Election 3rd May 2007

[John S]

The prediction is based on the IFS independent analysis of the proposals.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/

[abbey craig]

The prediction is based on the IFS independent analysis of the proposals.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/

I believe you John

[John S]

The prediction is based on the IFS independent analysis of the proposals.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/

I believe you John

Thanks Abbey, I believe you too

[Mary G]

And what do you believe, John?

That only the richest 10% will be poorer?

[John S]

In the truth.

"As every government finds sometimes to its cost, [IFS is] an institution that is rigorous in research, proudly impartial and objective in analysis, forward-looking in the causes it adopts and fiercely independent - yielding to no-one, friend or foe, on its way."
Gordon Brown MP

[Mary G]

You are dodging giving a straight answer, John ... who would have thought …?

I will try again: Do you believe, as the SNP claimed, that only the richest 10% will be poorer?

Or do you accept, as per the examples above, that others, not in the top 10% will in fact be worse off under this proposed local income tax?

[John S]

Mary, you are starting to sound as desperate as Wendy Alexander, The independent analysis by a company endorsed by your own Leader-in-waiting says that the average change in net weekly income as a result of the implementation of our proposal will be an increase in all decile groups except for the richest. This is the basis on which our statements are made. and it is on that basis you called them dishonest. I disagree I believe these findings to be the truth, in as much as findings can be the truth - as I have already indicated.

Yes, in real life there will be real life situations, which don't fit the findings, that’s life - but it is feeble to try and rubbish a policy which will clearly benefit so many because it's easier to do than it is to come up with a better alternative.

"It is often possible to identify scenarios that will back up the view that you want to put across" your words not mine.

Come on Mary show us your alternatives.

[Mary G]

Hey John

Personal attacks on me (or Wendy for that matter) say more about you than they do about me.

Back to the subject. You wrote:
“Yes, in real life there will be real life situations, which don't fit the findings ...”.

I suppose that is as near we are going to get to a straight answer to a simple question. It does at least acknowledge that there will be cases where people like students who work, and some young adults staying at home, will be worse off - among others not in the top 10%. Not forgetting the police officer and teacher in Stornoway, in a medium-sized house!

Anyway, I am very interested in understanding the impact of this proposal. Local government finance is a notoriously difficult subject (witness the history of rates, poll tax, etc) so it is a topic that deserves serious consideration, in my view. That is my genuine interest. No stone unturned!

Anyway, the Institute for Fiscal Studies also states:

The reform would therefore constitute a £450 million tax cut, but would leave a corresponding hole in local authorities’ finances. … The SNP argue that a £450 million reduction in local authority spending could be absorbed with no loss of quality in public services … Precedent suggests that such efficiency savings might be difficult to achieve.
And:
Whether individual families are better or worse off from the reform as a whole depends in part on the unknown impact of these cuts in local authority spending.

Which parts of local authority spending should be cut in Argyll & Bute, in your view?

[John S]

Mary, I've answered your questions, time for you to answer mine. go for it.

[John S]

Hey John
Personal attacks on me (or Wendy for that matter) say more about you than they do about me.

Mary, you are starting to sound as desperate as Wendy Alexander

Come on, Mary describing Wendy Alexander's recent interviews as desperate is hardly a personal attack , your attempt to paint as such merely reinforces the comparison.

[Mary G]

Here is what happened:
1. Mary asked John a simple question.
2. Rather than answer the question, John described Mary as ‘desperate’.

That amounts to a personal attack, John. You chose to focus on me in an unflattering way rather than deal with the question. Not that I am in any way hurt; as I said, it says more about you than anything else. So lets move on anyway.

Local taxation has vexed politicians of all shades for many years, and any new proposal needs careful research, preparation, assessment and discussion. From what I can see this proposal is extremely shaky, and as such needs further exploration. I am genuinely keen to explore this more. As is Hume, who asked a good question about higher rate tax on dividends. You may have an answer to that.

Here is what concerns me

* A flat rate of 3% across the board is regressive – normally taxation rates increase with earnings (as with income tax at present).
* By saying to all councils “it shall be 3%” there is the complete removal of all local discretion in local authority finance and that is not good for local democracy ie we cannot vote out people whose local taxation we think is wrong.
* The impacts of this proposal will hit certain low earners quite badly, among them students and young / newly qualified people who often stay at home until their careers are established.
* SNP attempts to portray this as “only the richest 10% will be poorer” is simply untrue.
* It all leaves a hole of at least £450 million in local authority funds (according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies), which will require council service cuts.

Now, that is food for thought.

[John S]

Mary, your alternative is?

[The Hitman]

Forgive me for sounding apathetic but this thread is sending me to sleep.

I'm not a big fan of party politics I must confess, I would rather know what local candidates standing for Kintyre will bring to the table?

[John S]

Will be providing you with this in due course Hitman.

[Beachcomber]

your alternative is?

Better and more efficient use of the money already available to them, coupled with transparent accountability that any reasonably intelligent person can understand?

I'd like to see the councils demonstrate that they're making efficient and worthwhile use of the money that they already take from us, before telling us they need more.