Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    They promised to increase the top rate, try don't believe in people actually moving where the income is "earnt"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What you just posted made no sense. I've already explained why they can't increase the top rate in Scotland, and the reason is that the UK Government won't devolve control over Income Tax avoidance.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by david9640)
    What you just posted made no sense. I've already explained why they can't increase the top rate in Scotland, and the reason is that the UK Government won't devolve control over Income Tax avoidance.
    That's nothing to do with it, there is literally nothing that could be done whether they had the powers you think they want or not

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That's nothing to do with it, there is literally nothing that could be done whether they had the powers you think they want or not

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They could change legislation to mean that if you are employed in Scotland, then your Principle Private Residence MUST be within Scotland, unless you can provide sufficient evidence that you live outwith Scotland and commute to work.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9640)
    The UK Government followed the Scottish Government's example on Stamp Duty, so that doesn't challenge the point I was making.
    Perhaps - I rather suspect the Scottish Government plucked a Treasury idea that had been in the works for a long time off the shelf, but there we go. The important point is that you can hardly suggest the Scottish Government are making radical changes with the tax powers they have when they've done basically the same thing that a Conservative Government has done in England.

    What you fail to realise is that is their strength. The SNP have won seats because they're the most small-c conservative mainstream political party in Britain. People don't want radicalism and elections are won in the centre-ground. Presenting the SNP as radicals and agents of change misrepresents them, and to their disadvantage too.

    You've just made up something, then provided the full name of the criminal prosecution authority in Scotland to try and make it sound like you're going into detail. If you own two homes, you can choose which one to have as your primary residence for tax purposes.
    That is false and betrays very little basic understanding of tax law. Residence is not a choice, it's a fact in law: you either live in one place or the other and it is determined by entirely objective criteria. You don't get to choose - bar, of course, actually moving residence.

    People already take advantage of this to reduce their Capital Gains Tax liability. Accountants regularly advise clients to label the house that they believe will rise in value most as their 'Principle Private Residence' for tax purposes, the same would happen for Income Tax.
    What you're confusing here is two entirely different concepts: residence, and which home is designated a principal residence for tax purposes. They are not categorically not the same thing, have entirely different consequences and are determined on entirely different criteria.

    It remains that you cannot choose your residence for income tax purposes and to suggest that you can is simply perpetuating a falsehood. Where you are resident is a fact, you cannot "flip" your residence for advantage without a change in your circumstances and you cannot declare falsely where you are resident without the risk of criminal proceedings (brought about, as I said, through the devolved Scottish criminal justice system).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Perhaps - I rather suspect the Scottish Government plucked a Treasury idea that had been in the works for a long time off the shelf, but there we go. The important point is that you can hardly suggest the Scottish Government are making radical changes with the tax powers they have when they've done basically the same thing that a Conservative Government has done in England.

    What you fail to realise is that is their strength. The SNP have won seats because they're the most small-c conservative mainstream political party in Britain. People don't want radicalism and elections are won in the centre-ground. Presenting the SNP as radicals and agents of change misrepresents them, and to their disadvantage too.



    That is false and betrays very little basic understanding of tax law. Residence is not a choice, it's a fact in law: you either live in one place or the other and it is determined by entirely objective criteria. You don't get to choose - bar, of course, actually moving residence.



    What you're confusing here is two entirely different concepts: residence, and which home is designated a principal residence for tax purposes. They are not categorically not the same thing, have entirely different consequences and are determined on entirely different criteria.

    It remains that you cannot choose your residence for income tax purposes and to suggest that you can is simply perpetuating a falsehood. Where you are resident is a fact, you cannot "flip" your residence for advantage without a change in your circumstances and you cannot declare falsely where you are resident without the risk of criminal proceedings (brought about, as I said, through the devolved Scottish criminal justice system).
    So you've resulted to speculation? The British Government copied the Scottish Government, what you've done is just make something up and pretend that it could be true.

    Have you got any evidence of someone being criminally prosecuted for declaring their second home as their primary residence to avoid Income Tax? Because otherwise their is no precedent whatsoever to back up your claims. The uncertainty could easily be solved by devolving the power, why would the British Government choose not to do that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9640)
    I've already explained why they can't increase the top rate in Scotland
    Well, they can. To assert otherwise is false. You are suggesting it would have consequences: all policy decisions have consequences. That does not mean they cannot be made.

    Indeed, notably several political parties in Scotland had raising the top rate as part of their policy platform at the last election.

    (Original post by david9640)
    So you've resulted to speculation? The British Government copied the Scottish Government, what you've done is just make something up and pretend that it could be true.
    Nope, I've pointed out that addressing the issue of the slab effects of income tax was a long-standing policy proposal - it was by no means the invention of the SNP. It was picked off the shelf. To suggest that the UK Government was considering it at the same time is indeed speculation - but I would speculate that virtually every UK Government in recent decades has considered this since it's a fairly obvious thing to do.

    Have you got any evidence of someone being criminally prosecuted for declaring their second home as their primary residence to avoid Income Tax? Because otherwise their is no precedent whatsoever to back up your claims.
    I'm not sure if you understand how criminal law works. There does not need to be precedent to establish someone committed a crime.

    To make a false declaration to HMRC of your the circumstances of your residence is a criminal offence and one with very serious penalties. It is inherently fraudulent. I'm not sure why you're unable to accept that rather straightforward fact.

    The uncertainty could easily be solved by devolving the power, why would the British Government choose not to do that?
    I'm not sure what this "power" is. The enforcement of criminal law around taxation issues is not reserved.

    HMRC deals with the administration of income tax in Scotland under an agreement made between the Scottish Government and the UK Government - I'd speculate that's because a separate Scottish tax authority that dealt with a tax of that size and complexity would be prohibitively expensive for no gain.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Well, they can. To assert otherwise is false. You are suggesting it would have consequences: all policy decisions have consequences. That does not mean they cannot be made.

    Indeed, notably several political parties in Scotland had raising the top rate as part of their policy platform at the last election.



    Nope, I've pointed out that addressing the issue of the slab effects of income tax was a long-standing policy proposal - it was by no means the invention of the SNP. It was picked off the shelf. To suggest that the UK Government was considering it at the same time is indeed speculation - but I would speculate that virtually every UK Government in recent decades has considered this since it's a fairly obvious thing to do.



    I'm not sure if you understand how criminal law works. There does not need to be precedent to establish someone committed a crime.

    To make a false declaration to HMRC of your the circumstances of your residence is a criminal offence and one with very serious penalties. It is inherently fraudulent. I'm not sure why you're unable to accept that rather straightforward fact.



    I'm not sure what this "power" is. The enforcement of criminal law around taxation issues is not reserved.

    HMRC deals with the administration of income tax in Scotland under an agreement made between the Scottish Government and the UK Government - I'd speculate that's because a separate Scottish tax authority that dealt with a tax of that size and complexity would be prohibitively expensive for no gain.
    So now you're just saying they should do it regardless, even if there are consequences? What a silly argument.

    No, it is you who does not understand how criminal law works.

    It's quite simple. To prosecute someone, they must have done something that is criminal. What is criminal is set out in statute (in some cases), or in case law.

    In my criminal law exam, I had to provide cases to prove what I argued, to prove that the actions described in the problem questions were criminal. If you don't provide cases to back up your point, you don't pass. Just like if you worked as a procurator fiscal you would need to back up your arguments with case law or statute, otherwise the judge would throw out the case.

    I asked you to provide cases to prove what you are asserting. Go ahead. Prove that it is criminal to declare your second home as your primary residence to avoid Income Tax. Like I've already said, the law already permits individuals to do this to avoid Capital Gains Tax, it would actually be in the UK Government's interest to permit this for Income Tax as well.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We have had priministers who were not MPs before.
    It's about democracy and having her as PM wouldn't stand for the UK's strong democratic values.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    anyone who wants that is a traitor to the English bring back the death penalty
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9640)
    Can you explain to me how the SNP have caused the deficit in Scotland? The UK Government control the deficit. They set the Scottish budget, and most of the taxes, and if the SNP increase taxes, it increases the budget; so there is literally no way they can deal with the deficit.
    The SNP bang on about Scotland being financially secure if they went independent when they run the largest budget deficit in the UK by some margin. It is quite simple – the SNP have spent more money than Westminster + Holyrood have received in tax receipts in Scotland. Although they don’t have many tax powers as of yet – they are receiving quite a few in the coming years and I have heard little from Nicola and the crew as to their deficit reduction plans. The SNP have had the money to diversify the Scottish economy away from oil – yet the budget deficit only goes to show that these efforts were (if any) lacklustre at best.

    (Original post by david9640)
    Scotland has the most educated population in Europe.
    The SNP have only been in power for 9 years. What you have said means relatively little considering Tory/Labour governments have shaped the vast majority of the educational opportunities for the majority of the working (more older) populations. The report that calls Scotland the most educated population in Europe gives too much importance to higher education.The SNP have had far more influence over primary/secondary education. From this OECD report (skip to executive summary page 9), it clearly highlights with respect to the international community education standards are slipping. Maths is declining after Scotland supposedly ‘leading’ in maths achievement a decade before (under a Labour administration). There are now larger numbers of low achievers and low performers at secondary schools. The positives that were said about the system in the report mostly relate to ‘equality’, ‘inclusivity’, which even by SNP standards is disastrous for a party of ‘social justice’ where 3.9% of pupils in the poorest areas in Scotland get 3 A’s at highers yet in the most affluent it is 24.2%. Evidence suggests that those from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education are falling – from 8.8% (2013/2014) to 8.4% (2014/2015). Literacy rates are falling. Numeracy rates are falling. This article exemplifies all of this. What more do you want of the SNP’s incompetence over education?

    (Original post by david9640)
    And in terms of the NHS, NHS Scotland is performing better than NHS England. A&E waiting times have been better than anywhere else in the UK for I think over a year now, patient satisfaction is higher, have you actually got any evidence for your claim?
    I said that the NHS in Scotland was slightly worse than that in England. Patient Satisfaction means little – outcome is far more important. I do not know where you got the A&E facts – but this article suggests that NHS Scotland isn’t performing better compared to England. It is clear from this report (2012) that Scotland lags behind England over several indicators. Life expectancy in my view is the most important and Scotland lags 2-3 years behind England. This report says that ‘England performs marginally better across a number of key indicators, including amenable mortality rates, life expectancy and ambulance response times.’ Scotland on the other hand ‘has shown a marked upturn in performance on indicators associated with targets and performance management, such as hospital waiting times for planned treatment, which now broadly match England’s, and for ambulance response times.’ It is difficult to discern which is empirically better - but I personally feel life expectancy should triumph over how people feel over the NHS.

    There are many other reasons to hate the SNP than just these policy areas.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    The SNP bang on about Scotland being financially secure if they went independent when they run the largest budget deficit in the UK by some margin. It is quite simple – the SNP have spent more money than Westminster + Holyrood have received in tax receipts in Scotland. Although they don’t have many tax powers as of yet – they are receiving quite a few in the coming years and I have heard little from Nicola and the crew as to their deficit reduction plans. The SNP have had the money to diversify the Scottish economy away from oil – yet the budget deficit only goes to show that these efforts were (if any) lacklustre at best.



    The SNP have only been in power for 9 years. What you have said means relatively little considering Tory/Labour governments have shaped the vast majority of the educational opportunities for the majority of the working (more older) populations. The report that calls Scotland the most educated population in Europe gives too much importance to higher education.The SNP have had far more influence over primary/secondary education. From this OECD report (skip to executive summary page 9), it clearly highlights with respect to the international community education standards are slipping. Maths is declining after Scotland supposedly ‘leading’ in maths achievement a decade before (under a Labour administration). There are now larger numbers of low achievers and low performers at secondary schools. The positives that were said about the system in the report mostly relate to ‘equality’, ‘inclusivity’, which even by SNP standards is disastrous for a party of ‘social justice’ where 3.9% of pupils in the poorest areas in Scotland get 3 A’s at highers yet in the most affluent it is 24.2%. Evidence suggests that those from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education are falling – from 8.8% (2013/2014) to 8.4% (2014/2015). Literacy rates are falling. Numeracy rates are falling. This article exemplifies all of this. What more do you want of the SNP’s incompetence over education?



    I said that the NHS in Scotland was slightly worse than that in England. Patient Satisfaction means little – outcome is far more important. I do not know where you got the A&E facts – but this article suggests that NHS Scotland isn’t performing better compared to England. It is clear from this report (2012) that Scotland lags behind England over several indicators. Life expectancy in my view is the most important and Scotland lags 2-3 years behind England. This report says that ‘England performs marginally better across a number of key indicators, including amenable mortality rates, life expectancy and ambulance response times.’ Scotland on the other hand ‘has shown a marked upturn in performance on indicators associated with targets and performance management, such as hospital waiting times for planned treatment, which now broadly match England’s, and for ambulance response times.’ It is difficult to discern which is empirically better - but I personally feel life expectancy should triumph over how people feel over the NHS.

    There are many other reasons to hate the SNP than just these policy areas.
    Oh good god. Like you practically admit, the Scottish deficit is set by Westminster. If the Chancellor tomorrow decided to increase Scotland's budget by £100 trillion, then the Scottish budget would have a deficit of over £100 trillion. A budget deficit is a sign of Westminster miss-management. And as for the oil, Scotland saw hardly any of that money, other oil producing countries have an oil fund right now to fall back on, why don't we have that? Again, Westminster miss-management. You can't blame the SNP for that.

    You can always pick out some statistic to fit your agenda, but the fact remains, we have the most educated population in Europe, and as for secondary education, record numbers of pupils are leaving to go to positive destinations.

    On the NHS, your post is laughable. You've quoted a study from 2012, and your A&E statistics are out of date. As for life expectancy, you fine well know that the problems the government in Scotland face are different.


    Your views are based on a hatred of the SNP. We could be the richest country in the world, with the most educated population, the lowest inequality and highest life expectancy...and you would still try and find something to beat them with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    anyone who wants that is a traitor to the English bring back the death penalty
    That is exactly why popularist referendums should not be allowed.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    wtf no we haven't? The PM is the leader of the largest party in Parliament, ergo they have to be an MP.
    Disraeli wasn't for the majority of his Prime Ministership.

    Gladstone and Disraeli did not meet at the dispatch box every Wednesday. They were sitting in separate debating chambers.

    Smuts attended the British cabinet whilst representing a seat just outside Pretoria

    Once you have disturbed the Constitution, you can disturb it further.

    I did wonder if May would make Davidson Secretary of State for Scotland with only a Hollyrood seat.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    That is exactly why popularist referendums should not be allowed.
    So basically you are the governements dogs body? By your logic, it's fine that hitler said Jews are bad because the government of the day said so.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by neal95)
    So basically you are the governements dogs body? By your logic, it's fine that hitler said Jews are bad because the government of the day said so.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_referendum,_1933
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_referendum,_1934
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ...ferendum,_1936
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ...ferendum,_1938

    Hence why Margaret Thatcher was so against them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by david9640)
    They could change legislation to mean that if you are employed in Scotland, then your Principle Private Residence MUST be within Scotland, unless you can provide sufficient evidence that you live outwith Scotland and commute to work.
    And then Scotland suffers.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Who is this 'we' to whom you refer? Not in my name thank you

    Wee Nippy as UK PM? Hell naw :eek:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    anyone who wants that is a traitor to the English bring back the death penalty
    Christ almighty. I'm not fan of the SNP or Sturgeon but over-reaction much?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    Christ almighty. I'm not fan of the SNP or Sturgeon but over-reaction much?
    It was a joke
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by neal95)
    It was a joke
    Hilarious. Like this was a joke?

    (Original post by neal95)
    So basically you are the governements dogs body? By your logic, it's fine that hitler said Jews are bad because the government of the day said so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 16, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.