snoop1130

Scotland's Sturgeon says: I can win an independence vote

751 posts in this topic

Just a brief response for now:

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

I note that in the UK, NI contributions drop to just 2% on income over 3,750 GBP per month! Now thats not very progressive is it? NI is not much different from income tax so why offer the better off a tax cut of 10% above 45,000 a year?

NICs are completely different from income tax.

 

Everyone's income tax goes into the exchequer and towards the costs of government and government services; schools, the NHS etc.. It is, in my view at least, right that the more one earns, the more one should pay.

 

National Insurance Contributions are not like this. They are not a tax, they are, as the name suggests, a contribution towards the costs of providing certain, fixed rate benefits, including, of course, the state pension.

 

Like income tax, the more one earns, the more one pays in NICs.

 

But the amount one receives back as state pension, or any of the other contribution based benefits should one need to claim, is not based on the amount one has paid in cash, but the period during which one has paid or been credited with.

 

The rich man in his castle will have paid far more in NICs than the poor man at his gate; but when the time comes they will receive exactly the same back.

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, evadgib said:

SNP's presence in Westminster will be decimated in the snap election planned for 08 June.

 

I doubt not even RR would predict they will double the number of MP's at Westminster... :whistling:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, evadgib said:

SNP's presence in Westminster will be decimated in the snap election planned for 08 June.

 

May is more like Maggie by the day :passifier:

If that comes true then indyref2 would be well and truly dead in the water - but the factors are so hard to call that it could be anyone's guess.

 

The SNP has only 5 or 6 seats that would see a change of hands with a of swing less than 5%. They have several very poor MPs who will hopefully disappear into the sunset  - preferably by the party itself replacing them , although there are a couple who should be seriously worried.


As should Mundell. He had a majority of around 700 at the last GE, and with the ongoing police probe into his alleged election fraud and his public silence over the Rape Clause, his jacket is on a very shoogly nail. 

 

There are also rumours circulating that Ian Murray, that lonely SLab figure, may ditch Slab and stand as an independent unionist candidate. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Basil B said:

I doubt not even RR would predict they will double the number of MP's at Westminster... :whistling:

What? There is already enough outrage about Scottish MPs allegedly interfering in English-only matters. I think Nontabury would have a breakdown!

 

One thing that may be possible, however - the Tories might see a 100% increase in their Scottish presence, although I sincerely hope not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an interesting article in the Spectator by the very pro unionist, Alex Massie. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall, but he makes several very good points:

 

"Talk about how the SNP need to win 50 percent or more of the Scottish vote is just that: talk. That’s not how the game is played. If it were then any government failing to win 50 percent of the popular vote would have its mandate questioned. But that it not how we organise matters in what we can still, at least for now, call this country. If the SNP win a majority of Scottish seats at a general election that is in effect a vote to decide whether there could or should be another independence referendum then that, by god, is a mandate. The will of the Scottish people, for better or worse, will have been made clear. If you have the votes, you have the votes.

 

Mrs May cannot win a mandate for herself while then denying a mandate to the party that wins the Scottish portion of this election."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Mrs May cannot win a mandate for herself while then denying a mandate to the party that wins the Scottish portion of this election."

 May has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever denied the mandate the SNP has as expressed by the seats they have won in either a general or a Scottish election.

 

She has also not ruled out a second Scottish independence referendum.

 

What she has done is say that now is not the time for such, that Brexit needs to be sorted out before Indyref2.

 

Which is reasonable and fair to the Scottish people.

 

As said before, without knowing the post Brexit relationship between the UK and EU, the Scottish people will not have all the facts to make a proper decision on which option is better for their future; remain in the UK outside the EU, or leave the UK and seek membership of the EU.

 

There is, of course, a third option; leave the UK and not seek to join the EU; but I don't think many people are in favour of that.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 May has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever denied the mandate the SNP has as expressed by the seats they have won in either a general or a Scottish election.

 

She has also not ruled out a second Scottish independence referendum.

 

What she has done is say that now is not the time for such, that Brexit needs to be sorted out before Indyref2.

 

Which is reasonable and fair to the Scottish people.

 

As said before, without knowing the post Brexit relationship between the UK and EU, the Scottish people will not have all the facts to make a proper decision on which option is better for their future; remain in the UK outside the EU, or leave the UK and seek membership of the EU.

 

There is, of course, a third option; leave the UK and not seek to join the EU; but I don't think many people are in favour of that.

 

 

The third option is of course called independence (as the rest of the world knows it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2017 at 10:56 PM, NanLaew said:

Or at least wait until oil prices improve?

And what happens when they fall again?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/04/2017 at 3:09 PM, 7by7 said:

Just a brief response for now:

NICs are completely different from income tax.

 

Everyone's income tax goes into the exchequer and towards the costs of government and government services; schools, the NHS etc.. It is, in my view at least, right that the more one earns, the more one should pay.

 

National Insurance Contributions are not like this. They are not a tax, they are, as the name suggests, a contribution towards the costs of providing certain, fixed rate benefits, including, of course, the state pension.

 

Like income tax, the more one earns, the more one pays in NICs.

 

But the amount one receives back as state pension, or any of the other contribution based benefits should one need to claim, is not based on the amount one has paid in cash, but the period during which one has paid or been credited with.

 

The rich man in his castle will have paid far more in NICs than the poor man at his gate; but when the time comes they will receive exactly the same back.

 

 

 

Great in theory but no longer in practice. National "insurance is just an income tax. It is not ring fenced. It should be abolished and absorbed into income tax. Why does it drop from 12% to 2% above 3,750 a month? Pensions are paid out of current tax contributions NOT historical NI contributions 

Edited by Grouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 2:27 PM, Grouse said:

Great in theory but no longer in practice. National "insurance is just an income tax. It is not ring fenced. It should be abolished and absorbed into income tax. Why does it drop from 12% to 2% above 3,750 a month? Pensions are paid out of current tax contributions NOT historical NI contributions 

 Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

Everyone's NICs go into the National Insurance Fund, and it is this from which state pensions, and other contribution based benefits, are paid. The way the system was originally set up in 1911 and expanded in 1948 means that the contributions paid by those working pay for the pensions of those retired.

 

This was fine then, when the working population vastly outnumbered the retired one. However, there is now a problem, and has been for a number of years; people are living longer and therefore claiming their pensions for longer which means the contributions paid by the working population may soon no longer be sufficient to fund the pensions of the retired.

 

Therefore the fund will have to be 'topped up' from general taxation. Plus other measures such as raising the retirement age, reducing the length of time other contribution based benefits such as JSA can be claimed for etc..

 

From 2014: Is funding for the state pension really about to run out? How the National Insurance Fund is running dry ahead of schedule

Quote

Cash reserves in the National Insurance Fund have plunged in the past few years and could come up short as soon as next year, forcing the Government to dip into money coming in from general taxation, according to the research...............

 

Since the late 1990s there has been more paid in NI contributions than has been paid out in contributory benefits, including the state pension, so the fund has been running a surplus.

The CPS report says that the money in National Insurance Fund is running out because not enough is coming in - with the surplus down from £53billion in 2009 to £29.1billion last year.

 

The contributions paid by those earning above the Upper Earnings Limit do not, as you put it, "drop from 12% to 2%." They still pay 12% of their earnings between the Lower and Upper Earnings Limits plus 2% on their earnings above the UEL.

 

But, as said, how much you get does not depend upon how much you have paid in; it depends on how long you have been paying for. To get any state pension at all you must have paid, and/or been credited with, at least 10 years worth of contributions, to get the full amount you must have paid, and/or been credited with, at least 30 years worth.

 

How much you have actually paid has no effect on how much you will get. So why should those earning above the UEL pay vastly more into the fund when they will get back exactly the same?

 

To bring this into the topic, one of the many things which will have to be negotiated should Scotland become independent is how much of the National Insurance Fund needs/should be transferred to the Scottish government to fund the pensions of present and future Scottish pensioners.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

Everyone's NICs go into the National Insurance Fund, and it is this from which state pensions, and other contribution based benefits, are paid. The way the system was originally set up in 1911 and expanded in 1948 means that the contributions paid by those working pay for the pensions of those retired.

 

This was fine then, when the working population vastly outnumbered the retired one. However, there is now a problem, and has been for a number of years; people are living longer and therefore claiming their pensions for longer which means the contributions paid by the working population may soon no longer be sufficient to fund the pensions of the retired.

 

Therefore the fund will have to be 'topped up' from general taxation. Plus other measures such as raising the retirement age, reducing the length of time other contribution based benefits such as JSA can be claimed for etc..

 

From 2014: Is funding for the state pension really about to run out? How the National Insurance Fund is running dry ahead of schedule

 

The contributions paid by those earning above the Upper Earnings Limit do not, as you put it, "drop from 12% to 2%." They still pay 12% of their earnings between the Lower and Upper Earnings Limits plus 2% on their earnings above the UEL.

 

But, as said, how much you get does not depend upon how much you have paid in; it depends on how long you have been paying for. To get any state pension at all you must have paid, and/or been credited with, at least 10 years worth of contributions, to get the full amount you must have paid, and/or been credited with, at least 30 years worth.

 

How much you have actually paid has no effect on how much you will get. So why should those earning above the UEL pay vastly more into the fund when they will get back exactly the same?

 

To bring this into the topic, one of the many things which will have to be negotiated should Scotland become independent is how much of the National Insurance Fund needs/should be transferred to the Scottish government to fund the pensions of present and future Scottish pensioners.

 

 

The word pedantry springs to mind!

 

Read this

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nic-tax-steve-wade

 

Sometimes one needs to think outside of the box, rationally and not pedantically

 

I was of course referring to the tax cut of 10% on earnings over the upper limit?

 

Take taxable earnings between 45,000 and 65,000. What is the net TOTAL tax payable (ignore allowances and deductibles and treat income tax and NIC as total tax)

 

Whichever way you look at it, it's a reduced burden on the better off. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sometimes one needs to think outside of the box, rationally and not pedantically

Your standard response when presented with facts you cannot refute!

 

The facts are clear, the National Insurance Fund may be an accounting tool, but it exists.

 

NICs may be considered by some as a form of taxation; but they are different from income tax and serve a different purpose.

 

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Whichever way you look at it, it's a reduced burden on the better off. Why?

I have already answered, but will repeat; because at the end of the day they get the same back as everyone else.

 

I asked you

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

So why should those earning above the UEL pay vastly more into the fund when they will get back exactly the same?

Will you now answer?

 

The VAT rate is set percentage; the same for everyone. Do you think that the better off should pay more VAT?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 739   Posted (edited)

21 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Your standard response when presented with facts you cannot refute!

 

The facts are clear, the National Insurance Fund may be an accounting tool, but it exists.

 

NICs may be considered by some as a form of taxation; but they are different from income tax and serve a different purpose.

 

I have already answered, but will repeat; because at the end of the day they get the same back as everyone else.

 

I asked you

Will you now answer?

 

The VAT rate is set percentage; the same for everyone. Do you think that the better off should pay more VAT?

You're missing the point

 

you can call NIC whatever you like; it's still a tax by any sensible definition of the word

 

Benefits are not related to contributions, some benefit more, some less. Why have an upper earnings limit. UK state pensions are derisory, they could be much better with the strike of a pen to reduce the upper limit. You could probably actually reduce the rate and still give higher pensions for all.

 

Denmark, my exemplar for New Scotland, provides typical pensions at about 67% replacement value as opposed to our typical 28%. It doesn't really matter what the details are, the Danes seem to do much better. I don't see why the Scots couldn't achieve the same over time. They have remarkably similar fundamentals (except for the kilt which makes Scottish fundamentals colder)

 

Your comment on VAT is not worth a response as you are just being silly.

Edited by Grouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Grouse said:

For those a bit light on the Scots, this is a great read

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World

 

I have to agree that this is a fascinating book but I feel that it is burdened by an unnecessarily hubristic title. For our more Pavlovian posters, you can relax - the book makes no mention of the telephone, pneumatic tire, cloud chamber etc. It merely explains how the seeds of the Scottish enlightenment were sown by Scotland's secession from Rome: a radical change from a restrictive status quo which allowed it to reach its contemporary potential, if you will... 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have to agree that this is a fascinating book but I feel that it is burdened by an unnecessarily hubristic title. For our more Pavlovian posters, you can relax - the book makes no mention of the telephone, pneumatic tire, cloud chamber etc. It merely explains how the seeds of the Scottish enlightenment were sown by Scotland's secession from Rome: a radical change from a restrictive status quo which allowed it to reach its contemporary potential, if you will... 

Einstein was Scottish I believe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Einstein was Scottish I believe!

I believe you mean Trevor McDonald?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reminder of how bad Sturgeon's fiscal policies are, Andrew Neil good to highlight.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, citybiker said:

Another reminder of how bad Sturgeon's fiscal policies are, Andrew Neil good to highlight.

 

 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

I've put this up a couple of times for Ruam Ruby to reply to, never happened, hope you have more success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reductio ad absurdum to make a point.


Given the funds (and benefits) are contribution based rather than population based would it not make more sense to funds divided based on contributions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, nontabury said:

I've put this up a couple of times for Ruam Ruby to reply to, never happened, hope you have more success.

Appending the words 'car crash interview' to any difficult interview seems to be the latest trend for partisan internet warriors. Is there anything in particular that makes this one deserving of the term in your mind? She is clearly well versed in the data she references and makes a clear point of highlighting various measures of how Scotland's economy is performing well. This focus on GERS is futile as GERS itself is a false measurement of Scottish income, and the focus on a single year as being representative of the country's economy is also a very partisan line of attack from Neil, who must surely understand that a nation's economy is not defined by one difficult year.

 

But if you remember, Nontabury, I asked you to give me your assessment of the video and you came up with nothing. I am sure that you and not so devoid of insight that you have nothing to offer?

 

No fears of TM being featured in a carcrash interview this time round though - she is too scared to take questions from the electorate and has resolutely ruled out any interaction with the public or with anyone who might be in a position to scrutinise her. Same goes for RD, who has stayed shamefully below the radar with her fingers in her ears, trying to pretend that the Rape Clause is a conceit of the opposition. Or maybe they are both trying to pretend that there are not 30 police investigations ongoing into various Tory MP's having potentially committed election fraud.

 

But regardless of the above, you are both continuing to miss the point by a country mile. Independence is not about handing control of Scotland to the SNP. It is about taking control from  an uncaring Westminster government and electing a government of out choosing, to enact governance with a wholly Scottish focus.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Appending the words 'car crash interview' to any difficult interview seems to be the latest trend for partisan internet warriors. Is there anything in particular that makes this one deserving of the term in your mind? She is clearly well versed in the data she references and makes a clear point of highlighting various measures of how Scotland's economy is performing well. 

 

But regardless of the above, you are both continuing to miss the point by a country mile. Independence is not about handing control of Scotland to the SNP. It is about taking control from  an uncaring Westminster government and electing a government of out choosing, to enact governance with a wholly Scottish focus.

 So once again you fail to answer, why N.S.so miserable failed to answer A.N. Questions on the Scottish economy. 

 I do beleive that the SNP are not seeking Independence. If they were,I would be more sympathic to them. What they actually want is separation from a union, in which they are over representated, in order that they can then join ( if they can match the entre requirements) a so called Union, in which they will be treated as a bit player.

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 25 April 2017 13:36
Sponsors