Thread: 9 out of 10 Scottish households take more from the public purse than they contribute

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

As begbie pointed out Scotland is paying more money to England than they are getting back. That's the important figure.

it would be if believable

there are few real accounts that make sense and can be justified

^Government figures Mandy. Believe them or not if you wish.

No wonder the Scottish Nationalist Party has never taken off.

‘Nine in ten Scots ‘living off state’s patronage.’

Me old granny used to say “him who feeds you, rules you.”

I'd be happy to pay 50% or even 80% tax on money that I never earned in the first place.

No, you wouldn't be but that's not really the point.

It's a false economy when nothing new is being produced, just shuffling the same money around in circles.

Lots of things are being produced, social welfare (or at least some social welfare) being one and that's a pretty important factor in ensuring the smooth running of the capitalist system. And then there's probably some level of multiplier effect (though I'm not sure how great it is) produced by transferring wealth from, for example, the City to a housing estate in Scotland.
---

No wonder the Scottish Nationalist Party has never taken off.

Best stick with the crazy American stuff.

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

That is why the country is in the mess it is. Socialism !

Can't believe it!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

That is why the country is in the mess it is. Socialism !

Can't believe it!

I'm with you Booners. The country is actually in the mess it's in because that idiot Gordon Brown mortgaged the next generation to save the banking "industry". Industry being a joke word in this context.

No surprise that now there's no money left to pay for what should be regarded as normal expenses; education, health, police.....

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

And then there's probably some level of multiplier effect (though I'm not sure how great it is) produced by transferring wealth from, for example, the City to a housing estate in Scotland.

You must be joking? Wealth transferal creates wealth?

How?

ncluded non-identifiable public expenditure – such as Defence – which have questionable benefit for individual households.

So the following defence establishment contribute questionable benefit to Scotland?
Nuclear submarine base and naval dockyard at Clyde, plus Nuclear weapons stash at Coulport
45 Commando based in Arbroath
Fleet Air Arm Sea King search and rescue.
RAF Leuchars and RAF Lossiemouth
An Armoured Brigade of 5 Scottish regiments and supporting forces.

Seems a pretty good earner to me, most of which Salmond does not want.

The silly Tory bitch telling the jocks how well off they are and how cushy they have it compared to the English is unlikely to win her party many votes.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Poor people spend more of their money than rich people do. That helps stimulate economies. For example, if a banker is saving 50% of his disposable income and someone on the dole is saving 0% of her income, taking 50 pounds from the banker and giving it to the mum on the dole is going to have a much greater effect on demand within the economy than leaving it with the banker. And of course not all government spending takes the form of transfer payments. Some is direct spending which will have a greater multiplier effect. On the down side, it's a bit of a coarse instrument since you can't specify that you're only taking money from people who aren't using it but then that's one of the reasons why you would want a progressive tax system, rather than increasingly relying on regressive measures such as VAT.

I disagree with that, a banker will be investing that savings, thereby helping another business et al produce more. Unless he is keeping his money under the mattress it will have a benefit on the economy. So essentially now the argument boils down to who is more entitled to spend his money, him, the government or a poor person.

And the logic that a poor person spends a higher percentage of their income is a false one given the actual monetary differences involved when you do the sums.

However, I doubt I'll be swaying your opinion, you are not gonna change mine, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

I read an article yesterday showing that for the first time ever those who pay no tax and rely on benefits is bigger than those that pay tax. If you the factor in all the public sector workers who contribute nothing to the kitty you get to realise just how few people actually keep the country going. These are the very people that the liberal, lefty Communists / Socialists are screaming to tax even more. They fail to understand the basics of taxation and just want the rich taxed even more.
It only takes a small percentage of those carrying the country to say they have had enough and leave to put the country in a pickle !
A famous politician once said " We all know what needs to be done. it is doing it and getting re elected that is the problem "
Therein lies the whole problem !

Amen to that.

As they say, socialism works until you run out of other peoples money.

Just ask Greece.

Poor people spend more of their money than rich people do. That helps stimulate economies. For example, if a banker is saving 50% of his disposable income and someone on the dole is saving 0% of her income, taking 50 pounds from the banker and giving it to the mum on the dole is going to have a much greater effect on demand within the economy than leaving it with the banker.

well, this girl is a great credit to the society that subsidizes her

'I spend my Jobseeker's Allowance on drinking binges': Mancunian teenager admits to drinking up to 43 units on ONE night out

Drinks 2 bottles of wine, 20 pints of lager and 8 Jagerbombs most weekends

Funds hard-partying lifestyle with her £57-a-week Jobseeker's benefit


By TONI JONES

PUBLISHED: 23:10 GMT, 8 October 2012 | UPDATED: 09:35 GMT, 9 October 2012

Mancunian Sarah-Jayne Baguley is unemployed, but that doesn’t stop her binge-drinking a staggering 43 units on nights out.

The 19-year-old admits to Closer magazine this week that she regularly drinks over 86 units of alcohol in one weekend.

According to drinkaware.co.uk that is the equivalent to 36 pints of lager or five bottles of white wine (and 2,775 calories).


19-year-old binge drinker Sarah-Jayne Baguley admits to using half her weekly Jobseeker's Allowance payment of £57 per week to fund her heavy drinking
The party girl is regularly kicked out of clubs, or finds herself covered in vomit or having yet another one night stand.

At the height of her drinking she was downing 55 units in one night, almost 20 times the recommended allowance.

She admits to using half her weekly Jobseeker's Allowance payment of £57 per week to fund her heavy drinking.


Closer magazine features a special real-life supplement this week
But the former care worker, who was made redundant three months ago, is unrepentant about how she spends her money.
She says: 'It's stressful looking for a job, I need to let my hair down.
'I'm looking for jobs but in the meantime I don't see why I should stop having fun.
'I don't drink too much - it's only at the weekend and all my mates do it.
'I've been thrown out of clubs and woken up with strangers but its fun.
'Drinking is what I live for. I don't see the point of going out for a couple of drinks. I want to get completely wasted.'



Read more: 'I spend my Jobseeker's Allowance on drinking binges': Mancunian teenager admits to drowning up to 43 units on ONE night out | Mail Online

receiving benefits is not the safety net it once was, helping people who need help.

and thanks to it is now a career choice for the indolent, irresponsible and lazy masses that think of it as a never ending entitlement to fund their lifestyles.

socialism is a cancer that has destroys the backbone of any society it infects.

There has been an increase in these kind of stories in the press. Lots of stories on how Salmond is a megalomanic and will saddle us with the european union and run us into the ground.
I think its just fear tactics to make the sheep think twice about independence.

Its also a bit off for a conservative to miscall people for being on benefits when her party fucked all of the industry the last time they were in power.

If Scotland is that big a burden cut it loose. We will either sink or swim.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Poor people spend more of their money than rich people do. That helps stimulate economies. For example, if a banker is saving 50% of his disposable income and someone on the dole is saving 0% of her income, taking 50 pounds from the banker and giving it to the mum on the dole is going to have a much greater effect on demand within the economy than leaving it with the banker. And of course not all government spending takes the form of transfer payments. Some is direct spending which will have a greater multiplier effect. On the down side, it's a bit of a coarse instrument since you can't specify that you're only taking money from people who aren't using it but then that's one of the reasons why you would want a progressive tax system, rather than increasingly relying on regressive measures such as VAT.

Transfer payments do not create wealth by definition, merely redistribute it. Yes they can increase spending but that is not creating any extra wealth, increase consumption yes, wealth creation, no. Whether redistribution is beneficial is a different discussion entirely.

In Britain, consumer spending drives about two-thirds of the economy. I don't think that this is a particularly great state of affairs but it is what it is so if you get people spending (and one way to do that is to use unproductive savings), economic activity increases. As a long-term goal this kind of thing is not too clever and economic growth as an end in itself is a ridiculous policy aim.

how did that work out for the world last time?

For the developed nations, brilliantly for quite some time.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

In Britain, consumer spending drives about two-thirds of the economy. I don't think that this is a particularly great state of affairs but it is what it is so if you get people spending (and one way to do that is to use unproductive savings), economic activity increases. As a long-term goal this kind of thing is not too clever and economic growth as an end in itself is a ridiculous policy aim.

how did that work out for the world last time?

For the developed nations, brilliantly for quite some time.

why do you presume the savings are unproductive? they are more productive to redistribute to others so they can consume more? this is undeniably incorrect.

you think protectionism worked brilliantly? a net benefit globally? i think you should revisit the economic text books on that one.......

Originally Posted by Begbie

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's the important point. Scotland as a whole contributes more than it receives. The deficit is actually larger because some spending on defence which is allocated to Scotland is actually spent in england.

does scotland contribute more than it receives?

"The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.



What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.



On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.


On the Treasury view, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130."

why do you presume the savings are unproductive?

I don't presume that savings are unproductive tout court. But a lot of savings are. As I said in an earlier post, (from a national point of view) if they're invested abroad or in unproductive speculation then I think they are.

you think protectionism worked brilliantly? a net benefit globally? i think you should revisit the economic text books on that one.......

It's not a simple story. Import substitution policies worked well for many developed nations in the post-war era and protectionism also laid the foundations for the economic success of pretty much all the major economies. When Britain was becoming a major industrial power it had hugely protectionist policies - that's a large part of why it became so rich. And the same was true of the States. You're right though that economics textbooks are full of stuff on Ricardian comparative advantage but, as with most things in economics, the reality is rather less attractive than the models.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

^^ I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time here but you said "for the first time e is it?

The only people that contribute to the running of the country are the private working sector.

That's right. Doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen and women, firemen, ambulance drivers, road cleaners, care workers, refuse collectors, prison guards, librarians. What the fuck do any of them do for the country, eh?

First of all, it has already been pointed out that these services rely solely on the productive enterprise for funding.

And I know it is hard to grasp in your communist worldview but most of these services can and are run by private-for-profit companies in places all over the world. With private-for-profit, companies compete for lower prices and better quality which does add to the productive capacity of the world because it free's up money that can be invested someplace else.

There are private-for-profit prisons in the US. There are private hospitals in Asia. Thailand for example. There are private road cleaners, care workers, airports and police is some of the most well off places in the world. Germany, South Korea, Japan and Singapore for example.