I see Derek Brownlee, Finance Spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives, has written a piece on "The Perils of Local Income Tax". I'm a big fan of Derek and he, along with the other 'Young Turks' of Gavin Brown and Murdo Fraser, shows the party is in very good stead for the generation to come.
But as much as I believe the piece lays out his thoughts clearly and concisely not to mention the refreshing change of an MSP actually debating policy and not tittle-tattle, I have to make some objections.
For a start, there's this misnomer that implementing LIT rules, whether local or national, would be complicated and time-consuming.
It would be relatively straightforward for small, medium or large business to implement LIT. The Government provides a PAYE computer package to those who don't have one already and you would simply add an extra field for each employee stating which area they live in. It is estimated it would require 10 seconds for each employee. Of course, there is an issue for Small Business who work without computers but surely it's safe to assume we'll all be online before too long.
I also don't see the 'obstacles' of 5% income tax increases and £280m efficiency savings as being anywhere near insurmountable. Scotland's share of the Barnett Formula has gone up 50% since 1999 so there must be some money to be saved somewhere.
I always got the impression Labour and the Lib Dems were pretty wasteful and the unrelentingly analytical John Swinney will comb out savings here, there and everywhere. Infact, for more evidence of how wasteful the Lib Dems are see the recent report that shows they are no longer a going concern and do not have the assets to back up their debts!
Further to this, the £400m that is so often touted as 'Scotland's Money' is quite clearly due to us whatever happens. Derek is correct to raise the point that the UK Government may hold the money back for political purposes but any objective person would clearly see that Scotland is due the money even if they change their council tax arrangements. If it comes to a court ruling, I don't think Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling would have a leg to stand on.
But my main concern is this, if Derek Brownlee and indeed anyone within the Tories believe they have a good idea then they are perfectly free to push it and win support rather than fall back on the easy option of aiming a kick at what they disagree with. 80%+ of Derek's piece is negatively disparaging the SNP's plans rather than positively pushing for what he believes is the correct course of action.
Don't get me wrong, as an opposition party (some would say the most effective opposition party) they are responsible for holding the Government to account but in this field I think positive action rather than constructive criticism is the best way forward. The best way to win political and popular support is surely to point out why your plan is so great rather than why another plan is so poor.
I've already said the Tories were right to shoot down Iain Gray's overtures of consensual politics as Iain was bringing nothing tangible to the table. But perhaps the Tories should now put their money where their mouth is, work out a detailed proposal on reforming the Council Tax, take it to Iain Gray/Labour/Greens/Margo and try getting it through the Parliament themselves.
It's clear there is not going to be a perfect solution to local taxation so we all need to focus on the few pro's each plan has as opposed to the more numerous cons and just get cracking with whatever the new system will be.
Does competition help the NHS?
23 minutes ago
3 comments:
The strange thing about the efficiency savings issue is the way that the debate has changed on this.
Originally there was never really any notable mention of the funding shortfall (leaving aside the council tax benefit matter). However when it became an issue the SNP argued for a short-time that this was a tax cut.
I thought this was a decent argument - a way of saying to the public that we think CT is too high and there are inefficiencies within public services, which we intend to resolve.
However that argument disappeared very quickly and is never heard now. So instead we're just back to saying CT is unfair but not mentioning the reduced amount of public spending LIT will offer.
This is part of the problem (which all parties are guilty of) around this debate, and the one you sum up at the end: nothing is going to be popular, the question is whether or not there's a less bad option.
That would be a good debate, and the idea of whether or not the overall tax take (and so tax levels) should be less is worthy too. I'm not sure whether it'll happen though!
i see what you mean. Maybe the SNP envisaged potential savings but then looked at Scottish Water finances and how to solve bin collections etc and balked.
There must be scope to get the costs down but, of course, most of the onus should be on us to not waste water, to recycle properly and not have so much garbage etc.
It's a 2 way street, we can put less stress on services and the Government should be able to find efficiencies.
I don't know how to create a collective drive for the former and it's up to the SNP to find a way for the latter i suppose.
I've become somewhat ambivalent though, LVT or LIT are fine, i just hope someone will get cracking on it.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,酒店,
Post a Comment