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

Originally Posted by Begbie

^Moron

Miss Davidson is refering to teachers and other public employees as being scroungers.

Aren't you a part time teacher Swilly?

Public employees are inherently communist.

These services can be performed by private enterprise and when they are, prices for the services fall which raises the standards of living for everyone.

You know why laser eye surgery, botox and plastic surgery prices fall every year ? Because government and communism is not involved.

Contrast that with the ever rising prices of medical services when the government has their hands in it.

Benefit scroungers are absolutly vital to the UK, think how shit it would be here if we couldn't watch the Jeremy Kyle show of a morning.

The toothless, prison boasting tool on this morning spoke like a black man and said 'Innit' about a million times.

[quote=Zooheekock;2236987]

Poor people spend more of their money than rich people do.

That's right. Rich people SAVE their money and invest in capital goods that mine, produce and manufacture the things that we need.

That helps stimulate economies.

You don't understand basic economics. An economy grows by SAVINGS. Not spending. Look what I wrote above and remember this. Germany and Japan are two of the richest and most productive countries in the world. They also have some of the HIGHEST SAVINGS RATES in the world

For example, if a banker is saving 50% of his disposable income

yeah, and that 50% of his income is being LENT OUT to somebody that is starting a new business. Or the banker has the savings in a public company who is EXPANDING.

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.

No sir.. Not even close. Econ 101 That mum is not adding to the productive capacity of the world, the banker is.

And of course not all government spending takes the form of transfer payments. Some is direct spending which will have a greater multiplier effect.

No sir, there is no black magic here. the government has money, it is because it was taken out of the productive capacity of the country. Passing money around doesn't lead to any multiplyer effects. No black magic...

[quote=Zooheekock;2237097]

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.

What does that mean? If I take the 50 pounds in my example, as far its consequences for the economy are concerned, that becomes 100 pounds when it's in the hands of the unemployed mum.

Sorry...
The 50 pounds gets consumed by the mum. Nothing else. It doesn't get lent to a new business, it doesn't get put into the stock market where it can earn dividends from a productive company.

The fact that the banker is thousands of times wealthier than the mum doesn't make any difference.

The banker is SAVING and re-deploying the money into the economy where it gets LENT OUT or INVESTED in new caapital goods that lead to lower prices and a higher standard of living for everyone involved.

So essentially now the argument boils down to who is more entitled to spend his money, him, the government or a poor person.

No it doesn't. You're right that some of his investments will be beneficial for the economy but huge amounts won't be. Much of the money will leave the country and much will go into unproductive speculation in the financial system. There is a cost involved in moving the money from the banker's pocket to the unemployed mum's but it's almost certainly going to be massively outweighed by the benefits.

Do you have a job or not ? If you do it is because you HAVE NO CAPITAL. You have to work for somebody who HAS CAPITAL. (the banker)

[quote=Zooheekock;2237172]

In Britain, consumer spending drives about two-thirds of the economy.

Yeah, look how well countries based on "consumer spending" and socialist welfare handouts are doing. Top 10 consumer spending economies trade DEFICIT

183 Australia

$ -40,500,000,000

2011 est.

184 India

$ -41,400,000,000

2011 est.

185 United Kingdom

$ -46,470,000,000

2011 est.

186 Canada

$ -48,830,000,000

2011 est.

187 Brazil

$ -52,590,000,000

2011 est.

188 Spain

$ -55,100,000,000

2011 est.

189 France

$ -65,600,000,000

2011 est.

190 Italy

$ -70,100,000,000

2011 est.

191 Turkey

$ -77,160,000,000

2011 est.

192 United States

$ -473,400,000,000

2011 est.

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.

For the developed nations, brilliantly for quite some time.

And how well is the economies based on savings, production, and export doing ?

Top 10 SURPLUS countries.
1 China

$ 201,700,000,000

2011 est.

2 Germany

$ 188,600,000,000

2011 est.

3 Saudi Arabia

$ 144,200,000,000

2011 est.

4 Japan

$ 120,500,000,000

2011 est.

5 Russia

$ 101,300,000,000

2011 est.

6 Switzerland

$ 85,300,000,000

2011 est.

7 Netherlands

$ 76,710,000,000

2011 est.

8 Kuwait

$ 70,850,000,000

2011 est.

9 Norway

$ 70,200,000,000

2011 est.

10 Singapore

$ 56,980,000,000

2011 est.

Hmmmm

^
You dont understand economics socal. Nobody does, and and nobody ever will. Certainly no Canadian tool who posts fake photos of ugly Jamaican birds will ever understand what the frigg is going on.

They are still fucking arguing over that Keynes V Hayak bullshit......

I bet it's great being an unemployed pleb in China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. I wish I could move there and scratch my ass with chicken feet.

They should all gather in the main square and have a group wank over their amazing 'surplus'.

[quote=flashbang;2237225]

^
You dont understand economics socal. Nobody does, and and nobody ever will.

Just because you don't understand some basic concepts doesn't mean nobody understands economics.

Certainly no Canadian tool who posts fake photos
fake photos of ugly Jamaican birds will ever understand what the frigg is going on.

No. I travel every six months because I am poor because I don't understand economics.

They are still fucking arguing over that Keynes V Hayak bullshit......

They meaning who ?

This stuff is too simple for some people to understand... Strange

Originally Posted by flashbang

^
You dont understand economics socal. Nobody does, and and nobody ever will. Certainly no Canadian tool who posts fake photos of ugly Jamaican birds will ever understand what the frigg is going on.

They are still fucking arguing over that Keynes V Hayak bullshit......

some people and countries seem to understand a lot better than others though.

saying nobody understands and never will i assume is a statement made for effect. people do understand perfectly well how economies work it is just that speaking the truth is never likely to get one elected to public office. who is going to vote austerity and prudence on themselves when there's another guy up there promising bread and circuses? take it off someone else and spend it on me sounds great doesn't it?

Originally Posted by flashbang

I bet it's great being an unemployed pleb in China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. I wish I could move there and scratch my ass with chicken feet.

There is allot of westerners like you who are confused about economics because you hear about all these deficits and life goes on.

Its only because none of these deficit countries currencies has done a Thai baht plunge, 1997 style yet...

From Wiki

Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt even before the collapse of its currency.

We are in the "the country effectively bankrupt" stage.

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by flashbang

^
You dont understand economics socal. Nobody does, and and nobody ever will. Certainly no Canadian tool who posts fake photos of ugly Jamaican birds will ever understand what the frigg is going on.

They are still fucking arguing over that Keynes V Hayak bullshit......

some people and countries seem to understand a lot better than others though.

saying nobody understands and never will i assume is a statement made for effect. people do understand perfectly well how economies work it is just that speaking the truth is never likely to get one elected to public office. who is going to vote austerity and prudence on themselves when there's another guy up there promising bread and circuses? take it off someone else and spend it on me sounds great doesn't it?

The system is fucked. Nothing works. It is is now, and always has been, a battle for survial. Man eat man, dog eat dog, Socal eat imaginary pussy.

You've just got to be ruthless and step all over everyone. Only the stong will survive.

I need a hero. I'm calling out for a hero.

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by flashbang

I bet it's great being an unemployed pleb in China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. I wish I could move there and scratch my ass with chicken feet.

There is allot of westerners like you who are confused about economics because you hear about all these deficits and life goes on.

Its only because none of these deficit countries currencies has done a Thai baht plunge, 1997 style yet...

From Wiki

Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt even before the collapse of its currency.

We are in the "the country effectively bankrupt" stage.

Ok mate. I've still got my stone block built house that won't blow away (they make em proper here, not like them shitty wooden things in the US and Oz.)

I can still eat and sleep even if paper money collapses. Who gives a fuck.

Originally Posted by flashbang

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by flashbang

^
You dont understand economics socal. Nobody does, and and nobody ever will. Certainly no Canadian tool who posts fake photos of ugly Jamaican birds will ever understand what the frigg is going on.

They are still fucking arguing over that Keynes V Hayak bullshit......

some people and countries seem to understand a lot better than others though.

saying nobody understands and never will i assume is a statement made for effect. people do understand perfectly well how economies work it is just that speaking the truth is never likely to get one elected to public office. who is going to vote austerity and prudence on themselves when there's another guy up there promising bread and circuses? take it off someone else and spend it on me sounds great doesn't it?

The system is fucked. Nothing works. It is is now, and always has been, a battle for survial. Man eat man, dog eat dog, Socal eat imaginary pussy.

You've just got to be ruthless and step all over everyone. Only the stong will survive.

I need a hero. I'm calling out for a hero.

i'm sure your hero will be along soon enough Bonnie

Originally Posted by flashbang

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by flashbang

^
You dont understand economics socal. Nobody does, and and nobody ever will. Certainly no Canadian tool who posts fake photos of ugly Jamaican birds will ever understand what the frigg is going on.

They are still fucking arguing over that Keynes V Hayak bullshit......

some people and countries seem to understand a lot better than others though.

saying nobody understands and never will i assume is a statement made for effect. people do understand perfectly well how economies work it is just that speaking the truth is never likely to get one elected to public office. who is going to vote austerity and prudence on themselves when there's another guy up there promising bread and circuses? take it off someone else and spend it on me sounds great doesn't it?

The system is fucked. Nothing works. It is is now, and always has been, a battle for survial. Man eat man, dog eat dog, Socal eat imaginary pussy.

You've just got to be ruthless and step all over everyone. Only the stong will survive.

I need a hero. I'm calling out for a hero.

What about the Thai girl I met in New York that I have pics of in my NY thread ? Is she fake too ?

You are an idiot.

Originally Posted by flashbang

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by flashbang

I bet it's great being an unemployed pleb in China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. I wish I could move there and scratch my ass with chicken feet.

There is allot of westerners like you who are confused about economics because you hear about all these deficits and life goes on.

Its only because none of these deficit countries currencies has done a Thai baht plunge, 1997 style yet...

From Wiki

Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt even before the collapse of its currency.

We are in the "the country effectively bankrupt" stage.

Ok mate. I've still got my stone block built house that won't blow away (they make em proper here, not like them shitty wooden things in the US and Oz.)

I can still eat and sleep even if paper money collapses. Who gives a fuck.

Who said the fuckin Thai baht was going to collapse ? Thailand is in surplus and has a quarter trillion in forex. The Baht will go up, it has been going up..

Well, that is jolly good news socal. Maybe they can use all of that paper money as a duvet and blocks of pure gold for a pillow.

Why don't you stop thinking you're some kind of investment and economic guru and think up some more fake girlfriends to impress the good people of teakdoor with.

Originally Posted by Begbie

Originally Posted by draco888

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."

As you appear to be quoting from the Government Expenditure and Revenues site you might have had the honesty to supply a link. However you didn't as it then would have been noted that you'd dishonestly edited the quote...

The key results for 2010-11 are as follows:
In 2010-11, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £63.8 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.

In 2010-11, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £45.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £45.9 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2010-11, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.3 billion (12.0 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.6 billion (11.2 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £6.4 billion (4.4 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.
In 2010-11, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £97.8 billion (6.6 per cent of GDP).

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2010-2011


Reality doesn't meet your perceptions, you fucking maggot.

Ok lets get this straight I quoted for 2009-2010 a deficit of 16.5bn, that figure would be reduced if you are saying North Sea Oil belongs to Scotland.

Onto next year and your figures expenditure on Scotland are £63.8 bn
Revenues are either £45.9 million or including geographical share of oil £53.1 bn.
shortfall approx £10bn

as you quote scotland is subsidised whichever way you look at it even when its geographical share of oil is included. its basic maths.

are you saying scotlands revenues exceed expenditures on scotland?

how is this misrepresenting? all i said was more is spent on scotland than is raised there. if this makes me a 'fucking maggot' so be it.

Originally Posted by socal

Public employees are inherently communist.

I can guarantee you that they're not - it's just that straying into the light of the right can lead to a witch hunt. It's lefties that are intolerant of righties being allowed to express their views; not the other way round.

Fat, useless, and often female, and other minority groups tend to be more lefty, and they tend to prosper more in the public sector, but they don't dominate.

Much in the way that men invented and supported feminism so that they could shag the more intelligent fit women; men also cultivated the market in minority interest groups to use them to further leverage support - as a minority interest group intrinsically inspires more activism, and thus more propulsive political potency.

Scottish leftyism is not about economics, but about resentment of English domination. As soon as Scotland is forced to face up to managing it's own affairs, either through the vehicle of independence or further devolution, the sooner the left's anti-english grip (the SNP, Labs, and Libs in Scotland are all lefties) will break, and a native capitalist party can fill the vacuum left.

There's no shortage of Nimbyism in Scotland too - perhaps an English import. Recent investments in real job creating industry - such as renewable tech installation and manufacturing in the Highlands and Islands, get blocked by the most absurd environmental objections.

If they do go for independence what happens to all the land and property owned by the royal family?

Originally Posted by Treetop

If they do go for independence what happens to all the land and property owned by the royal family?

I imagine foreigners would retain any land titles they hold and pay land taxes to the Scottish government.
What happens to the house English Mr Smith owns?
I doubt he has to hand it over.

[quote=draco888;2237430]

Originally Posted by Begbie

Originally Posted by draco888

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."

As you appear to be quoting from the Government Expenditure and Revenues site you might have had the honesty to supply a link. However you didn't as it then would have been noted that you'd dishonestly edited the quote...

The key results for 2010-11 are as follows:
In 2010-11, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £63.8 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.

In 2010-11, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £45.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £45.9 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2010-11, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.3 billion (12.0 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.6 billion (11.2 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £6.4 billion (4.4 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.
In 2010-11, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £97.8 billion (6.6 per cent of GDP).

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2010-2011


how is this misrepresenting? all i said was more is spent on scotland than is raised there. if this makes me a 'fucking maggot' so be it.

You quoted from a site, didn't provide a link and deleted the lines which didn't agree with your views. That makes you a liar in my book.

[quote=Begbie;2238173]

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by Begbie

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by Begbie

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."

As you appear to be quoting from the Government Expenditure and Revenues site you might have had the honesty to supply a link. However you didn't as it then would have been noted that you'd dishonestly edited the quote...

The key results for 2010-11 are as follows:
In 2010-11, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £63.8 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.

In 2010-11, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £45.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £45.9 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2010-11, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.3 billion (12.0 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.6 billion (11.2 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £6.4 billion (4.4 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.
In 2010-11, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £97.8 billion (6.6 per cent of GDP).

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2010-2011


how is this misrepresenting? all i said was more is spent on scotland than is raised there. if this makes me a 'fucking maggot' so be it.

You quoted from a site, didn't provide a link and deleted the lines which didn't agree with your views. That makes you a liar in my book.

for your information it was not from that site it was from an bbc article which in turn was quoting from the source you supplied.