stars they did intervene.

30

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 09:29:03
It was reported at the weekend that ICAS made similar claims? ICAS is simply lobbying on behalf of its wealthy clients who will do everything to avoid paying extra income tax.

As for Scottish local authorities? Why do they not make a more determined effort to recover non-payment of the Council Tax(and hundreds of millions of outstanding Community Charge)so that a full one hundred percent is collected annually? Like PAYE, an LIT would of course collect the full amount.

As for the IRRV comment about "a reformed property- based tax taking into account the ability to pay"?

The IRRV is of course referring to another form of:
POLL TAX!
31

Brian Ferrari,

14/07/2008 09:50:32
Less money for Councils and front line services being affected? Great!

(Note they always talk about front line services, not the sort of services that we could do without quite easily.)
32

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 09:53:51
The 3% rate dosen't add-up. Get over it.
33

Embra Don,

14/07/2008 10:06:22
#20 W Smith, Middle East

Enter the troll trying to smear the SNP with the Sharia law thing again. This thread is about LIT vs CT. No place for your mud slinging bigotry.
34

ThomasP,

14/07/2008 10:06:22
#31

Don't be an idiot.

The Lib Dems and SNP are working together and will force it through Parliament.
35

HKLad,

14/07/2008 10:11:44
Have some issues with LIT - e.g. set centrally? What is L about that?

However, it might improve collection rates. I note Glasgow has improved collection rates to 88% - http://tinyurl.com/68en2t but this is still an appalling number.

Is it 12% can't afford to pay - if so then they would not under LIT. Are they dodging the payment? If so Labour run council needs to get its act together if it really wants to help people in areas such as Glasgow East and throughout the city.
36

Scottish 'N British,

14/07/2008 10:12:57
32

Like yourself, I have often wondered if councils could be doing more to pull in council tax arrears.

I spoke to a friend of a friend who said the remnants are composed of defiant non-payers (regardless of threat), but mostly people who simply can't pay.

Wasn't Alex Salmond one of the key players in the non-payment campaign?
37

Scottish 'N British,

14/07/2008 10:21:25
36

Spare me the e-abuse. It only undermines your argument.

Anyway, yes it's true, the Lib Dems DO want a LIT.

But the one they want would be applied LOCALLY.
Mr Swinney's back-of-an-envelope proposal would be set NATIONALLY.
38

Miss H,

14/07/2008 10:32:35
The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation? Hmm. These people would all be out of a job if LIT comes in. So while I understand that they are not happy about that and don't blame them they do have an interest in the status quo!
39

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 10:39:12
Hamish MacDonnell said the scheme would not work.

The accountants said:

"The public needs to be aware that a local income tax will be more expensive to administer and will be more intrusive into people's lives than a property-based tax and will place more burdens on business."

Which is absolutely not the same as saying LIT "will not work".

It strikes me that the IRRV are in self-preservation mode!
40

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 10:43:08
#40 Miss H

So who would value second homes with would still be liable for CT under the LIT proposal?
41

ThomasP,

14/07/2008 10:44:38
#39

Ah, you are playing the 'idiot' card.

The SNP and Lib Dems have common grounds over LIT and will negociate and discuss until both sides reach an agreement.
42

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 10:47:25
#30 Foresight

The LIT is a progressive tax whilst the Poll Tax was regressive. They are at the opposite ends of the spectrum to each other.

Do you really understand what Poll Tax was?
43

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 10:47:49
#40 Miss H

If you took the time to read the article, you would see that the IRRV spokesperson said that, rather than 'supporting the status quo', they did want the local taxation system changed. Your post is disingenuous.
44

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 10:54:12
#45 tinman

It may have escaped your notice, but the IRRV woman said she wanted it reformed, but still a property based tax. They have a vested interest in property based tax systems as that will keep them in a job.

Therefore, Miss H is essentially correct in #40.
45

Arfur,

14/07/2008 10:57:35
hootsman - i am sick fed up of the Labour lacky experts that you keep talking to re this. Its a fairer system, it will go in due to Lib Dem support and it will be the final nail in the coffin for Labour, get over it.
46

Allan(handofgod137),

14/07/2008 11:02:25
Rather sad to see all the nat trolls defending the indefensible. Surely the fairest form of local taxation would be a system whereby people paid only for the services they want and use?
47

Miss H,

14/07/2008 11:24:18
42 The consultation suggests that HMRC and the Land Registry can ientify empty and second homes by using data that already exist or will be required in the future to administer local income tax. In terms of setting the tax level, the SNP is suggesting that local authorities are best placed to do that depending on local circumstances. The collection could be integrated into the collection of non domestic rates.

45 - No, they support a property based tax. That is because a property based tax requires raters and valuers whereas an income based tax does not.

48 - That is an argument for abolishing all public services. Fair enough if that is the point you want to make but there is no need for any taxation if you are not funding collective services is there?
48

Alan B,

14/07/2008 11:29:12
#Allan(handofgod137)

"Rather sad to see all the nat trolls defending the indefensible. Surely the fairest form of local taxation would be a system whereby people paid only for the services they want and use?"

How exactly would that work regarding the police. U only pay for them if u get mugged. The victim of a crime has to pay for the investigation and criminal procedings. Should the victim also pay for the prison place for the criminal too.


49

Alan B,

14/07/2008 11:33:29
"The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, which represents tax professionals working in all of Scotland's councils, said the SNP's plans for a local income tax would leave councils short of cash and would affect front-line services."

That statement seems like a political one rather than a constructive assessment of LIT.

How much funding is necessary for councils and public spending in general is obviously subjective with some thinking we are too highly taxed with too high public spending and others with an opposition point of view.

The currently proposals are for a tax cut. U either believe that taxes are too high and councils have raised council tax too much too quickly over the last 10yrs or not.

We really not to have a proper debate over council funding and not this immature media lead rubbish.
50

Allan(handofgod137),

14/07/2008 11:46:08
#50 Not at all, a base rate could be set, which would cover the costs of providing the emergency services, and then those who want things such as council run nurseries and subsidised arts venues would then be billed for the costs of providing them.
51

Hawkeye the Noo,

14/07/2008 11:49:29
Articles like this are just rubbish.
52

Alan B,

14/07/2008 12:06:44
#Allan(handofgod137)

Firstly that is different to what u first stated.

While it maybe ur view ie #52 it is hardly indefensible for other to believe that public services beyond the essentials are funded out of public funds.

Your view is not that of any of the 4 big parties and hence it does not make sense for u to target the nats in this regard.

Given that most tax is actually central tax to be consistent u would have to spell out exactly how that would actually work.

Should people be able to opt out paying for nuclear weapons. ie should people only pay towards public services they want to participate in or agree with.

How does it work in regard to social security the biggest government expenditure?

You say people should pay for nurseries themselves. What if they cannot afford it. Do we pay them to sit in the house and not work. Should they pay for the education of their kids through school. Why not school if not nursery? We all are kids once so what is the rational.

Yes u could make people pay for museums, swimming but how much does that really cost in comparision to the big areas government spend on. If u stop public funding of art galleries how does that effect the economy ie tourism. More jobs means more tax revenues. Cutting back on things that deterimentally effect the economy is not exactly long term thinking.

What about social services.

Having said all that i do agree that taxes are far too high and we need to fundamentally change our approach. However potentiall closing local swimming baths and leisure facilities is not the best way to tackle youth having a lack of facilities and the culture that creates.

Tackling the social security system and pensions etc would be a far better way. Also defence committments, cost of imprisonment and cost of crime, and overseas expenditure. Government spend money far too easily and then claim it hits front line services as a poor way of justification.
53

Scottish 'N British,

14/07/2008 12:14:57
43

John Swinney may be some things, but an idiot he isn't.
Rather than call him names why not suggest to him that he find some backbone and tell Salmond the party's replacement for Council Tax simply won't work? That would be far more constructive.

That you don't is perhaps obvious. Experts are lining up to slate your party's proposals. It doesn't make for good reading.

For the record experts are called experts because they are, ahem, experts: in a particular field that is.

Perhaps it's an age thing, but life has taught me that when I read expert opinion it's usually a good idea to listen to it. Swinney (and Salmond) would do well to follow likewise.

Importantly,

It's Time

for the SNP (and its supporters) to come forward with something more convincing than the usual lame "anti-SNP", "scaremongering" and "Unionist lackey" responses.

Don't bet on the Lib Dems backing a watered down version of the SNP LIT. They acknowledge, even if you can't, that in it's present form it is illegal and so won't vote for it.
54

ThomasP,

14/07/2008 12:26:32
#55

You should really get over yourself.

If LIT is set to fail then it shall fail on the SNP grounds. It should not be allowed to be dismissed because of what MIGHT happen.

What have the other parties to fear?

If the SNP LIT fails then who looses? The SNP looses and then the other parties gain.
55

Alan B,

14/07/2008 12:31:39
#Scottish 'N British

Problem i would have with the "expert" opinion is reading the article it seems more polically subjective that a proper critique of LIT.

The following statement "SNP's plans for a local income tax would leave councils short of cash and would affect front-line services" says it all.

It is a tax cut. U either believe in ever increasingly higher taxes or not. Why also should it not effect non front-line services?
56

Hawkeye the Noo,

14/07/2008 12:31:46
#55

Swinney and Salmond are themselves experts.

By the way. Are you Scottish, British 'N European? Or just Scottish 'N British?

I'm just Scottish myself.
57

The Spook in Leith,

14/07/2008 12:36:08
58 Hawkeye the Noo

Im a 100% Scottish thorougher breed pedigree mongrel btw..!!!
58

Ron S,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 12:48:25
#26, 33 and especially #51 bring up a very important point, studiously avoided by councillors officials and employees who live very well on the proceeds of the council tax and the associated income tax income stream to the City Chambers.
What do we want from the local Council and how much are we willing to pay for it?
Experience in industry shows a continual striving for reduction in costs eg labour force, materials, and space employed over many years. The opposite seems to be the case with the City Council.
Perhaps we should have a real reduction of, say 2% year on year to flush out those who merely wish to perpetuate the gravy-train and encourage innovation and efficiency.
59

G,

dundy 14/07/2008 12:48:35
It's all begining to unravel...now anyone (no matter how well qualified they are) who dares to mention that the SNP tax plans are financially inept, difficult to administer or just plain daft (or that Daft John Swinney can't add) will be rounded on by the rabid SNPites as a traitor or a Unionist mole.....Shame...because the council tax is rubbish and the SNP going with a system that won't work, doesn't add up and may cost more to administer seems like a bit of a waste...but they can't be seen to change their minds, can they!
60

Miss H,

14/07/2008 12:51:17
60 you need to check your facts. Most councils have shed vast numbers of jobs over the past decades. A lot of what they do is contracted out. (That's actually what people complain about a lot of the time).

And councils have been meeting year on year efficiency targets of 2%.
61

Miss H,

14/07/2008 12:56:37
61 You don't really get what is going on. The SNP is consulting on proposals. Various organisations are putting in submissions which highlight what issues they have and how they think the plans could be improved. That's what consultation is for.

The Scotsman then writes an article about each organisation's response starting The SNP's plans to introduce a local income tax in Scotland suffered a fresh setback/new blow yesterday when ... whoever said whatever. It's always the same story. The only difference is that sometimes the SNP are said to be reeling as well as suffering a setback or a devastating blow.

It's a wonder any of them are still standing.
62

Hawkeye the Noo,

14/07/2008 12:58:42
#59

I was artificially created in a Dundee sweet factory. I'm 100% candy balls!
63

Findlay Thompson,

14/07/2008 13:00:10
56

Probably the simplest yet most knowledgeable post so far. If the SNP's LIT doesn’t work then they will take the fall.

Mind you a lot of other posters indicate that if council tax is taken off the populace in a similar manner to PAYE then the gravy train for some professionals will grind to a halt. And those professionals would make it their prerogative to attempt to convince the electorate that the SNP's idea would fail miserably.
And they spin their faeces in the Scotsman, or Britlanderr – & why does this lavatory paper think that their readership have an average IQ of 75?
64

Hawkeye the Noo,

14/07/2008 13:03:29
#63

Exactly, Miss H. That's why I was saying at #53 that articles like this are rubbish. It's just the Scotsman buoying up it's anti-SNP campaign.
65

dancingbear,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 13:06:14
#40, Miss H, I think the clue is in the title;Revenues Rating & Valuation. If the Council Tax was to go it is only the Revenues part that would diminish under the IRRV umbrella. Rating & Valuation is very much alive and well I am afraid. Just more SNP propaganda.
66

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 13:11:19
#48 Allan

Disagree. People should pay based on their ability to pay. LIT is the way to go.
67

Ron S,

Edinurgh 14/07/2008 13:15:51
#63 Miss H
I did check the facts. From current CEC "key facts and figures" brochure on CWEC website:

City of Edinburgh Council
Total expenditure to be funded

2008/9 £928036
2007/8 £804636
2006/7 £772873
2005/6 £752702
2004/5 £726702

So much for meeting efficiency targets.

68

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 13:21:02
#55 Scottish

I seem to remember a bunch of experts assuring us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately, many, including the SNP didn't believe them. If you want to blindly believe everything the experts tell you then i suggest you are too naive to take part in a political debate !
69

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 13:23:59
#49 Miss H

Fair enough, you might have a point there. The article headline is a bit odd, as I don't see anyone in the article saying that LIT would not work, only pointing out the revenue shortfall with a 3% rate.
70

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 13:24:09
#61 G

And why will LIT not work?
71

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 13:32:51
#69 Ron

If you think Edinburgh Council spends less than a million pounds a year, I would imagine that you can see a few satelites from your orbit.
72

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 13:33:29
"Financial experts tell SNP: Local income tax won't work"

In fact, they didn't. Hamish made that bit up to sex up his story for Unionist consumption!
73

Conway,

14/07/2008 13:52:26
I have made an effort not to read the Scotsman for two weeks because the reports being given out were the same every week.And here is me hoping that it would change but it hasnt its the same old reports again and again and again .Why doesnt The Scotsman has something positive to say about my country .
74

Allan(handofgod137),

14/07/2008 13:58:17
#54 Alan B If you'd read my first post properly, then you'd have picked up on the base rate covering the essential services. Secondly, it's about time people started to accept that they are responsible for the children they choose to bring into the world, and if they can afford to run cars, go on holidays abroad and pay for satalite or cable tv, they can certainly afford to pay for more towards their childs general education health and welfare.
#68 connaughtboy, Have to disagree, unless of course you propose that only those contributing are allowed to vote in local elections.
75

Iainbroch,

Moray 14/07/2008 14:13:52
Not surprising that Liebaah is so against any tax based on the ability to pay - as they now have more millionaires than all the other political groups put together and I include Tories in that calcualtion!
76

Alan B,

14/07/2008 14:21:59
#76 Allan
"If you'd read my first post properly, then you'd have picked up on the base rate covering the essential services."

u posted in #48 ur first post as far as i could see "Rather sad to see all the nat trolls defending the indefensible. Surely the fairest form of local taxation would be a system whereby people paid only for the services they want and use?"

and did not mention "base rate covering the essential services"

i understand ur point about personal responsibility but u have missed the specific issues i raised about what u were saying and what i regard is the inconsitencies or flaws in ur argument. it is also not clear what u see as essential services if u are talking about removing education expenditure as a government funded public service.
77

Ron S,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 14:22:34
#73 Tin man
Sorry, of course you are right. The figures are £k from CEC document cited.
So, City of Edinburgh Council's current figures are:

Total expenditure to be funded

2008/9 £928 million
2007/8 £804 million
2006/7 £772 million
2005/6 £752 million
2004/5 £726 million

This represents an ever increasing council expenditure and not what is implied by #62 Miss H's 'councils have been meeting year on year efficiency targets of 2%.'

I am arguing for a continual, year on year, reduction in real expenditure.
78

Hawkeye the Noo,

14/07/2008 14:27:32
#72

Because the Scotsman says so!
79

Allan(handofgod137),

14/07/2008 14:39:58
#78 Education would remain a gov funded service, but only those who coose to have children would be paying for it.
80

Allan(handofgod137),

14/07/2008 14:40:03
#78 Education would remain a gov funded service, but only those who choose to have children would be paying for it.
81

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 14/07/2008 14:52:24
Yesterday it was an Institute of Accountants and the Scottish CBI that said LIT wouldn't work?

So I asked in a post that disappeared in cyberspace whether the CBI would change its position were the Scottish Government to link LIT with a reduction on corporation tax what their response would be then?

LIT is a perfectly feasable progressive tax which could not only be equitable in its demands but easily administered by a collection system less costly than that of HMRC.- the present system is estimated to cost 43-48% in admin for every £1.

My one disagreement with the present proposal is its position of those who live off investment income or dividends and the position of those who have second homes. To my mind these should be treated similar to HMRC's self asessment policies. Except in both cases the initial demand should be assessed at £100k income with the onus on the individual to provide proof of why his/her liability should be reduced.

LIT is a step forward. One that I suspect Westminster may regret not having introduced; though I believe the demographics of an independent Scotland may allow it to function better than it would in a London centric England.
82

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 15:00:24
#79 Ron

Intresting. I we ignore the tram hit on 2008/9. it is an average increase of about 3.7% per year. A bit above the inflation rate, and certainly not indicative of 2% efficiency savings. Possibly Mickey Mouse efficiency savings?
83

Scottish 'N British,

14/07/2008 15:21:18
70 connaughtboy

or, to paraphrase you

"I seem to remember a bunch of experts assuring us that the SNP would fulfill all its promises. Fortunately, many, including the opposition parties didn't believe them. If you want to blindly believe everything the experts tell you then i suggest you are too naive to take part in a political debate !
84

Peter,

SNP for me! 14/07/2008 15:28:53
I wonder if you take into account the savings that will be made after large chunks of the current council tax sections get the old heave ho and given how ineffective they are at collecting unpaid council tax (Glasgow has about £1.2 million not paid from last year alone)what the efficiency savings will actually be and what the impact of these savings on councils will be. Especially as LIT will come off at source as part of PAYE and most of the cost of calculating the monthly liability and shifting the cash to the IRS will be borne by the businesses (as usual).
85

walter,

14/07/2008 15:35:52
The IRRV is one of the oldest professional organisations concerned in the valuation of property and local government revenues and benefits with its origins going back to 1882 will go out of business if the SNP scrap council tax.
86

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/07/2008 15:39:09
#85 Scottish

Whatever......
87

Miss H,

14/07/2008 15:49:20
69 You need to check your facts again.

You said in post 60 that councils should be looking to cut labour force, materials, and space employed over many years. They have - and not just councils.

A third of public services have now been privatised. http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2390109.0.Onethird_of_UKs_public_services_provided_by_private_firms.php

In theory that should mean that your ethos of efficiency would be delivering more cost effective services (but the reality is somewhat different of course!)

If you want to actually cut the number of services provided - rather than deliver them more efficiently - you could do that quite easily. Just decide what it is you no longer want to provide, whether that is home helps, nurseries, after school care or whatever. Those are the softest targets so go for it and I look forward to your election campaign!
88

Ron S,

14/07/2008 15:50:10
#84 Tin man
I was quoting from the CEC 08/09 Revenue Budget £928M
The trouble is that I can find no mention of trams in the Revenue breakdown.
In the later CEC 08/09 Capital Budget there is a £163M charge for the tram. It appears to me that the Revenue Budget, and its associated increase, does not include trams. I hope I am wrong.

The document is at: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/Attachments/Internet/Council/Council_Business/Council_publications/KeyFacts/CECKeyFacts2008_2009.pdf
89

Miss H,

14/07/2008 15:53:31
67 Only for non domestic rates.
90

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 15:57:21
#86 Peter

If Edinburgh Council laid-off 50 people associated with CT collection at an average salary of 25,000 pa (and we ignore redundancy payments, pensions, and UB), there would be an efficiency saving of about 0.2% on the council budget. Anyway, it would be a start.
91

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 15:59:12
#89 Miss H

And what effect will the funding shortfall associated with a 3% LIT have?
92

Armstrong Cowan Again,

Germany 14/07/2008 15:59:56
Are we taking these conclusions by the Accountants Association simply at face value. Surely abolition of the ridiculous rates system would involve enormous cost savings and an income tax increase would be as simple as adding so many pence on a pint. Would a four pence increase be enough or excessive? How can this topic be debated without a detailed analysis of their findings?

And just one more point- The simple issue of Scottish Independence hinges on our genuine ability of being able to avoid economic suicide regardless of the possible short-term boosts of oil revenues caused by reducing the amount going south.
In many ways Scotland is akin to a factory closed down by those smart tax- avoiding multinational blood sucker strategies - First through lack of investment in manufacturing , administrative and marketing processes a company or plant is run down and then justification for closure is presented on a plate. Where is the vision? Britain itself is being strangled by accountants and incompetent managers praying to the MBA mantra of hit and run greed.
The answer ' create more sustainable methods of wealth creation and then talk about reducing taxes AND abolishing rates ' Haven't we had a belly full of Financial engineers like Mr. Gordon Brown and Ham actors like Mr. Blair - His first name escapes me for the moment and I don't care! The only visions that man had were weapon's of mass destruction. Add "creative accountancy" , house price jiggery-pokery , the London City Casino and the demonic ability to create illusions of wealth and bingo - WE need different visions.
The entrepreneurial spirits of the Cargills, Carnegies, Hutchisons, Guthries, Jardines, Glovers,Mathiesons etc. etc . is what Scotland needs and not the current heap of burnt out political wrecks charging Peter to pay Paul. (To be continued)



93

Scottish 'N British,

14/07/2008 15:59:59
No Scottish Executive of any hue is going to demand from our councils the £m's in savings necessary to make a viable change. Much of it, remember, would come from staff redundancies.

They'd be unelectable. Just isn't going to happen.

94

Scottish 'N British,

14/07/2008 16:04:30
57

A levy of 3p would mean real cuts in front line services. These services target help towards the most needy.

Regardless of their stance on CT/LIT, I've yet to meet ANYONE who would sign up to a cut in front line services.

95

Ron S,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 16:20:42
#89 Miss H
You say that councils have cut the labour force.

Here are the present CEC facts, from the already cited annual CEC Key Facts documents, sections headed:
'Staffing summary'.

Year Council employees

07/08 17081
06/07 17189
05/06 17211
04/05 17068

This hardly squares with your Herald article saying a third of public services are now privatised, unless, of course, CEC is so hopelessly ineficient that it has put out one third of it's work but keeps on the staff which used to perform it.




96

Alan B,

14/07/2008 16:37:37
#Scottish 'N British

Why do u assume that any cut would fall on front line services and not other parts of public expenditure?

Under labour we have had huge increases in public expenditure with alot of tax increases and massive budget deficits. Why have we not seen a massive improvement in public font line services with that extra cash.

The fact is we have increased government spending over the last decade massively and not seen much benefit. Is education system now much better? No. Is law and order and policing? No.

There is a balance with government expenditure between allowing us to keep the money we earn to spend on the priorities as we see fit and spend on our families and provide for old age and government taking that money to spend on public services.

Personally i think the government takes too much. I am happy to throw abit of cash at the nhs. But beyond that i would rather they were more frugal.

Remeber for every 100pounds the government takes from us it is 100pounds less we have to provide for our families.

Council tax has gone up far too high and far too fast. Personally i am not pro lit but would rather have a 40% cut in council tax with excemptions for oaps.

97

4isbetterthan1,

14/07/2008 16:53:33
#91, Miss H, And what about the valuation of public buildings?
98

Gorgie_Tony,

Edinburgh 14/07/2008 17:28:33
Another indication that Salmond is making a mess of Scotland. Those muppets that voted for the clown and the rest of his idiots should hang their head in shame. Salmond is using his position to carry out a personal vendetta against Westminster, and putting Scotland second. Tourism has fallen in Scotland since Salmond took charge - obviously put off by his braveheart image - roll on the next election so we can get these muppets out.
99

The Tin Man,

14/07/2008 17:32:52
#98 Alan B

So, where exactly would the cuts be made, out of intrest?

A 40% cut in CT would be the equivalent of GBP 100,000,000 less funds for Edinburgh Council. That equates to laying-off 4000 council staff on an average of 25,000 salary per year.