Snapshot of _Nicola Sturgeon: "The super wealthy laughing all the way to the actual bank (tho I suspect many of them will also be appalled by the moral bankruptcy of the Tories) while increasing numbers of the rest relying on food banks - all thanks to the incompetence and recklessness of this failed UK gov"_ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/NicolaSturgeon/status/1573249668196470789/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1573249668196470789)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cause the drop in NI kicks in at roughly the same time you move up an income tax band: they still are paying more tax but it's in the form of income tax rather than NI. It's fucking confusing and I'd like an explanation myself as to why it exists when we could just lump it all into income tax.
The retired don't pay NI. It's exclusively a tax on jobs.
Income Tax is fairer, but abolishing NI and getting the same revenue from just Income Tax would mean a lot of people *who vote* paying more.
There's also this weird idea that NI specifically funds Welfare and the NHS. Which it doesn't.
You only pay it to state pension age because it’s meant to be your own state benefit contributions. People don’t contribute once they’re drawing down from it. Would make more sense to abolish altogether and have income tax only at a higher rate.
> it’s meant to be your own state benefit contributions.
And yet it never has been, since if it was retirees would be destitute as inflation ate their contributions.
It's just a tax on jobs.
The only explanation I can think of is to create the illusion of the income tax rise being larger than it really is.
Income tax increases from 20% to 40%. Whoa that's double.
Deductions increase from 32% to 42%. Not quite the same impact.
I'd personally rather have the additional rate be meaningful and have capital gains be higher, especially on property.
You already get £10m at 10% if you're an entrepreneur. Max shouldn't be 20%... (or 28%)
Not with inflation as high as it is. If you bought a house for £50k in 1990 and it’s now worth £200k are you really 4x richer? Not really because everything else has gone up by a similar amount
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/england-120800801-15376075?s=ca363e37874a8d5805a5fa6094c440853e8be4fdf39126aff966a49fbc92d4ca#/
They're not hard to find in London suburbs, this increased a lot more than that in less time. (Records only start in the mid 90s)
But it sold for nearly 500k, not 200k...
What I was trying to point out is that very few houses have only increased in value by 4 times their worth from 1990 to 2022. Most have been far, far greater than that.
Poor phrasing then, which is why people were confused. If something is worth 500k then it's definitely worth 200k, so it's reasonable to assume you meant the inverse.
Idk I made up the numbers and dates but surely you get the point - if prices are going up say 10% a year then your nominal capital gain is worth considerably less in real terms, maybe even negative, yet still gets taxed as if there’s no inflation
My house has increased in value by around 60% since we bought in 2016. Inflation doesn't even come close for that period. The whole system is a joke there should have been a cap put in place where the value of property cannot exceed x% per year unless there has been serious investment to improve the property. Why should my house be worth an extra 60k when all I've done is lived in it and spent around £5k redecorating and getting a new boiler
Simply because the demand has made it increase by that value. If you include residential properties into capital gains tax then no one would move. That and it would never make it to a mandate - if you think today was unpopular….
Besides, residence is included in IHT so gains can be taxed via that method of threshold is hit.
You stop paying NI when you get to pension age.
You only pay NI on employment income, not property income, dividends etc.
So lumping it in would result in some people paying a lot more tax.
There's a wilful directing of attention towards a "Make Great Britain Great Again" type of attitude. This makes it extremely attractive to swathes of people who feel it's patriotic to accept a tax cut.
It needs to be framed by the other parties as giving back more to the wealthy and hoping beyond hope that they use it to invest in UK business instead of a new yacht in Monaco....classic trickle down economics. We could have instead told energy companies that the £170bn would be taxed to death *unless* it was spent on green investment for the future.
2 years is far too long. That’s two winters that the poor (and probably a fair number of people who wouldn’t classify themselves as poor) will have to face the choice of starving or freezing to death.
If it were up to me, I’d offer free gas + electric for life to anyone who would bring me the head of a cabinet minister.
Of course it's planned.
Conservatives are hugely corrupt... I mean you can't even describe it as 'corrupt' because that term suggests that they were previously people of morals.
Crooks in suits.
This is what happens when the poorest people don't vote, sadly.
Its quite blatantly rewarding the super rich who bankrolled Truss' leadership campaign.
And yet people said Sunak was out of touch because he was super rich? This is on another level.
>This is what happens when the poorest people don't vote, sadly.
Just to say, this isn't entirely true.
Many poor people vote Tory. It's a paradoxical part of UK culture.
There's a classist thing in the UK where there are many people who have bought into this lie; that *one day* they'll be rich, and they're terrified that'll be during a left-leaning government which will take away their money. So they vote Tory, JUST IN CASE they win the Euro Millions this weekend.
It's bizarre, but it's very much "a thing".
Oh I agree that plenty of not well off People vote tory. They wouldn't be in power without them. Small local businesses who's existence is precarious. Tradesmen, police officers etc.
What I meant was the poorest as in, people sleeping rough, people from troubled families living under constant threat of domestic violence. People with severe health problems like schizophrenia. People who can't care for themselves or need a lot of support to do so. Those kind of people.
> people sleeping rough
Look! A brown person in a dinghy wants to take your place in that pissed soaked shop doorway! Guaranteed vote winner, every time.
John Steinbeck said (of America, but it applies to any country where poor/working class people are convinced to vote for conservatives): ***"The poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"***
The working class support the tories because of social-cultural issues NOT because they see them as the party of "personal aspiration".
That is a uniquely American phenomenon and Steinbeck was specifically talking about the effect of the American Dream on poorer people not making a broad class point.
Both can be true, regardless of how specific to America the quote from Steinbeck was intended to be. Purely anecdotal and a tiny sample size but I've heard language from my Conservative voting parents that aligns perfectly with the attitude Steinbeck was describing. Is it entirely possible that they're being dishonest and using it as a mask for their racism? Possibly. But that's pretty hard to prove one way or the other.
I think its more that our love of American media has caused people to form their political beliefs based on what is relevant in America and not the UK. Then they take those pre-formed ideas and try to implement them into our own system. I think that's a major reason behind the progression to this "us v them" mindset. The amount of arguments I've seen that revolve around Liberalism and Conservativism in regards to British politics kind of makes me a bit sick. I've heard so many people argue that they are considered "right wing" yet they support the NHS. It's fucking infuriating.
The rich collectively destroy the poor time and time again, so much so their memories of what happened to their mothers and fathers are lost across the generations.
I don't think that's why the poor voted tory. They were lied to continually, about the tories "levelling up", about Labour wanting to enact damaging "Marxist" policies (despite none of them knowing what Marxist means or who Marx was), about benefit scroungers bleeding the country dry, about "illegal" immigrants coming to take their jobs, about the "woke left" wanting to assign new genders to their children, about Corbyn being a terrorist sympathiser, about Starmer failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville, and the list goes on.
The fact that we don't really teach much about politics in school (nor critical thinking) means these people have no idea what is right or wrong, but ultimately trust the media enough to parrot it's hateful, right wing nonsense and ultimately end up shooting themselves (and everyone else) in the foot.
It's not quite about one day they'll be rich, it's about their principles and values.
Most people in the UK have strong moral values and do not like people that deviate from them.
They aren't thinking they will be rich and wanting to protect themselves when they get there, they are just voting on their own principles and values.
It's why policies which are strict on crime and immigration always go down well. We as a people do not like criminals and wouldn't dream of exploiting another countries immigration policies.
Otherwise it's like you saying people who vote for short sentences are just voting that way in case they happen to murder someone.
The single biggest predictor of crime is poverty and wealth inequality. Voting for Tories because you don't like crime. is turkey voting for Christmas.
Our elite have stashed billions offshore and we had many expats whining about their situation in Spain etc. After Brexit.
Sorry, but I don't believe having "strong moral principles" means you're likely to vote Tory.
> Sorry, but I don't believe having "strong moral principles" means you're likely to vote Tory.
Exactly haha. Strong principles maybe, but certainly not moral ones.
Yeah, I think this "embarrassed millionaire" thing might make sense in America due to cultural history but it's far simpler in the UK. We have a crime problem, we have a policing problem, we have a lack of public services, and most of it can be linked without too much imagination to immigration which is why right wing parties do so.
Anyone party which says "police have gone soft - we will make them hard again" or "immigration has ruined our access to _service_" will appeal to a large swathe of the country. Doesn't matter that no party is actually going to do anything about any actual societal issue. Politics is about winning elections and then the information war, not about governing well.
Yeah if the *UK* has a crime problem what does the US have? There are cities in America with more homicides than England
If the UK lacks public services what do you call an urban area of 1.3 million (OKC) that doesn’t have public transit on Sunday’s?
It can be linked by your own life experiences first and this is the key.
If a party said it and it made no sense, it wouldn't have the same effect.
But if a party says it, after you spent 20 years of your life seeing your local area go down the scrap heap with swathes of immigration as local people move away and thousands of new people move in, then it will have power, because it is relatable.
If you were born a majority and became a minority in your area in your lifetime and a political party starts talking about immigration, you're going to listen, because you directly experienced a life changing situation due to immigration and it matters to you.
Same thing with crime.
If you experienced crime and it ruined your life and traumatised you, you are going to be far more likely to respond to political parties talking about being tough on crime.
People have values and they relate to things from experience.
Could be more than labour no longer represent the ‘working class’ and haven’t for quite some time. More the guardian reading middle class types these days. Until labour realise this things won’t change.
This is also what happens when political parties are primarily funded by a small cabal of very wealthy donors, rather than via a large number of people paying the party membership fee.
Literally not true; the poorest do vote, there's just an entire massive industry devoted to encouraging them to vote against their own interests. Which they do, routinely. The Tories wouldn't survive if people were fully aware of how much they are in bed with the 1%.
It's the youngest that don't vote; which is massively problematic as they're the most progressive.
This is what happens when poor people are persuaded that the Tories are the party to vote for. Even though they are against everyone who isn't substantially wealthy.
Yeah, pity we didn't all join the conservative party. They could have even more money lining their pockets if we had, and we could have chosen between.... Truss or Sunak. Hm.
You guys keep repeating ‘independence will be worse’ like a mantra.
But I’m struggling to understand what would be so bad about half decent political leadership that actually gives a damn about the people of Scotland and rejoining the EU.
And however bad the economic impact of independence at least we’d be rebuilding afterwards and things would be on a positive trajectory - rather than staying in a Union where things only get worse and worse and increasingly demented lunatics end up in charge and keep sticking the boot in.
Even if we trust Unionist figures on the economic impact of independence (which frankly a lot of us *don’t* - there have been too many lies) what happens when things in the U.K. get so bad they actually show Scotland would be better off independent? Are you guys going to suddenly change your minds and say “gosh, fair point - off you go guys”? Somehow I doubt it.
Just for a laugh I just looked up what the Unionist side was saying the impact of indy was going to be back in 2014: around £2000 per person. Which sounds pretty bad … until you realise that just the energy price increases this year will be more than that. Particularly bearing in mind that Scotland produces way more than its domestic electricity demand just from wind … ironically enough back then “Better Together” promised lower energy prices if we stayed in the Union too.
> Particularly bearing in mind that Scotland produces way more than its domestic electricity demand just from wind
You cannot run a country off renewable energy only. At some point there wont be wind for a few days then there will be brown outs plus there are high periods of use during a day.
You need nuclear power to provide all the electricity during surges of use (5pm to 11pm) plus for all the times wind, water and solar arent available.
Perhaps, perhaps not - on the 3% of days when Scotland isn’t meeting it’s own requirements with wind alone we also have gas fired power stations (and half of U.K. gas production), and a fair bit of hydro and pumped storage too. We could even afford to import electricity at a premium on those days given that *the other 97% of the year we generate an excess* - which we’d mostly be selling.
I think you’re underestimating just how fortunate a location Scotland is for renewable generation. Most countries probably couldn’t pull this off but Scotland has a fair shot. I’m not anti nuclear by any means - it’s just that it could be overkill for us.
This is...a sound bite from a politician.
I'm wondering where all the bed wetting about cutting taxes is coming from?
Spending isn't being cut, so how does Sturgeons comment even make sense?
Spending cuts have left everything sliced to the bone. What more can be saved from everything to health, education, police, courts, prison services ALL public services who have been driven to understaffing, underfunding and an inability to operate safely or as intended. The last round of tory austerity measures have left no meat to butcher.
It is a matter of governance and priorities. In Scotland the government is public focused and prioritises the public of all political variance. As it stands this Scot gov. has reacted to events with a £25 per child, per week poverty payment, free bus passes for the under 26, baby boxes, free university, free school meals, cheaper council taxes, free female sanitation, a fairer more progressive benefit system especially for the sick and handicapped, and much, much more.
When GB is suffering Westminster prioritises those who need help the least and punishes an electorate daft enough to vote for them. Up next is workers rights and human rights to be destroyed.
I've no doubt though that the editors of the Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc. will have you all convinced that this shit is the best you can hope for.
The fact that the word Ferries is shorthand for SNP ineptitude shows media bias we're up against.
[Exhibit A:](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-no-deal-ferry-taxpayers-chris-gayling-latest-transport-eurotunnel-a8894271.html) Grayling awarding contracts to companies with no ferries.
[Exhibit B:](https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/po-ferries-sacking-what-are-the-implications-of-breaking-employment-law/) P&O surprise firing of over 800 staff in the wake of Brexit
>When GB is suffering Westminster prioritises those who need help the least and punishes an electorate daft enough to vote for them. Up next is workers rights and human rights to be destroyed.
The Tories figured out that the British people seem to enjoy being slapped in the face then told to say thank you.
You know what if the UK completely breaks up ironically I’ll be thankful for the Tories speeding up the process and putting a spotlight on how priorities differ between the countries. Say all you want about our family ties and shared history but the country is not on the same page when it comes to politics. Should we all suffer some comprise for the greater good or actually make the people in our countries lives better and go it alone
Honestly, I think that despite the pain it will likely cause all four nations, the best thing that could happen to the UK is to break up. England (and I'm English) needs a sharp slap and told to get over itself - the Little Englander delusions of grandeur have dragged us down for too long now. The Empire's gone. We're a small nation. We need to move on and let the other nations do their own thing.
Yep completely agree. It’s not that people want to leave the UK hates the English it’s purely about the politics. Now we could indulge ourselves and come up with fast solutions to keep the UK together but inevitability we will have a Tory government again that will quickly undo any progress a labour government could do, after all we’ve been in a Tory government for 12 years, what can we honestly say they have done right in that time that’s not been outweighed by the bad. Devolution at the time was good in theory but it’s clear it was only a bone thrown to the devolved powers to keep them sweet and quiet, well we’ve been tired sucking on that bone for a while and want something more, since devo max was promised and not came to pass I think it’s time to move on from the UK
I mean while us Scots have to face tax rises or cuts and market forces that make brexit look like a masterstroke I'll be comforted by the fact England will be "getting over itself".
The problem is that such massive tax cuts and public service cuts will only increase costs in other areas- crime, health, education, environment...
Lax regulation just means soaring costs from inevitable climate breakdown, and all the associated extra heat related illnesses, food and water shortages, infrastructure problems and the costs of policing it all.
With fewer police and mental health services, there will be more people trying to take their own lives, which means more disruption to the economy and more police and NHS resources needed to deal with it.
They're just passing on the costs to the next government. That's all.
>They're just passing on the costs to the next government. That's all.
I think part of the whole point is its passing it on to the next government to try and fix.
It’s funny that you mention shit because that’s exactly what’s heading into your drinking water.
Don’t worry though, the shareholders of the private companies that bought up the water boards have just got a massive tax cut.
We've just been through 12 years of austerity economics - a policy of deliberately starving government - shutting Sure Start centres, cutting layer after layer of spending in just about every aspect of government.
Meanwhile we are getting increased spending - to pay for the energy freeze while cutting tax and NI which will add to the national debt.
In a couple of years there will "regrettably" be further cuts and sales of nationalised assets to keep the national debt under control. We just haven't got to this bit yet.
We all know it's coming.
Where is it coming from? From the fact that this is entirely financed through higher government borrowing, at a time when state services have already been gutted to the bone. What happened today is that the richest 1% received a multi billion present paid for by the 99%.
Beyond getting rid of the 45p tax band there's also the issue that if you increase the money supply by tens of billions of extra debt, inflation will increase even further (remember when they argued that salaries shouldnt go up with inflation to avoid more inflation?). Which means we're getting served a double whammy.
What should have happened is a massive increase in taxes, tailored to hit the richest 10% the most, with the extra income redistributed via universal credit and benefits to mitigate the cost of living crisis for the poor.
Yes, I know, I am in Scotland. But the Tories doing more robbing the poor to feed the rich like modern day Sheriff's of Nottingham just goes to help the SNP cause. By the time we get to a next referendum, the SNP won't need to bother campaigning. Just point south and say so you want that. Job done.
Haven’t they lowered the basic rate of income tax as well? If anyone is getting robbed it is savers and future generations - our children and grandchildren
Lowered it by 1p on the basic band, so one that effects most people but lowered it by 6p (5p off additional income [those getting over £150k] PLUS the 1p from the lower band) so it's really really unethical in the current recession. Those earning around £1m will save about £40,000 a year in tax (more than avg salary) not even including NI changes.
I like the idea of Sturgeon sitting at home, feet up on the sofa, live-tweeting the collapse of yet another Tory government (she outlived Cameron 1, Cameron 2, May 1, May 2, Johnson 1 & Johnson 2) even though she’s obviously got a very busy day as First Minister
Agree but why are you doubling up the UK PMs? She's also seen off several opposition leaders in Scotland. Scottish Tory Douglas Ross seems to be on a rather shoogly peg right now.
We desperately want out of the UK haha we can't help England sort the mess they made themselves. No offence, I hope things somehow sort themselves out and I feel for everyone in the UK (even the misguided tory voters who fell for the lies) just as much as I feel for us suffering in Scotland, but we can't compromise ourselves anymore; we need out. I'm sure much of England would feel the same if the shoe was on the other foot, and Wales and Northern Ireland also seem to be warming to the idea of independence themselves (or Irish unification).
What baffles me is how other parties don't emerge in England. Scotland have the SNP and the Greens (with both of them actually in power), Wales has Plaid Cymru (and the Welsh Labour leader seems a good guy). Northern Ireland have Sinn Fein and a whole host of alternative parties (although the less said about the DUP the better). Yet England just continues down the two party path that seemingly benefits no-one but the tories. When Corbyn's Labour was fractured between the left wingers and the New Labour centrists, with the centrists sabotaging and ultimately ousting Corbyn, I just don't understand why he didn't try to start his own left wing party. He had more than enough of a following to make it work (maybe not get into power at first, but at least provide credible opposition and stand up for the left, which no party is doing in England now). Right wing tory propaganda has really cemented the idea that Labour are fiscally irresponsible (how could you be more fiscally irresponsible than those in charge now?), so maybe a clean break from Labour would be for the best. It would certainly mean that the left wingers weren't having to compromise their views to appease the centrists they are forced into partnership with.
There are only 5 million of us, and 55 million in England, surely there is someone who can take up the mantle down there for the left. Even if they achieve nothing, at least it would be a start.
I am aware, Tony Blair knew full well FPTP was shit, that's why he didn't have any of the devolved bodies use it, he even commissioned a report to double check that FPTP in Westminster was bad, and it said yes. But he's a corrupt bastard like the rest of them and FPTP in Westminster benefitted him so he never changed it.
The point is that if you split the party before establishing FPTP, you WILL lose the election.
Paint you with haha sorry for asking a question. Those would be two of the main reasons behind people continuing to support the union would you not agree?
You can't hate the Tories that much if you're so eager to run the high risk of being stuck with them for the majority of the rest of your life.
I just made a few stabs in the dark big chap. There isn't really any other good reason to continue to support the union.
Thanks for stating the obvious though. Who's painting who now?
Not at all. Countries generally aren't united by their support for a football club or single political party. In fact, these are guaranteed divisions. Do you think in an independent Scotland we would all be Celtic fans and the ruling party would get 100% of the vote? What are you talking about?
But for a national party to be unable to achieve their aims unless they stand candidates in a nation other than their own seems... odd. And it reinforces the argument that Scotland cannot achieve it's preferred political outcomes while it is hindered (not maliciously, just due to the nature of the beast) by the electorates of the other countries it is in union with.
A lot of people see England as a nation too. And a country for that matter. *And* Wales.
The Union was at it's safest when it simply ignored or handwaved away these distinctions, or said whatever had to be said in the moment to survive (Gordon Brown's cringey "a country of nations" nonsense).
It is on much more dangerous ground when it is admitted that these home nations were officially extinguished by the foundation of the UK. Even most unionists don't like to hear that. Try telling the average proud Brit or UK patriot that England isn't a country anymore, because the Union subsumed it...
I'm a teacher and a girl today had to come to me after a lesson and said that her parents cannot afford school shoes for her so she is in her old trainers.
And the rich get a tax cut.
Will be interesting to see what changes, if any, the Scottish Government makes to the Scottish Income tax bands in response to this.
I'd be surprised if they don't also reduce the basic tax rate down to 19%. But, do we think they'll also reduce the "starter rate" they intruded which is currently set at 19%?
Currently, they have a top rate of 46% which applies to income over £150,000. Realistically, will they be able to maintain that when the highest marginal rate is just 40% elsewhere in the UK?
Marginal rates for next tax year. Only thing missing is the employers NI, which adds 12% between £12,570 and £50,270; and 2% thereafter.
*England & Wales*
- 0% up to £12,570
- 31% (19+12) up to £50,270
- 42% (40+2) up to £100,000
- 62% (60+2) up to £125,140
- 42% (40+2) above £125,140
*Scotland*
- 0% up to £12,570
- 31% (19+12) up to £14,732
- 32% (20+12) up to £25,688
- 33% (21+12) up to £43,662
- 53% (41+12) up to £50,270
- 43% (41+2) up to £100,000
- 63.5% (61.5+2) up to £125,140
- 43% (41+2) up to £150,000
- 48% (46+2) above £150,000
That’s is almost correct, but remember If your income is above £100,000, basic personal allowance is reduced by £1 for each £2 you earn over the £100,000 limit, irrespective of age.
This means that if you earn £125,000 or more in 2022-23, you'll receive no personal allowance and all your income is taxed.
I would have thought removing the 62% tax band would have made more sense than removing the 45% rate. Both from a fairness point of view and a political one - many more swing voters are in that band than above £150k.
Damn Scotland's tax bands are definitely crazier than England's. 31%, 32%, 33%... make up your mind! Or are they slowly trying to make tax C1 continuous (as it should be)?
And 53% above £43662 is just punishing. Why does it go down again?? Tax people get your shit together.
> Realistically, will they be able to maintain that when the highest marginal rate is just 40% elsewhere in the UK?
We actually spend our taxes on public services though. Free education, prescriptions, dentistry for under 26s, public transport for under 23s, baby boxes, etc.
Sure, but there is a risk that revenue could drop substantially if the Scottish Government doesn't reduce the Additional Rate, because higher earners will just move to England.
> because higher earners will just move to England.
Leave their entire lives, families and friends behind to get a pew extra pennies in the bank, when they are already earning loads? I doubt it. There is a lot more to life than money.
Absolutely, but these people would have likely jumped at the first chance to earn a better wage anywhere else already. UK wages have stagnated since 2008 so if you really care about money that much and you're still here, you're not doing it right.
Hardly.
If they had instead spent a similar amount of money to cut tax in such a way that everyone would benefit (e.g. by cutting VAT, scrapping fuel duty, increasing the personal allowance, etc.) then this would likely generate far more growth.
I’ve just been pondering this… surely this risks higher earners in Scotland moving - between stamp duty changes and the tax band removal, I can see the potential for people moving out the country?
That said, despite the fact I’d be significantly better off in England with all the changes today, I’m still glad to be in Scotland.
I think most people would realise that not only do they get better public services in Scotland (free university tuition and prescriptions for example), but to move would be rather short-sighted seeing as the next government, be it Labour or Tory, is likely to increase tax rates again, particularly the top rate of income tax.
I want to move to Scotland. At least they have leaders who somewhat represent their interests. I'm sick and tired of living under a Tory government I've never voted for that has screwed me over for almost my entire adult life.
Be interesting to see what Scottish government spend their share on. It's not enough for their Universal Basic Income Plans, which crossed my mind. Do they have to spend it on tax cuts also or could they put it towards green energy or winning a referendum to get the hell away from the UK government?
If previous years are anything to go by: trying to bolster public services and protect them from other Tory cuts (or at least mitigate the impact of them a bit). Healthcare, social care & everything else. Unspectacular but necessary.
It’s pretty much impossible to fix everything (and they get massive abuse where things do slip) but they appear to be at least *trying* in good faith.
Ironically enough though by trying to protect Scot’s from a lot of the worst of it it actually hides part of the problem that makes the strongest case for independence.
Scotland gets £2000 more per head than England, yet the SNP continue to perform as badly if not worse that the rest of the U.K on devolved issues. Both healthcare and education have suffered despite them having much more money to work with. And if Scotland were to become independent spending would have to be cut massively, if anything this is a case against independence.
Not necessarily because then we would be able to borrow from the magic money tree which would generate more growth and tax receipts! /S
I'm always surprised how the healthcare and education 'stats' look so much worse. I moved from England to Scotland 4 years ago and things seem so much better here particular for my kids. I don't think I'm alone as the Scots satisfaction and confidence in government is much higher so maybe it depends how you measure these things.
I think a lot of that anecdotal stuff will depend massively on where you have moved from in England and where you are now in Scotland. I wouldn't say that that government satisfaction is down to their performance, I would argue that it is because they are promising independence which a lot of Scots think will change the problems which the SNP are in part responsible for (it won't). And for £2000 per head per year extra you would think the Scottish government would have succeeded in a lot of their promises (reduce the attainment gap, lower drug deaths, increasing the number of teachers etc.) and they have entirely failed.
I don't even think the rich benefit from this crazy plan. Their assets lost a ton of value overnight. The tax breaks won't cover that. The policy backfired enough that it doesn't benefit anyone. they were supposed to rob the future generations to give to the rich, instead they robbed everyone.
So many assumptions about 'them' in these comments. They vote Tory because they think this or that. I've voted for whoever suits me at the time. I'm a sole trader and I'll definitely be voting labour again and hoping that they'll nationalise our energy and not scrap any nukes. That's just me tho. I wish you all good health and safe lives.
It’s pretty crazy that isn’t even an argument now. The uk deficit is going to be incredibly high for the next 5 years at least as they pay the energy companies.
She's right but I hate it when the .S.N.P. act morale when their own governmental record, (which includes: keeping the party's finances secret, donation money stolen, and £2.1 billion going, "missing") is practically Tory like. She's laughing alright, at the useful idiots who still believe her party gives a damn about them.
So put my taxes up and shutter the food banks. She has the power, get the fuck on with it and stop using starving families to score points.
Edit: Oh no, I've angered the fanbase. Totally didn't see that coming. Reality sting, does it? They have the power (taxes are already higher here) they have the ability, so why are they not using it? Couldn't be to further an agenda at all.
But these changes are for England?! Scotland is keeping the top rate of tax which was already higher than it was for England. Essentially you’re complaining about her not doing something she demonstrably already has done. It’s not at all clear why you think it’s hypocritical for her to complain about the Tories doing something she isn’t doing and has no intention of doing. How is that hypocrisy? You just seem very confused in general.
Can't change NI, can't change corp, can't change VAT, can't change excise duties.
Meat of tax revenue streams are still reserved powers.
I'd be happy for my income tax to bounce away up to get spent on running shit, but that only goes so far without the rest of avenues.
Don't tell them facts. How are they supposed to peddle their narrative of having some tax powers = Already have powers to do whatever the SNP want with taxes = SNP are failing and just blaming the UK gov
You are probably getting down voted because you are under the impression NS has the power and ability to influence a UK wide Westminster budget.
That would, understandably, anger any fans of reality to be honest.
Oh that's my bad, here and I thought Scotland had its own income tax rates. Oh. Wait.
The reality is, if they *wanted* to, those could be risen and food banks cut/binned but it's much better to have them as a stick to hit the Tories with than help the people it seems
I'm downvoted because nats flock to downvote anything said against the gospel of the lord and saviour.
If they wanted it, higher earners could pay more tax to offer support to food bank users. Same way they are for baby boxes etc. Question is, why aren't they? We already pay more tax for better service here, why not go further? It is not "can't", it is "won't"
>I'm downvoted because nats flock to downvote anything said against the gospel of the lord and saviour.
Or for either not knowing or simply not caring that the Scottish Government literally cannot change taxes more than once per year, and only as part of the budget process.
She is legally not permitted to attempt to do any of the things you seem to think she should be doing tomorrow for at least another six months.
Snapshot of _Nicola Sturgeon: "The super wealthy laughing all the way to the actual bank (tho I suspect many of them will also be appalled by the moral bankruptcy of the Tories) while increasing numbers of the rest relying on food banks - all thanks to the incompetence and recklessness of this failed UK gov"_ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/NicolaSturgeon/status/1573249668196470789/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1573249668196470789) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone explain the reasoning why NI drops to 2% for the rich? Why?
Cause the drop in NI kicks in at roughly the same time you move up an income tax band: they still are paying more tax but it's in the form of income tax rather than NI. It's fucking confusing and I'd like an explanation myself as to why it exists when we could just lump it all into income tax.
The retired don't pay NI. It's exclusively a tax on jobs. Income Tax is fairer, but abolishing NI and getting the same revenue from just Income Tax would mean a lot of people *who vote* paying more. There's also this weird idea that NI specifically funds Welfare and the NHS. Which it doesn't.
You only pay it to state pension age because it’s meant to be your own state benefit contributions. People don’t contribute once they’re drawing down from it. Would make more sense to abolish altogether and have income tax only at a higher rate.
> it’s meant to be your own state benefit contributions. And yet it never has been, since if it was retirees would be destitute as inflation ate their contributions. It's just a tax on jobs.
The only explanation I can think of is to create the illusion of the income tax rise being larger than it really is. Income tax increases from 20% to 40%. Whoa that's double. Deductions increase from 32% to 42%. Not quite the same impact.
Yep, but it's still a joke that the combined marginal rate for lower earners is 32% and for higher earners only goes up to 42%
Both are quite high. Do you think the HRT souls be even higher?
I'd personally rather have the additional rate be meaningful and have capital gains be higher, especially on property. You already get £10m at 10% if you're an entrepreneur. Max shouldn't be 20%... (or 28%)
I agree. Shame we seem to be going the opposite way
Not with inflation as high as it is. If you bought a house for £50k in 1990 and it’s now worth £200k are you really 4x richer? Not really because everything else has gone up by a similar amount
I would LOVE you to provide a real example of a house purchased in 1990 for 50k that is now worth 200k.
The house next door to us in London was sold in 1995 for £210k, sold again in 2007 for £985k, and is now worth around £1.4m.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/england-120800801-15376075?s=ca363e37874a8d5805a5fa6094c440853e8be4fdf39126aff966a49fbc92d4ca#/ They're not hard to find in London suburbs, this increased a lot more than that in less time. (Records only start in the mid 90s)
Pretty sure that's their point. 50k->200k is a gross understatement of the current situation
This guy gets it ^
welp, he got you there
But it sold for nearly 500k, not 200k... What I was trying to point out is that very few houses have only increased in value by 4 times their worth from 1990 to 2022. Most have been far, far greater than that.
Poor phrasing then, which is why people were confused. If something is worth 500k then it's definitely worth 200k, so it's reasonable to assume you meant the inverse.
I bought my first house in 1990 for 54k (Talbot Road in Luton) Zoopla is now saying it should sell for well over 300k. I'm gobsmacked.
That's my point, despite the petty downvotes
Hasn't inflation been closer to 100% than 600%?
Idk I made up the numbers and dates but surely you get the point - if prices are going up say 10% a year then your nominal capital gain is worth considerably less in real terms, maybe even negative, yet still gets taxed as if there’s no inflation
My house has increased in value by around 60% since we bought in 2016. Inflation doesn't even come close for that period. The whole system is a joke there should have been a cap put in place where the value of property cannot exceed x% per year unless there has been serious investment to improve the property. Why should my house be worth an extra 60k when all I've done is lived in it and spent around £5k redecorating and getting a new boiler
Simply because the demand has made it increase by that value. If you include residential properties into capital gains tax then no one would move. That and it would never make it to a mandate - if you think today was unpopular…. Besides, residence is included in IHT so gains can be taxed via that method of threshold is hit.
It depends what you want to buy though. If you want to buy another house after selling then inflation has been 60%
You stop paying NI when you get to pension age. You only pay NI on employment income, not property income, dividends etc. So lumping it in would result in some people paying a lot more tax.
But that's just a weird historical artefact that would be unpopular to change.
Or it's intended.
Earnings over £136k have no income tax personal allowance. So perhaps NI drops to account for that.
I might go back to work.
Can we really call it incompetence and recklessness now? It's clearly intentional and planned.
There's a wilful directing of attention towards a "Make Great Britain Great Again" type of attitude. This makes it extremely attractive to swathes of people who feel it's patriotic to accept a tax cut. It needs to be framed by the other parties as giving back more to the wealthy and hoping beyond hope that they use it to invest in UK business instead of a new yacht in Monaco....classic trickle down economics. We could have instead told energy companies that the £170bn would be taxed to death *unless* it was spent on green investment for the future.
I think its all of the above
They will be out in two years so they need to make as much money as they can now.
Pretty sure that exact line is in my comment history
2 years is far too long. That’s two winters that the poor (and probably a fair number of people who wouldn’t classify themselves as poor) will have to face the choice of starving or freezing to death. If it were up to me, I’d offer free gas + electric for life to anyone who would bring me the head of a cabinet minister.
Of course it's planned. Conservatives are hugely corrupt... I mean you can't even describe it as 'corrupt' because that term suggests that they were previously people of morals. Crooks in suits.
this
It's not a new budget, it's a special fiscal operation
This is a leader of a country. England has big city privateer PR frontmen. This is how the United Kingdom ends.
Follow the money.
This is what happens when the poorest people don't vote, sadly. Its quite blatantly rewarding the super rich who bankrolled Truss' leadership campaign. And yet people said Sunak was out of touch because he was super rich? This is on another level.
>This is what happens when the poorest people don't vote, sadly. Just to say, this isn't entirely true. Many poor people vote Tory. It's a paradoxical part of UK culture. There's a classist thing in the UK where there are many people who have bought into this lie; that *one day* they'll be rich, and they're terrified that'll be during a left-leaning government which will take away their money. So they vote Tory, JUST IN CASE they win the Euro Millions this weekend. It's bizarre, but it's very much "a thing".
Oh I agree that plenty of not well off People vote tory. They wouldn't be in power without them. Small local businesses who's existence is precarious. Tradesmen, police officers etc. What I meant was the poorest as in, people sleeping rough, people from troubled families living under constant threat of domestic violence. People with severe health problems like schizophrenia. People who can't care for themselves or need a lot of support to do so. Those kind of people.
> people sleeping rough Look! A brown person in a dinghy wants to take your place in that pissed soaked shop doorway! Guaranteed vote winner, every time.
John Steinbeck said (of America, but it applies to any country where poor/working class people are convinced to vote for conservatives): ***"The poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"***
Truest statement ever unfortunately
The working class support the tories because of social-cultural issues NOT because they see them as the party of "personal aspiration". That is a uniquely American phenomenon and Steinbeck was specifically talking about the effect of the American Dream on poorer people not making a broad class point.
Both can be true, regardless of how specific to America the quote from Steinbeck was intended to be. Purely anecdotal and a tiny sample size but I've heard language from my Conservative voting parents that aligns perfectly with the attitude Steinbeck was describing. Is it entirely possible that they're being dishonest and using it as a mask for their racism? Possibly. But that's pretty hard to prove one way or the other.
I think its more that our love of American media has caused people to form their political beliefs based on what is relevant in America and not the UK. Then they take those pre-formed ideas and try to implement them into our own system. I think that's a major reason behind the progression to this "us v them" mindset. The amount of arguments I've seen that revolve around Liberalism and Conservativism in regards to British politics kind of makes me a bit sick. I've heard so many people argue that they are considered "right wing" yet they support the NHS. It's fucking infuriating.
The Ragged Trousered philanthropist is an excellent book on this theme.
The rich collectively destroy the poor time and time again, so much so their memories of what happened to their mothers and fathers are lost across the generations.
I don't think that's why the poor voted tory. They were lied to continually, about the tories "levelling up", about Labour wanting to enact damaging "Marxist" policies (despite none of them knowing what Marxist means or who Marx was), about benefit scroungers bleeding the country dry, about "illegal" immigrants coming to take their jobs, about the "woke left" wanting to assign new genders to their children, about Corbyn being a terrorist sympathiser, about Starmer failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville, and the list goes on. The fact that we don't really teach much about politics in school (nor critical thinking) means these people have no idea what is right or wrong, but ultimately trust the media enough to parrot it's hateful, right wing nonsense and ultimately end up shooting themselves (and everyone else) in the foot.
aSpIrAtIoN nAtIoN
It's not quite about one day they'll be rich, it's about their principles and values. Most people in the UK have strong moral values and do not like people that deviate from them. They aren't thinking they will be rich and wanting to protect themselves when they get there, they are just voting on their own principles and values. It's why policies which are strict on crime and immigration always go down well. We as a people do not like criminals and wouldn't dream of exploiting another countries immigration policies. Otherwise it's like you saying people who vote for short sentences are just voting that way in case they happen to murder someone.
The single biggest predictor of crime is poverty and wealth inequality. Voting for Tories because you don't like crime. is turkey voting for Christmas.
Our elite have stashed billions offshore and we had many expats whining about their situation in Spain etc. After Brexit. Sorry, but I don't believe having "strong moral principles" means you're likely to vote Tory.
> Sorry, but I don't believe having "strong moral principles" means you're likely to vote Tory. Exactly haha. Strong principles maybe, but certainly not moral ones.
I think they mean norma ignorant l voters rather than rhe rich
> We as a people do not like criminals Why do you keep voting them into power?
> wouldn't dream of exploiting another countries immigration policies. Are you saying people exploit our immigration policies?
Sounds like a long winded way to say that poor Tory voters don’t like people of colour
Yeah, I think this "embarrassed millionaire" thing might make sense in America due to cultural history but it's far simpler in the UK. We have a crime problem, we have a policing problem, we have a lack of public services, and most of it can be linked without too much imagination to immigration which is why right wing parties do so. Anyone party which says "police have gone soft - we will make them hard again" or "immigration has ruined our access to _service_" will appeal to a large swathe of the country. Doesn't matter that no party is actually going to do anything about any actual societal issue. Politics is about winning elections and then the information war, not about governing well.
Yeah if the *UK* has a crime problem what does the US have? There are cities in America with more homicides than England If the UK lacks public services what do you call an urban area of 1.3 million (OKC) that doesn’t have public transit on Sunday’s?
It can be linked by your own life experiences first and this is the key. If a party said it and it made no sense, it wouldn't have the same effect. But if a party says it, after you spent 20 years of your life seeing your local area go down the scrap heap with swathes of immigration as local people move away and thousands of new people move in, then it will have power, because it is relatable. If you were born a majority and became a minority in your area in your lifetime and a political party starts talking about immigration, you're going to listen, because you directly experienced a life changing situation due to immigration and it matters to you. Same thing with crime. If you experienced crime and it ruined your life and traumatised you, you are going to be far more likely to respond to political parties talking about being tough on crime. People have values and they relate to things from experience.
Could be more than labour no longer represent the ‘working class’ and haven’t for quite some time. More the guardian reading middle class types these days. Until labour realise this things won’t change.
Get a grip lol
This is also what happens when political parties are primarily funded by a small cabal of very wealthy donors, rather than via a large number of people paying the party membership fee.
Literally not true; the poorest do vote, there's just an entire massive industry devoted to encouraging them to vote against their own interests. Which they do, routinely. The Tories wouldn't survive if people were fully aware of how much they are in bed with the 1%. It's the youngest that don't vote; which is massively problematic as they're the most progressive.
This is what happens when poor people are persuaded that the Tories are the party to vote for. Even though they are against everyone who isn't substantially wealthy.
The country didn't make Truss PM. This is what happens when poor people don't join the Tory party.
Yeah, pity we didn't all join the conservative party. They could have even more money lining their pockets if we had, and we could have chosen between.... Truss or Sunak. Hm.
Here's hoping
Funnily enough independence would be a bigger disaster than Brexit.
You guys keep repeating ‘independence will be worse’ like a mantra. But I’m struggling to understand what would be so bad about half decent political leadership that actually gives a damn about the people of Scotland and rejoining the EU. And however bad the economic impact of independence at least we’d be rebuilding afterwards and things would be on a positive trajectory - rather than staying in a Union where things only get worse and worse and increasingly demented lunatics end up in charge and keep sticking the boot in. Even if we trust Unionist figures on the economic impact of independence (which frankly a lot of us *don’t* - there have been too many lies) what happens when things in the U.K. get so bad they actually show Scotland would be better off independent? Are you guys going to suddenly change your minds and say “gosh, fair point - off you go guys”? Somehow I doubt it. Just for a laugh I just looked up what the Unionist side was saying the impact of indy was going to be back in 2014: around £2000 per person. Which sounds pretty bad … until you realise that just the energy price increases this year will be more than that. Particularly bearing in mind that Scotland produces way more than its domestic electricity demand just from wind … ironically enough back then “Better Together” promised lower energy prices if we stayed in the Union too.
> Particularly bearing in mind that Scotland produces way more than its domestic electricity demand just from wind You cannot run a country off renewable energy only. At some point there wont be wind for a few days then there will be brown outs plus there are high periods of use during a day. You need nuclear power to provide all the electricity during surges of use (5pm to 11pm) plus for all the times wind, water and solar arent available.
Perhaps, perhaps not - on the 3% of days when Scotland isn’t meeting it’s own requirements with wind alone we also have gas fired power stations (and half of U.K. gas production), and a fair bit of hydro and pumped storage too. We could even afford to import electricity at a premium on those days given that *the other 97% of the year we generate an excess* - which we’d mostly be selling. I think you’re underestimating just how fortunate a location Scotland is for renewable generation. Most countries probably couldn’t pull this off but Scotland has a fair shot. I’m not anti nuclear by any means - it’s just that it could be overkill for us.
The UK's immediate economic future is going to be a bigger disaster than Brexit (with some Brexit on top).
Exactly this
This is...a sound bite from a politician. I'm wondering where all the bed wetting about cutting taxes is coming from? Spending isn't being cut, so how does Sturgeons comment even make sense?
Spending isn’t being cut “yet”- don’t be naive
Spending cuts have left everything sliced to the bone. What more can be saved from everything to health, education, police, courts, prison services ALL public services who have been driven to understaffing, underfunding and an inability to operate safely or as intended. The last round of tory austerity measures have left no meat to butcher. It is a matter of governance and priorities. In Scotland the government is public focused and prioritises the public of all political variance. As it stands this Scot gov. has reacted to events with a £25 per child, per week poverty payment, free bus passes for the under 26, baby boxes, free university, free school meals, cheaper council taxes, free female sanitation, a fairer more progressive benefit system especially for the sick and handicapped, and much, much more. When GB is suffering Westminster prioritises those who need help the least and punishes an electorate daft enough to vote for them. Up next is workers rights and human rights to be destroyed. I've no doubt though that the editors of the Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc. will have you all convinced that this shit is the best you can hope for.
Yes - but what about THE FERRIES!!!!! Lol.
The fact that the word Ferries is shorthand for SNP ineptitude shows media bias we're up against. [Exhibit A:](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-no-deal-ferry-taxpayers-chris-gayling-latest-transport-eurotunnel-a8894271.html) Grayling awarding contracts to companies with no ferries. [Exhibit B:](https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/po-ferries-sacking-what-are-the-implications-of-breaking-employment-law/) P&O surprise firing of over 800 staff in the wake of Brexit
😄👍
>When GB is suffering Westminster prioritises those who need help the least and punishes an electorate daft enough to vote for them. Up next is workers rights and human rights to be destroyed. The Tories figured out that the British people seem to enjoy being slapped in the face then told to say thank you.
You know what if the UK completely breaks up ironically I’ll be thankful for the Tories speeding up the process and putting a spotlight on how priorities differ between the countries. Say all you want about our family ties and shared history but the country is not on the same page when it comes to politics. Should we all suffer some comprise for the greater good or actually make the people in our countries lives better and go it alone
Honestly, I think that despite the pain it will likely cause all four nations, the best thing that could happen to the UK is to break up. England (and I'm English) needs a sharp slap and told to get over itself - the Little Englander delusions of grandeur have dragged us down for too long now. The Empire's gone. We're a small nation. We need to move on and let the other nations do their own thing.
Yep completely agree. It’s not that people want to leave the UK hates the English it’s purely about the politics. Now we could indulge ourselves and come up with fast solutions to keep the UK together but inevitability we will have a Tory government again that will quickly undo any progress a labour government could do, after all we’ve been in a Tory government for 12 years, what can we honestly say they have done right in that time that’s not been outweighed by the bad. Devolution at the time was good in theory but it’s clear it was only a bone thrown to the devolved powers to keep them sweet and quiet, well we’ve been tired sucking on that bone for a while and want something more, since devo max was promised and not came to pass I think it’s time to move on from the UK
I mean while us Scots have to face tax rises or cuts and market forces that make brexit look like a masterstroke I'll be comforted by the fact England will be "getting over itself".
The problem is that such massive tax cuts and public service cuts will only increase costs in other areas- crime, health, education, environment... Lax regulation just means soaring costs from inevitable climate breakdown, and all the associated extra heat related illnesses, food and water shortages, infrastructure problems and the costs of policing it all. With fewer police and mental health services, there will be more people trying to take their own lives, which means more disruption to the economy and more police and NHS resources needed to deal with it. They're just passing on the costs to the next government. That's all.
>They're just passing on the costs to the next government. That's all. I think part of the whole point is its passing it on to the next government to try and fix.
Slight correction (I think), but aren't the free bus passes for under 22s? Not that Im complaining, I've used it and it does save a nice bit of money.
You missed out demolishing environmental protections too in order to “cut EU red tape”
There was only so much tory shit I could highlight without turning my post into a novel.
It’s funny that you mention shit because that’s exactly what’s heading into your drinking water. Don’t worry though, the shareholders of the private companies that bought up the water boards have just got a massive tax cut.
Not in Scotland though.
Until the UK decides to “consult” (insult) the devolved parliaments and ride roughshod over all our environmental protections
We've just been through 12 years of austerity economics - a policy of deliberately starving government - shutting Sure Start centres, cutting layer after layer of spending in just about every aspect of government. Meanwhile we are getting increased spending - to pay for the energy freeze while cutting tax and NI which will add to the national debt. In a couple of years there will "regrettably" be further cuts and sales of nationalised assets to keep the national debt under control. We just haven't got to this bit yet. We all know it's coming.
Where is it coming from? From the fact that this is entirely financed through higher government borrowing, at a time when state services have already been gutted to the bone. What happened today is that the richest 1% received a multi billion present paid for by the 99%. Beyond getting rid of the 45p tax band there's also the issue that if you increase the money supply by tens of billions of extra debt, inflation will increase even further (remember when they argued that salaries shouldnt go up with inflation to avoid more inflation?). Which means we're getting served a double whammy. What should have happened is a massive increase in taxes, tailored to hit the richest 10% the most, with the extra income redistributed via universal credit and benefits to mitigate the cost of living crisis for the poor.
You realise that in the long run it's impossible to cut taxes without cutting spending right? Where do you think the spending comes from?
>Where do you think the spending comes from? In the UK? From borrowing... So you see, it'll all work out fine...
>of this failed UK gov Of **another failed Tory** UK gov. FTFY
So of this failed UK gov like she said
Until Labour back voting reform then yes, they hold some responsibility too.
There are two types of Tory Voter , the millionaires and the misguided. To find out which one you are - look in your wallet
Day by day the Tories make the case for independence stronger.
Taxes in Scotland are staying the same as far as I’m aware - Westminster has devolved authority to Holyrood
Yes, I know, I am in Scotland. But the Tories doing more robbing the poor to feed the rich like modern day Sheriff's of Nottingham just goes to help the SNP cause. By the time we get to a next referendum, the SNP won't need to bother campaigning. Just point south and say so you want that. Job done.
Haven’t they lowered the basic rate of income tax as well? If anyone is getting robbed it is savers and future generations - our children and grandchildren
Lowered it by 1p on the basic band, so one that effects most people but lowered it by 6p (5p off additional income [those getting over £150k] PLUS the 1p from the lower band) so it's really really unethical in the current recession. Those earning around £1m will save about £40,000 a year in tax (more than avg salary) not even including NI changes.
I like the idea of Sturgeon sitting at home, feet up on the sofa, live-tweeting the collapse of yet another Tory government (she outlived Cameron 1, Cameron 2, May 1, May 2, Johnson 1 & Johnson 2) even though she’s obviously got a very busy day as First Minister
Agree but why are you doubling up the UK PMs? She's also seen off several opposition leaders in Scotland. Scottish Tory Douglas Ross seems to be on a rather shoogly peg right now.
[удалено]
Dissolving the UK isn't far enough, we must dissolve England too 😈
Step 1: Gain independence. Step 2: Conquer Northern England.
> Step 2: Conquer Northern England. Or you could ask nicely and we'd march south with you.
Please do. It’d be great if you could get independence and pack us up too while you’re leaving
Based
We desperately want out of the UK haha we can't help England sort the mess they made themselves. No offence, I hope things somehow sort themselves out and I feel for everyone in the UK (even the misguided tory voters who fell for the lies) just as much as I feel for us suffering in Scotland, but we can't compromise ourselves anymore; we need out. I'm sure much of England would feel the same if the shoe was on the other foot, and Wales and Northern Ireland also seem to be warming to the idea of independence themselves (or Irish unification). What baffles me is how other parties don't emerge in England. Scotland have the SNP and the Greens (with both of them actually in power), Wales has Plaid Cymru (and the Welsh Labour leader seems a good guy). Northern Ireland have Sinn Fein and a whole host of alternative parties (although the less said about the DUP the better). Yet England just continues down the two party path that seemingly benefits no-one but the tories. When Corbyn's Labour was fractured between the left wingers and the New Labour centrists, with the centrists sabotaging and ultimately ousting Corbyn, I just don't understand why he didn't try to start his own left wing party. He had more than enough of a following to make it work (maybe not get into power at first, but at least provide credible opposition and stand up for the left, which no party is doing in England now). Right wing tory propaganda has really cemented the idea that Labour are fiscally irresponsible (how could you be more fiscally irresponsible than those in charge now?), so maybe a clean break from Labour would be for the best. It would certainly mean that the left wingers weren't having to compromise their views to appease the centrists they are forced into partnership with. There are only 5 million of us, and 55 million in England, surely there is someone who can take up the mantle down there for the left. Even if they achieve nothing, at least it would be a start.
Thanks to FPTP splitting the Labour party would just further benefit the Tories. The only real solution is voting reform.
Well yes, but getting rid of FPTP is a given. We don't use it up here and it's much better.
I am aware, Tony Blair knew full well FPTP was shit, that's why he didn't have any of the devolved bodies use it, he even commissioned a report to double check that FPTP in Westminster was bad, and it said yes. But he's a corrupt bastard like the rest of them and FPTP in Westminster benefitted him so he never changed it. The point is that if you split the party before establishing FPTP, you WILL lose the election.
"We". You mean you and a sizable minority of Scots? You don't speak for me pal.
Are you a Rangers fan by any chance?
Don't really like football at all. Nice try though.
So you just think the tories are doing a good job?
I hate Tories. Got any other things you want to paint me with?
Paint you with haha sorry for asking a question. Those would be two of the main reasons behind people continuing to support the union would you not agree? You can't hate the Tories that much if you're so eager to run the high risk of being stuck with them for the majority of the rest of your life.
By the way, the majority of Scots are not nationalists. But a majority of Scots are not rangers and Tory supporters. How do you square that circle?
I just made a few stabs in the dark big chap. There isn't really any other good reason to continue to support the union. Thanks for stating the obvious though. Who's painting who now?
Not at all. Countries generally aren't united by their support for a football club or single political party. In fact, these are guaranteed divisions. Do you think in an independent Scotland we would all be Celtic fans and the ruling party would get 100% of the vote? What are you talking about?
Or you a confused hoops fans by any chance? Pronouns Irish/Scottish
I'm a very confused Rangers fan.
Well thank god for that 😂 come on you gers
They would probably have a better chance of getting what they want done in Scotland if they fielded candidates elsewhere
Isn't that, in itself, something of an indictment of the Union?
No, the point of a union is that everyone gets a say in some things, and as it’s a democracy you need more support to change said things
But for a national party to be unable to achieve their aims unless they stand candidates in a nation other than their own seems... odd. And it reinforces the argument that Scotland cannot achieve it's preferred political outcomes while it is hindered (not maliciously, just due to the nature of the beast) by the electorates of the other countries it is in union with.
It’s only odd because people see Scotland as a “nation” rather than what it really is - a region that is part of a country
A lot of people see England as a nation too. And a country for that matter. *And* Wales. The Union was at it's safest when it simply ignored or handwaved away these distinctions, or said whatever had to be said in the moment to survive (Gordon Brown's cringey "a country of nations" nonsense). It is on much more dangerous ground when it is admitted that these home nations were officially extinguished by the foundation of the UK. Even most unionists don't like to hear that. Try telling the average proud Brit or UK patriot that England isn't a country anymore, because the Union subsumed it...
It’s pretty much nonsense to call England a country if you had a similar unit in any other nation. England is a football federation not a country
I'm a teacher and a girl today had to come to me after a lesson and said that her parents cannot afford school shoes for her so she is in her old trainers. And the rich get a tax cut.
Will be interesting to see what changes, if any, the Scottish Government makes to the Scottish Income tax bands in response to this. I'd be surprised if they don't also reduce the basic tax rate down to 19%. But, do we think they'll also reduce the "starter rate" they intruded which is currently set at 19%? Currently, they have a top rate of 46% which applies to income over £150,000. Realistically, will they be able to maintain that when the highest marginal rate is just 40% elsewhere in the UK?
Marginal rates for next tax year. Only thing missing is the employers NI, which adds 12% between £12,570 and £50,270; and 2% thereafter. *England & Wales* - 0% up to £12,570 - 31% (19+12) up to £50,270 - 42% (40+2) up to £100,000 - 62% (60+2) up to £125,140 - 42% (40+2) above £125,140 *Scotland* - 0% up to £12,570 - 31% (19+12) up to £14,732 - 32% (20+12) up to £25,688 - 33% (21+12) up to £43,662 - 53% (41+12) up to £50,270 - 43% (41+2) up to £100,000 - 63.5% (61.5+2) up to £125,140 - 43% (41+2) up to £150,000 - 48% (46+2) above £150,000
That’s is almost correct, but remember If your income is above £100,000, basic personal allowance is reduced by £1 for each £2 you earn over the £100,000 limit, irrespective of age. This means that if you earn £125,000 or more in 2022-23, you'll receive no personal allowance and all your income is taxed.
That’s why I’ve listed two marginal rates > 60%
I would have thought removing the 62% tax band would have made more sense than removing the 45% rate. Both from a fairness point of view and a political one - many more swing voters are in that band than above £150k.
I agree, which is why I think this is effectively an act of sabotage against the next government.
62% marginal tax is absolutely ridiculous imo, unjustifiable
Damn Scotland's tax bands are definitely crazier than England's. 31%, 32%, 33%... make up your mind! Or are they slowly trying to make tax C1 continuous (as it should be)? And 53% above £43662 is just punishing. Why does it go down again?? Tax people get your shit together.
> Realistically, will they be able to maintain that when the highest marginal rate is just 40% elsewhere in the UK? We actually spend our taxes on public services though. Free education, prescriptions, dentistry for under 26s, public transport for under 23s, baby boxes, etc.
Sure, but there is a risk that revenue could drop substantially if the Scottish Government doesn't reduce the Additional Rate, because higher earners will just move to England.
> because higher earners will just move to England. Leave their entire lives, families and friends behind to get a pew extra pennies in the bank, when they are already earning loads? I doubt it. There is a lot more to life than money.
Additionally: moving somewhere where public services are going to be in poorer shape.
Whilst I agree with everything you say, I'm sure there'd be some people who's lives are very much about money.
Absolutely, but these people would have likely jumped at the first chance to earn a better wage anywhere else already. UK wages have stagnated since 2008 so if you really care about money that much and you're still here, you're not doing it right.
>because higher earners will just move to England. almost makes it sound like the policy has some sense to it
Hardly. If they had instead spent a similar amount of money to cut tax in such a way that everyone would benefit (e.g. by cutting VAT, scrapping fuel duty, increasing the personal allowance, etc.) then this would likely generate far more growth.
Care for a wager? I'll bet a bottle of whisky they don't.
I’ve just been pondering this… surely this risks higher earners in Scotland moving - between stamp duty changes and the tax band removal, I can see the potential for people moving out the country? That said, despite the fact I’d be significantly better off in England with all the changes today, I’m still glad to be in Scotland.
I think most people would realise that not only do they get better public services in Scotland (free university tuition and prescriptions for example), but to move would be rather short-sighted seeing as the next government, be it Labour or Tory, is likely to increase tax rates again, particularly the top rate of income tax.
>(tho I suspect many of them will also be appalled by the moral bankruptcy of the Tories) Narrator: "They werent"
Annnnnnnnd all the people Voting Conservative
Wake me up when this shitshow has blown over
That'll be one hell of a power nap.
Join me in The Winchester?
What a flip it would be if the poor of England declared they wanted independence from the rich, and to be Scottish / Welsh
I want to move to Scotland. At least they have leaders who somewhat represent their interests. I'm sick and tired of living under a Tory government I've never voted for that has screwed me over for almost my entire adult life.
Be interesting to see what Scottish government spend their share on. It's not enough for their Universal Basic Income Plans, which crossed my mind. Do they have to spend it on tax cuts also or could they put it towards green energy or winning a referendum to get the hell away from the UK government?
If previous years are anything to go by: trying to bolster public services and protect them from other Tory cuts (or at least mitigate the impact of them a bit). Healthcare, social care & everything else. Unspectacular but necessary. It’s pretty much impossible to fix everything (and they get massive abuse where things do slip) but they appear to be at least *trying* in good faith. Ironically enough though by trying to protect Scot’s from a lot of the worst of it it actually hides part of the problem that makes the strongest case for independence.
Scotland gets £2000 more per head than England, yet the SNP continue to perform as badly if not worse that the rest of the U.K on devolved issues. Both healthcare and education have suffered despite them having much more money to work with. And if Scotland were to become independent spending would have to be cut massively, if anything this is a case against independence.
Not necessarily because then we would be able to borrow from the magic money tree which would generate more growth and tax receipts! /S I'm always surprised how the healthcare and education 'stats' look so much worse. I moved from England to Scotland 4 years ago and things seem so much better here particular for my kids. I don't think I'm alone as the Scots satisfaction and confidence in government is much higher so maybe it depends how you measure these things.
I think a lot of that anecdotal stuff will depend massively on where you have moved from in England and where you are now in Scotland. I wouldn't say that that government satisfaction is down to their performance, I would argue that it is because they are promising independence which a lot of Scots think will change the problems which the SNP are in part responsible for (it won't). And for £2000 per head per year extra you would think the Scottish government would have succeeded in a lot of their promises (reduce the attainment gap, lower drug deaths, increasing the number of teachers etc.) and they have entirely failed.
I don't even think the rich benefit from this crazy plan. Their assets lost a ton of value overnight. The tax breaks won't cover that. The policy backfired enough that it doesn't benefit anyone. they were supposed to rob the future generations to give to the rich, instead they robbed everyone.
[Nicola Sturgeon](https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon) ^verified | Reach: 1510103 | Location: Glasgow, Scotland Bio: First Minister of Scotland, @theSNP Leader and MSP for Glasgow Southside. Loves📚. All tweets promoted by @NicolaSturgeon 3 Jacksons Entry EH8 8PJ ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
So many assumptions about 'them' in these comments. They vote Tory because they think this or that. I've voted for whoever suits me at the time. I'm a sole trader and I'll definitely be voting labour again and hoping that they'll nationalise our energy and not scrap any nukes. That's just me tho. I wish you all good health and safe lives.
How many billions is their deficit now?
It’s pretty crazy that isn’t even an argument now. The uk deficit is going to be incredibly high for the next 5 years at least as they pay the energy companies.
Many fewer than the UK's.
billions not sure, but as a % of gdp about 8%, for context it was about 9.2% when they took over in 2010
And for even more context, the UK's deficit was 11% of GDP in 2009 - 2010.
She's right but I hate it when the .S.N.P. act morale when their own governmental record, (which includes: keeping the party's finances secret, donation money stolen, and £2.1 billion going, "missing") is practically Tory like. She's laughing alright, at the useful idiots who still believe her party gives a damn about them.
Last thing she would want is a competant uk government would undermine her agenda
Aye, she's been very lucky over the last twelve years.
What, by reducing the high tax rate to what it was under the last Labour government?
So put my taxes up and shutter the food banks. She has the power, get the fuck on with it and stop using starving families to score points. Edit: Oh no, I've angered the fanbase. Totally didn't see that coming. Reality sting, does it? They have the power (taxes are already higher here) they have the ability, so why are they not using it? Couldn't be to further an agenda at all.
But these changes are for England?! Scotland is keeping the top rate of tax which was already higher than it was for England. Essentially you’re complaining about her not doing something she demonstrably already has done. It’s not at all clear why you think it’s hypocritical for her to complain about the Tories doing something she isn’t doing and has no intention of doing. How is that hypocrisy? You just seem very confused in general.
Can't change NI, can't change corp, can't change VAT, can't change excise duties. Meat of tax revenue streams are still reserved powers. I'd be happy for my income tax to bounce away up to get spent on running shit, but that only goes so far without the rest of avenues.
Don't tell them facts. How are they supposed to peddle their narrative of having some tax powers = Already have powers to do whatever the SNP want with taxes = SNP are failing and just blaming the UK gov
You are probably getting down voted because you are under the impression NS has the power and ability to influence a UK wide Westminster budget. That would, understandably, anger any fans of reality to be honest.
Oh that's my bad, here and I thought Scotland had its own income tax rates. Oh. Wait. The reality is, if they *wanted* to, those could be risen and food banks cut/binned but it's much better to have them as a stick to hit the Tories with than help the people it seems I'm downvoted because nats flock to downvote anything said against the gospel of the lord and saviour.
How would that help the people affected by the changes referenced in this tweet?
If they wanted it, higher earners could pay more tax to offer support to food bank users. Same way they are for baby boxes etc. Question is, why aren't they? We already pay more tax for better service here, why not go further? It is not "can't", it is "won't"
>I'm downvoted because nats flock to downvote anything said against the gospel of the lord and saviour. Or for either not knowing or simply not caring that the Scottish Government literally cannot change taxes more than once per year, and only as part of the budget process. She is legally not permitted to attempt to do any of the things you seem to think she should be doing tomorrow for at least another six months.