That's more or less what the Scottish Tories are saying...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
The Rich are supporting Scotland...
(29 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
Her strongly worded attack on state patronage follows David Cameron’s warning to the Scottish Tories last autumn that they had no excuse for their dismal election performances.
Well they do now..
Posted 12 years ago # -
Let's see where these grossly simplistic Romneynomics get them. My suggestion would be nowhere.
I assume she is earning more than enough to pay the magic £17,205 in tax that means that she too is not a drain on the state and therefore a strauightforward hypocrit. Even if she was, her earnings come from the public purse so she is giving back significantly less than she is taking in.
According to Wikipedia her background is born in an NHS hospital to a middle class background, state school then University then TA then BBC, with a brief spell as local newspaper and radio hack thrown in for good measure. So it's more than likely that under Davidsonomics rules she will be classed as never having done much more than earn from the state's all giving hand and consume public services at the expense of the state.
She didn't seem to have a problem with the state being a provider of education when she went to school and University. (or maybe she did, but was working to bring down the system from the inside?) Either way, It's fortunate for her that she came to her present conclusions that there is something wrong with people relying for the state to provide education after she had the benefit of the fullest and best state education herself.
I've always assumed that a lot of the Tory party think that it's a sin that those with the wealth and ability to do so should pay anything but less than their fair share of taxation. When their politicians open their mouths it kind of reinforces that view.
However, today today I did at least learn something new - up until now I didn't even realise that the Scottish Tories had a leader!
But I won't be losing too much sleep over a party leader who can't even get directly elected to the parliament in which they serve and who has never polled more than 5.3% in a parliamentary direct election...
I think a lot of the "88%" contribute a lot more to Society than Ruth Davidson does.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Kaputnik
+1
Posted 12 years ago # -
+2
I think that means that the four of us who have contributed to this thread therefore contribute more to CCE in total, and everyone else is just really a hanger-on.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Whose for a "I am the 12%" t-shirt then?
I shouldn't have got so worked up about it and felt the need to vent my frustration. Like I said, they're an irrelevance in Scottish politics. There's something to be said for our inclusive, proportional representational Scottish political system that allows fringe parties like the Tories to have seats beyond their "fair share" of the votes and let's them have a voice when their core values would seem to want to destroy the system that gives them that voice. But they'll take their seats, after all to turn them down would indicate that they had principles.
Posted 12 years ago # -
But I won't be losing too much sleep over a party leader who can't even get directly elected to the parliament in which they serve and who has never polled more than 5.3% in a parliamentary direct election...
Funny this as I believe the leader Willie Rennie of the ScotLibdems was also elected as a list candidate.
EDIT yep confirmed on wiki.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Had never heard of him either!
From memory there was a point when Salmond was a list MSP I think? Or was it the Sturgeon? Or possibly Hake or Cod... I might be getting mixed up there.
At least the LibDems actually wanted PR - as kaputnik says it's slightly odd consistently campaigning against PR, but having it as your only route into the political realm of the land.
Posted 12 years ago # -
For the record, I don't have a problem with a PR (infact, I support it). What I have a problem with is politicians who are against that sort of thing who are quite willing to accept it if it gets their nose to the table but unlitmately if they were to get a chance at power would want to get rid of it. For the same reasons I have a big problem with politicians who are happy to accept all the benefits of a free and expansive state education yet accuse others who do of sponging off the teat of the state and would seek to deny them access to the priveledges and benefits it gave them.
Perhaps Ruth Davidson should transfer to the Westminster sector of her party and see where she progresses in it without an Eton and Oxbridge education and a family worth "personal" (others might say "inherited") millions.
Posted 12 years ago # -
This all reminds me of Ruggtomcats FB pic showing Iain Duncan Smith who apparently took £18k for 'getting about' in the last two years, in expenses, who said amputees should not automatically get mobility allowance.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hmm, I thought that she was saying that 'the state' supports Scotland?
Isn't that actually true of the whole country, is that not why we have £1 Trillion of debt which is still rising to the tune of £170 Billions per year?
You can argue about whether we should pay it down now (actually we can't pay it down, too late for that), or indeed who should pay for the burden (that is another argument), but what she says is factually correct...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Perhaps, but dressing it up as a "corrosive sense of entitlement" is perhaps a little insensitive (and wide of the mark) to a great many of the 88%.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Here we go, this is the quote:
"The rotten system of patronage, which denies so many people real choices in their lives, has created a corrosive sense of entitlement which suits its political gang masters. Only 12 per cent are responsible for generating Scotland’s wealth. I wonder how many of them work on public sector contracts."
So basic Tory premise. The rich are subsidising all you public sector scroungers. Oh, and 'choice', the ever present 'choice', which basically amounts to 'privatise things so there can be more providers'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I doubt you could say that it's factually correct, at least not until we've seen the figures. Politicians are known to play fast and loose with any kind of information that will let them score a point. We'd need to see, for example, what she means by "receive in public services" is that a current accounting measure or a life-time measure?
But let's suppose for a second that it's true. So what? That's exactly what states are for - to redistribute income in ways consistent with society's decisions, as expressed through voting.
And no, it's not how we come to have a trillion pounds of debt. The structural deficit only became an issue after 2007 when the government was forced to borrow billions to prop up the banks. A problem caused, not by average taxpayers taking too much in public services but by those poor beleaguered rich people who had been plundering the system to the point of collapse.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I am not sure it is factually correct, unless I have badly misunderstood something.
According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending.
That couldn't really be better balanced, could it?
What she is saying is that rich people pay more tax. Well duh. Presumably she wants everybody to pay exactly the same amount whether they earn £10,000 a year or £1,000,000?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Presumably she wants everybody to pay exactly the same amount whether they earn £10,000 a year or £1,000,000?"
Well it works that way when they get fined for traffic offences....
Posted 12 years ago # -
The Tories have been very active pushing the line that the top 1% pay more than 50% of taxes, which deliberately and spectacularly misses the point about how taxes* are supposed to work.
* progressive taxes at least. Other tax regimes are available.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Presumably she wants everybody to pay exactly the same amount whether they earn £10,000 a year or £1,000,000?"
Well it works that way when they get fined for traffic offences....
Well yes, but an offence isn't linked to income, it's whether or not you've committed an offence (and isn't a tax, but a fine).
So Income tax you pay more the more you earn; council tax pay more the more your house costs; VAT pay more the more expensive the item is.
Now, whether criminal fines should be income linked or not is an interesting discussion...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Well yes, but an offence isn't linked to income, it's whether or not you've committed an offence (and isn't a tax, but a fine).
Indeed, but my OT point, as you correctly guessed, is that I believe a fine for a given offence should not be £xx.xx but rather x% of the individuals annual income.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Lets just see how much of their wealth the 12% hold on to if they cut public services like the police...
Personally, I dream of a return to that golden age when the private sector provided roads, sanitation, education, prisons, social housing, benefits etc without any interference from the state...
Posted 12 years ago # -
"And no, it's not how we come to have a trillion pounds of debt. The structural deficit only became an issue after 2007 when the government was forced to borrow billions to prop up the banks. A problem caused, not by average taxpayers taking too much in public services but by those poor beleaguered rich people who had been plundering the system to the point of collapse."
Yes, and no.
Yes, the structural deficit rose dramatically after the crash of 2008, and debt levels nearly doubled from the £525 that they were in 2008 (I could only find NET figures, so actual level higher) to £905 billion in 2011, an increase of 72%.
No, in 2001 net public debt was £312 Billion, and that rose to £525 Billion in 2008, so an increase of 68%. Yes this is a longer period, but tax receipts were high, MFI was still in existence, and we were all getting richer every night without doing anything, times were good! But still with increasing tax receipts and high employment rates we still managed to almost double the national debt for no reason! We were conned by the Govt, we were conned by the banks, but mostly we were conned by ourselves, everyone was having a go at plundering the country!
If you are a Tory, you will of course blame Labour for this, and if you are Labour you will say we invested in Schools and infrastructure bal bla. The truth is both parties would have done exactly the same thing in those circumstances and robbed us blind, now we have to pay for it..
Posted 12 years ago # -
Cash figures for public debt aren't particularly informative since public debt only matters as a proportion of GDP i.e. in terms of the economy's ability to support the debt. Historically, the UK has had much higher levels of debt without a crisis and recent debt levels, until 2008, as measured in relation to GDP, were not that high.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Ah, that old Debt as a % of GDP chestnut. A large proportion of the GDP was an illusion, simply a pyramid scheme created by firstly the Banks, but supported by the Govt.
From Dec 2000 to Dec 2007 Personal debt rose from £775 Billion to £1.4 Trillion, add to that another £300 Billion of Govt borrowing, plus the increasing tax spend etc, you then have well over £1 Trillion that didn't exist a few years earlier, most of which was magic'ed out of increasing house prices, and spent in Currys and B&Q.The Govt bribed us with schools, and the Banks conned us with pyramid schemes, simple as that. It was actually a beautifully simple con, tell people they are rich, and they will believe you. Give them 2 loaves of bread, and they will love you.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't an old chestnut, it's bog-standard economics. The alternative is to use a GDP deflator to take out the effects of growth on the debt burden. But comparing absolute values over any time period is very poor economics. It creates the illusion of growth both in the real value of the cash values (because it takes no account of inflation) and in terms of the extent to which the debt represents a sustainable burden on the economy or not.
Personal debt is nothing to do with government debt so while I'm sure we have different views on personal debt, it really doesn't have any bearing on whether Ruth Davidson is talking garbage (which I'm sure she is) or whether what she is saying is factually correct (which I can't be bothered looking up).
Posted 12 years ago # -
Related
"
C4 News FactCheck (@FactCheck)
08/10/2012 21:07
New on FactCheck: FactCheck: Foxed by former defence secretary’s economy claims http;//bit.ly/WIQrTx"
Posted 12 years ago # -
"It would appear that Ms Davidson has got sums wrong"
Will be interesting to see what she gets asked at 11:00 - BBC 2 Newsnight Scotland.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The answer seems to be "nothing to do with me guvn'r. I just blindly used the figures that someone else cooked up for me."
Posted 12 years ago # -
Sorry cant help it, promise I'll put this to bed now...
Perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly, and actually I agree with you on the measure itself, a metre is a metre after all. I think what I was asking is 'why' is the value x metres, and has that value been skewed by anything. My view is that the value has been massively skewed but I wont repeat all that stuff again, so actually maybe we do agree on something' after all... ;)
On the actual topic, at the very least she should apologize if the information she presented was wrong. As a 'boss', she probably said to someone "go and get me the figures for..." , and didn't question them when they arrived. She probably looked just at the figures and thought 'Ha Ha, knew it'.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
