This would not have happened under the tories
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
New students 'face £23,000 debt'
Collapse
X
-
-
Comment
-
The Scottish pay far more in alchohol and cigarette duty per head of population than the rest of the UK.Guy Fawkes - "The last man to enter Parliament with honourable intentions."Comment
-
Originally posted by expat View PostWell, as I say it's not a simple "let's cut council spending and we can do free uni", it's a whole parliamentary budget, reflecting one hopes the wishes and priorities of the people. I don't know why England does not do it, or where England spends the money instead (if I may put the question that way round?)..
Originally posted by expat View PostBTW the Barnett Formula is a Red Herring that Cyberman likes to wave around from time to time. Essentially it exists because some powers, and therefore expenditure, are devolved to Scotland, but the raising of the tax that pays for them remains with Westminster. Before devolution, Westminster taxed and Westminster spent. Now Westminster taxes and Holyrood spends. Therefore Westminster has to give to Holyrood the money that it formerly spent, but now does not itself spend.
It is not a subsidy, it is a movement of funds from taxation to expenditure, become more visible now that they are not done from the same place. Which itself is an anomaly, fixable by independence.
It was meant to be a short term measure and even Barnett (the Scot resposible) states that it is unfair to the English who (in the last set of figures) receive 1.5K per less than the Scots.
The situation is made worse by the fact that some of the monies used in the calculations are only paid by the English. For instance, University top up fees. As the fees paid in England are used to fund Universities the income is included in the Barnett formula when calculating how much to pay the Scots, yet the Scots make no such contribution.
Your dismissal of VAT, duty and NI is also a little disingenious. The rates for these "taxes" are the same across the UK are they not? If you took a standard citizen in either Country who earned 30K and smoked 20 a day and drank 20 pints a week (and all other things equally) then the tax take would be exactly the same from each.I am not qualified to give the above advice!
The original point and click interface by
Smith and Wesson.
Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to timeComment
-
Originally posted by The Lone Gunman View PostYou may put it that way round, that is part of the reason for my question. I do not see it quite a s simply as some and would agree that it is somewhat more complex than simply the English subsidising the Scots.
I think your dismissal of Barnett is as wayward as Cyber Tossers incessant ranting about it.
It was meant to be a short term measure and even Barnett (the Scot resposible) states that it is unfair to the English who (in the last set of figures) receive 1.5K per less than the Scots.
The situation is made worse by the fact that some of the monies used in the calculations are only paid by the English. For instance, University top up fees. As the fees paid in England are used to fund Universities the income is included in the Barnett formula when calculating how much to pay the Scots, yet the Scots make no such contribution.
Your dismissal of VAT, duty and NI is also a little disingenious. The rates for these "taxes" are the same across the UK are they not? If you took a standard citizen in either Country who earned 30K and smoked 20 a day and drank 20 pints a week (and all other things equally) then the tax take would be exactly the same from each.
I do think I'm right about the universities though, or rather about the students, since it is not a case of funding the universities (this is the same in both countries) but of funding the students' fees: Scotland chooses to, England chooses not to. Since England won't fund a Scottish student in England, Scotland likewise won't fund an English student in Scotland. My point is that this is not addressed against the English specifically, it is simple reciprocity.
If you think that the UK is and should be one country rather than two, I can see that you won't like this: but it is a predictable consequence of devolution.
Also, I don't dismiss Barnett per se, what I dismiss is the simplistic argument that it is a subsidy pure and simple.
Your are right about the taxes. However, citizens are not standard, and Scots do on average contribute more than their share of these to the Westminster exchequer. Whether that counts for anything usually depends on what point one wants to make; let it go as irrelevant, the point is still there that Barnett is a way to get Scots' tax money back into funds for Scottish expenditure, now that spendng has moved to Edinburgh whil taxation has stayed in London.
The English may well be effectively subsidising the Scots, because of the exact amount of the Barnet payment. I suspect they are, but we can't tell because we don't get our hands on all the figures. My point is that they might be, but they aint necessarily.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment