Back To Black - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Why would the SNP jeopardise it? :lol:. Quite simply the membership doesn't appear to care. Any wrong doing can be simply explained away by saying "SNPBad" or "LOOK, LOOK WHAT LABOUR DONE!!!".

This is when i give up trying to debate with you

ill go back to posting pics of dogs with bones

Edited by Ally Bongo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In October 2014 the IB Times reported that more than 82 million Chinese live below the poverty line which rises to over 200 million if the International standards of poverty applied

The population of China is just under 1.4 billion

That works out about 7% if my arithmetic (and PC calculator) is correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine question, not having a pop at anyone's views.

How do we attract private business to Scotland that provide skilled better paid jobs as opposed to the current situation where most towns non public sector work is provided by supermarkets.

A low business tax rate seemingly isn't a huge incentive for business; access to a well educated and well skilled labour market is more highly prized. For SMEs, prompt payments are key.

Gordon MacIntyre Kemp from Business for Scotland is worth a read on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I reading the right thing here? What does that article have to do with "Black"?

Back to black? It's a saying, "reverting to type".

Ok, well here's another question I'd like people's views on. The 2015 Holyrood budget had £500m in public spending cuts, while it provided £615m in business tax relief. Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Why are people so angry at Westminster austerity measures and not Holyrood austerity measures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask Samson ?

His opinion is the same as mine. It can't be defended. But I'm interested if people think it's justifiable? Is it a case that Westminster austerity is heinous while Holyrood austerity is just? I'm genuinely curious because I can't get my head around people thinking it is acceptable.

But of course, I'm biased :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well here's another question I'd like people's views on. The 2015 Holyrood budget had £500m in public spending cuts, while it provided £615m in business tax relief. Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Why are people so angry at Westminster austerity measures and not Holyrood austerity measures?

Do you say business tax relief for dramatic effect ?

Why not call it what it is ?

Small Business Rates Relief is what it is actually called as i am sure you are aware

To qualify for this relief the rateable value of your business premises must be £35,000 or less i.e Small businesses

£615 million is what the Government will not receive by allowing these concessions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the answers but refuse to accept them so no point debating. (anyway I'm apparently middle-class...whatever the funk that is - so I am ooot).

I really don't know the answers. Why is £500m in public spending cuts with £615m in business tax relief acceptable coming out of Holyrood but not Westminster? WHY is Holyrood austerity acceptable when Westminster austerity is an outrage? WHY not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief?

Help me understand, because I just can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you say business tax relief for dramatic effect ?

Why not call it what it is ?

Small Business Rates Relief is what it is actually called as i am sure you are aware

To qualify for this relief the rateable value of your business premises must be £35,000 or less i.e Small businesses

£615 million is what the Government will not receive by allowing these concessions

And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts".

Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scunnered, I usually like reading your posts on here as it always helps stir up a bit of debate - and while I don't fully agree with a lot of your politics, I don't strongly disagree with any of them, and I like reading the arguments you make as they occasionally make me question my own views.

But you cannot seriously be arguing that we follow how the Chinese government behaves in relation to business. Some of the stuff that millions upon millions of their workers have to endure is absolutely criminal. You're throwing stats around like the Tories do when they try to tell us how the UK has improved under their leadership but we're not daft - you can't seriously sit there and tell people that poverty is more of a problem in the UK than it is in China. Their human rights record with regards labour is scandalous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts".

Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief?

It's clear that without this relief many of these small businesses which are crucial wouldnt last long after start up

Indeed many that have been going a couple of years or so would probably fold

Look at the criteria to qualify for the scheme. It's only for really small firms

As i said - its robbing Peter to pay Paul

Do you not think these wee businesses are important ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to black? It's a saying, "reverting to type".

Ok, well here's another question I'd like people's views on. The 2015 Holyrood budget had £500m in public spending cuts, while it provided £615m in business tax relief. Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Why are people so angry at Westminster austerity measures and not Holyrood austerity measures?

How many jobs did the investment in the business bring or help retain through the supply chain? How did it affect the UK balance of trade? How much money did it protect that was collected by the local authority that might otherwise not have been? How much money did the investment in the businesses stop from being claimed from the welfare budget?

You have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. To offer a question like this is either devious or naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts".

Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief?

Right once before I go and get pished.

1) If you invest £1000 in a company and over a period of say 5 years it pays £5000 more in tax etc than otherwise is that not a good thing ?

2) You accept you need a balanced economic approach ? If so there will always be compromises to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts".

Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief?

10847973_10153331834885502_5914089376333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right once before I go and get pished.

1) If you invest £1000 in a company and over a period of say 5 years it pays £5000 more in tax etc than otherwise is that not a good thing ?

2) You accept you need a balanced economic approach ? If so there will always be compromises to be made.

1. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'm even allowing £115m in business tax relief in what I'd deem acceptable. So generous am I.

2. No, not at all. Capital should never profit at the expense of people. £500m was take from vital public services that the most vulnerable in society rely on. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in government investing in small businesses, but not ever at the expense of public services. Never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many jobs did the investment in the business bring or help retain through the supply chain? How did it affect the UK balance of trade? How much money did it protect that was collected by the local authority that might otherwise not have been? How much money did the investment in the businesses stop from being claimed from the welfare budget?

You have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. To offer a question like this is either devious or naive.

I'm sure the Scottish Government will provide figures to justify their decision. Although unless they're the first EVER to make Reaganomics work... Again you'll be super glad I'm far too humble to say "I told you so".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...