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

[7by7]

Forgive me for rearranging your post a bit in order to deal with the different points you raised.

 

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

So how are other small EU Northern European countries able to manage?...............

 

Totally different tax system - I cited Denmark as a superior system.

Higher taxes. You cite Denmark again, so let's compare.

 

Income tax rates in Denmark

• 0  to 48,913 DKK (£4786.16):  8%
• 48,913 DKK (£478.16) to 521,304DKK (£59,426.97); 41.1%
• above 521,304DKK (£59,426.97); 55.1%
• (source for tax rates; source for conversion DKK to Sterling)

Income tax rates in the UK

• 0 to £11,500; 0%
• £11,500 to £45,00; 20%
• £45,000 to £150,000; 40%
• above £150,000; 45%
• (source)

VAT rate in Denmark; 25%: VAT rate in the UK; 20% (source). In addition, the UK charges 0% on food, medicine and children's clothing; Denmark charges the EU recommended 5% on these items.

 

Now you may say that Danes are happy to pay these higher taxes because they enjoy the welfare benefits they bring; and maybe, having got used to them, they now are.

 

But it is not hard to predict the reaction of the average Scottish voter to being told that independence will mean higher taxes

 

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

I believe Scotland should adopt a dramatically different model from Westminster.

Such as?

 

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Foreign Direct Investment would surely rise.

Why?

 

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

A different industrial strategy (a la Germany) to get long term investment in plant, robotics, AI. Get rid of business shorttermism and the holy grail of shareholder value.

Long term being the key point; how long would all this take; and where would the investment money come from?

 

Not from private investors; they invest in companies in order to make a profit on their investment.

 

The same for institutions. No investment company, no bank is going to invest in a company unless they predict making a profit from that investment. 

 

Without individuals or financial institutions willing to invest in your suggested industrial strategy, where is the money going to come from?

 

The government? Governments don't have any money; they use taxpayer's money. So to pay for this investment they would have to raise taxes, at least in the short term.

 

It is not hard to predict the reaction of the average Scottish voter to being told that independence will mean higher taxes

 

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

I suggest they adopt the Scottish Pound, initially pegged to the Euro but with scope to adjust over time as new systems bed in.

Not if they want to join the EU! They would have to agree to adopt the Euro.

 

Whether your solutions are workable or not, they will take some time, probably decades, to have a positive effect.

 

What will Scotland do in the meantime to reduce it's current deficit, even when taking oil into account, of 8.1% of GDP to a level acceptable for EU membership?

 

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

The Scots would have to be able to control the English flooding in!

Really?

 

Given all the above, I predict the flow being south, not north!

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

The issue of how to manage freedom of movement is indeed a problem but not intractable I believe. I think you will see some changes in the EU if only to avoid brittle fracture. This is only one of several issues that need to be and will be addressed.

Freedom of movement of peoples is one of the fundamental principles of the EU, and has been since it was founded as the EEC by the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

 

The Freedom of Movement Directive may be dated 2004; but it contains nothing new; it simply drew all the previously scattered legislation in other directives into one.

 

The EU are not going to abandon this fundamental principle merely because Sturgeon says "pretty please!"

 

When (if) an independent Scotland joins the EU it may be able to delay joining the Schengen area, but it will not be able to opt out of any part of the Freedom of Movement Directive nor restrict the movement of those covered by the directive; i.e. EU nationals, EEA nationals, Swiss nationals and the qualifying family members of same, regardless of their nationality.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Forgive me for rearranging your post a bit in order to deal with the different points you raised.

 

Higher taxes. You cite Denmark again, so let's compare.

 

Income tax rates in Denmark

• 0  to 48,913 DKK (£4786.16):  8%
• 48,913 DKK (£478.16) to 521,304DKK (£59,426.97); 41.1%
• above 521,304DKK (£59,426.97); 55.1%
• (source for tax rates; source for conversion DKK to Sterling)

Income tax rates in the UK

• 0 to £11,500; 0%
• £11,500 to £45,00; 20%
• £45,000 to £150,000; 40%
• above £150,000; 45%
• (source)

VAT rate in Denmark; 25%: VAT rate in the UK; 20% (source). In addition, the UK charges 0% on food, medicine and children's clothing; Denmark charges the EU recommended 5% on these items.

 

Now you may say that Danes are happy to pay these higher taxes because they enjoy the welfare benefits they bring; and maybe, having got used to them, they now are.

 

But it is not hard to predict the reaction of the average Scottish voter to being told that independence will mean higher taxes

 

Such as?

 

Why?

 

Long term being the key point; how long would all this take; and where would the investment money come from?

 

Not from private investors; they invest in companies in order to make a profit on their investment.

 

The same for institutions. No investment company, no bank is going to invest in a company unless they predict making a profit from that investment. 

 

Without individuals or financial institutions willing to invest in your suggested industrial strategy, where is the money going to come from?

 

The government? Governments don't have any money; they use taxpayer's money. So to pay for this investment they would have to raise taxes, at least in the short term.

 

It is not hard to predict the reaction of the average Scottish voter to being told that independence will mean higher taxes

 

Not if they want to join the EU! They would have to agree to adopt the Euro.

 

Whether your solutions are workable or not, they will take some time, probably decades, to have a positive effect.

 

What will Scotland do in the meantime to reduce it's current deficit, even when taking oil into account, of 8.1% of GDP to a level acceptable for EU membership?

 

Really?

 

Given all the above, I predict the flow being south, not north!

Well I'm quite flattered that you have gone to so much trouble. Excuse me if I wait until tomorrow to address your points, I'm in Macau right now and just turning in. However, you seem to have difficulty thinking outside of the box.....

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/corporate-tax-rate

 

I note income tax at about 55% and social security at 8% uncapped. More tommo 

 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Well I'm quite flattered that you have gone to so much trouble. Excuse me if I wait until tomorrow to address your points, I'm in Macau right now and just turning in. However, you seem to have difficulty thinking outside of the box.....

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/corporate-tax-rate

 

I note income tax at about 55% and social security at 8% uncapped. More tommo 

 

No need to be flattered; I like to present facts to back up my arguments whenever possible. (It's also a bank holiday, my wife's away and I've bugger all else to do!)

 

Some basic maths for you to ponder while considering your response.

 

The UK average income is £27,000 (source); the Danish average income is 532,117DKK (source), using the same currency converter as before that's £60,561.45.

 

Using the thresholds and rates in my post above (even though your link says the Danish top rate of income tax at 55% is higher), it is easy to calculate that the average UK employee pays £3100 in income tax; while the average Danish employee pays 203,591.18DKK.

 

Of course, income tax isn't the only deduction the state makes from earnings in both countries. In the UK there's NICs and in Denmark there's what your link refers to as the social security rate; which I assume is basically the same thing.

 

Your link says that in Denmark this is 8%; in the UK the employees contribution is higher at 12% (source). But in Denmark it's paid on the whole income, while in the UK it's only paid on income above the lower earnings limit of £113 p.w. (£5876 p.a.)

 

So the average Danish worker pays 42,569.36 DKK p.a. in social security payments; the average UK worker pays £1737.92 p.a. in employees NICs.

 

A total of £4837.92 is deducted from the average UK worker's salary and paid to the state; that's 17.9% of their total gross income, leaving them with £22,162.08.

 

In Denmark it's a total of 246.160.54DKK; a whopping 46.2% of the average Danish workers salary goes to the state! After which that worker is left with 246160.54DKK, or £28,019.05.

 

Of course, net income doesn't mean much until you also factor in the cost of living.

 

Unfortunately, all the recent data I can find on this only compares London and Copenhagen; such as this one. Which  shows that whilst housing and transportation is considerably cheaper in Copenhagen than in London: food, clothing and most personal care items (toilet rolls, shampoo, medicines etc.) are considerably more expensive.

 

What has all this got to do with Scottish independence?

 

Well, you are advocating this sort of taxation system for an independent Scotland because you consider the Danish system to be superior to that of the UK.

 

The average income in Scotland is lower than for the UK as a whole; £21,250 (source). So unless these higher taxes are rolled out over a long period and incomes rise as substantially over that same period, it will bite the average Scottish worker's pocket hard.

 

It is not difficult to predict the reaction of the average Scottish voter to being told that independence will mean that instead of paying 17.9% of their income to the state, in future they'll be paying 46.2%!

 

Having paid a far higher percentage of their income in direct taxes, the Danes than pay more again in VAT.

 

Denmark VAT rates

25%	Standard	All taxable goods and services.
0%	Zero	Newspapers and journals (published more than once a month); intra-community and international transport

United Kingdom VAT rates

20%	Standard	All other taxable goods and services.
5%	Reduced	Children’s car seats; social housing; natural gas supplies; electricity supplies; energy-saving domestic installations and goods; LPG and heating oil; some renovation and repairs of immovable property
0%	Zero	Social housing; printed books (excluding e-books); journals and other printed materials; renovations to private housing; collections of domestic refuse; household water supplies; basic foodstuffs (excluding highly processed or pre-cooked food); some take away food; cut flowers and plants for food production; prescribed pharmaceutical products; certain medical supplies; domestic passenger transport; children's clothing and footwear; live animals destined for human consumption; seed supplies; construction of residential buildings; some supplies for the construction of new buildings; sewerage services; motor cycle and bicycle helmets; intra-community and international passenger transport; some gold ingots, bars and coins.

(source)

 

Of course, you may say, personal taxation can be kept down by increasing corporation tax.

 

The main rate of corporation tax in the UK is 19% (source)  compared to, from your source, 22% in Denmark.

 

So is your idea to keep personal taxes down in an independent Scotland by increasing corporation tax?

 

I can see that working; "Bring your business to Scotland and pay more in corporation tax than you would in the UK!"

 

 

 

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

No need to be flattered; I like to present facts to back up my arguments whenever possible. (It's also a bank holiday, my wife's away and I've bugger all else to do!)

 

Some basic maths for you to ponder while considering your response.

 

The UK average income is £27,000 (source); the Danish average income is 532,117DKK (source), using the same currency converter as before that's £60,561.45.

 

Using the thresholds and rates in my post above (even though your link says the Danish top rate of income tax at 55% is higher), it is easy to calculate that the average UK employee pays £3100 in income tax; while the average Danish employee pays 203,591.18DKK.

 

Of course, income tax isn't the only deduction the state makes from earnings in both countries. In the UK there's NICs and in Denmark there's what your link refers to as the social security rate; which I assume is basically the same thing.

 

Your link says that in Denmark this is 8%; in the UK the employees contribution is higher at 12% (source). But in Denmark it's paid on the whole income, while in the UK it's only paid on income above the lower earnings limit of £113 p.w. (£5876 p.a.)

 

So the average Danish worker pays 42,569.36 DKK p.a. in social security payments; the average UK worker pays £1737.92 p.a. in employees NICs.

 

A total of £4837.92 is deducted from the average UK worker's salary and paid to the state; that's 17.9% of their total gross income, leaving them with £22,162.08.

 

In Denmark it's a total of 246.160.54DKK; a whopping 46.2% of the average Danish workers salary goes to the state! After which that worker is left with 246160.54DKK, or £28,019.05.

 

Of course, net income doesn't mean much until you also factor in the cost of living.

 

Unfortunately, all the recent data I can find on this only compares London and Copenhagen; such as this one. Which  shows that whilst housing and transportation is considerably cheaper in Copenhagen than in London: food, clothing and most personal care items (toilet rolls, shampoo, medicines etc.) are considerably more expensive.

 

What has all this got to do with Scottish independence?

 

Well, you are advocating this sort of taxation system for an independent Scotland because you consider the Danish system to be superior to that of the UK.

 

The average income in Scotland is lower than for the UK as a whole; £21,250 (source). So unless these higher taxes are rolled out over a long period and incomes rise as substantially over that same period, it will bite the average Scottish worker's pocket hard.

 

It is not difficult to predict the reaction of the average Scottish voter to being told that independence will mean that instead of paying 17.9% of their income to the state, in future they'll be paying 46.2%!

 

Having paid a far higher percentage of their income in direct taxes, the Danes than pay more again in VAT.

 

Denmark VAT rates

25%	Standard	All taxable goods and services.
0%	Zero	Newspapers and journals (published more than once a month); intra-community and international transport

United Kingdom VAT rates

20%	Standard	All other taxable goods and services.
5%	Reduced	Children’s car seats; social housing; natural gas supplies; electricity supplies; energy-saving domestic installations and goods; LPG and heating oil; some renovation and repairs of immovable property
0%	Zero	Social housing; printed books (excluding e-books); journals and other printed materials; renovations to private housing; collections of domestic refuse; household water supplies; basic foodstuffs (excluding highly processed or pre-cooked food); some take away food; cut flowers and plants for food production; prescribed pharmaceutical products; certain medical supplies; domestic passenger transport; children's clothing and footwear; live animals destined for human consumption; seed supplies; construction of residential buildings; some supplies for the construction of new buildings; sewerage services; motor cycle and bicycle helmets; intra-community and international passenger transport; some gold ingots, bars and coins.

(source)

 

Of course, you may say, personal taxation can be kept down by increasing corporation tax.

 

The main rate of corporation tax in the UK is 19% (source)  compared to, from your source, 22% in Denmark.

 

So is your idea to keep personal taxes down in an independent Scotland by increasing corporation tax?

 

I can see that working; "Bring your business to Scotland and pay more in corporation tax than you would in the UK!"

 

 

 

Thanks as always for the useful data

 

This part of the discussion started because someone made the point that there were no other small successful EU economies not propped up by massive oil revenues (Norway - yes I know its not in the EU)

 

Someone else mentioned Austria

 

I mentioned Denmark because I am very familiar with that country.

 

It seems to me that the Danish population, climate, economic make-up is not so dissimilar to Scotland.

 

I accept that "Rome wasn't built in a day" but "Where there's a will there's a way"

 

The Danes are happy, if that's not too much of a generalization, though I accept they're less happy today than in my time because of the increased number of muslim migrants who just do not fit with the Danish protestant ethic and certainly do not understand hygglig!

 

How do they manage such high wages? How does Germany? Well less inequality and higher efficiency I guess.

 

They have the world's top rated pension system (funded by bonds much more than equities). The system is rated A compared to the UK rating C+ (Mercer). net pension replacement rate: 66.4% of pre-retirement earnings

 

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?

 

I recall that reabsorbing East Germany caused some indigestion in West Germany.

 

My point is that achieving the sort of economic and civil structure created by the Danes must be possible in Scotland if they fancy that.

 

I think that Scotland will be attractive for foreign direct investment in just the same way and for the same reasons as the UK is or at least was as a member of the EU with English language and a trusted legal and financial system. Its not ONLY corporation tax rates you know.

 

One area that I do not agree with the SNP is nuclear deterrence. I would do a deal with the rump of the UK to maintain Faslane as long as submarine based ICBBs represent a credible deterrent (not yet detectable reliably)

 

Finally, The rump of the UK is too big and too over populated to try and do the Danish "thing". I would hope they take some ideas from Germany.....

 

see https://data.oecd.org/denmark

 

for poverty rates etc 

[7by7]

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.

 

 

 

[evadgib]

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

 

May is more like Maggie by the day 

[Basil B]

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... 

[RuamRudy]

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 

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. 

 

[RuamRudy]

12 hours ago, Basil B said:

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

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...

[RuamRudy]

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."

[7by7]

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.

 

 

[mommysboy]

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.)

[BigKahuna]

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?

[Grouse]

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 

[7by7]

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.

 

 

[Grouse]

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?

[7by7]

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?

[Grouse]

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.

[Grouse]

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

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Benefits are not related to contributions, some benefit more, some less

 Contribution based benefits, which includes the state pension, in the UK are related to contributions; that's why they are called contribution based benefits!

 

As I said

56 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

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 logical solution would be to say that the population of Scotland is approximately 8.3% of the UK population as a whole, so an independent Scotland should get 8.3% of the fund.

 

What the government of an independent Scotland do with it and how they mange and pay for state pensions thereafter would be a matter for them.

 

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

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

Reductio ad absurdum to make a point.

[RuamRudy]

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... 

[Grouse]

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!

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Einstein was Scottish I believe!

I believe you mean Trevor McDonald?

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Einstein was Scottish I believe!

 A Scottish version of this?

 

[citybiker]

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

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nontabury]

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.

[mogandave]

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?

[RuamRudy]

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.

[nontabury]

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.