Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 20th November 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Scrap tax on under £40,000 - Souter



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 March 2008
BRIAN Souter, the co-founder of the Stagecoach empire, has called on the government to scrap income tax for people earning less than £40,000.
Instead, Mr Souter, whose company runs about 7,000 buses and several rail franchises, said ministers should raise a higher proportion of revenues through indirect taxes, such as road tax and VAT.

He claims the changes would help to create incentives for people to make better consumer choices.

In the budget this month, the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, announced plans to increase tax on bigger cars, but Mr Souter said he should have gone farther.

He said: "There could even be a radical change in the way we are taxed – moving up the level at which people get taxed directly to something like £40,000, so people on low incomes paid no direct tax.

We could also maybe introduce a slightly higher band for those on bigger salaries.

"The tax burden could shift to indirect taxes. Look at VAT. It's at a high level but nobody really notices it now. There is nothing wrong with the move to tax big cars like the big 4x4s. People who can afford them can still afford them if they are made a wee bit dearer."





The full article contains 213 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 March 2008 10:31 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Stagecoach
 
1

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:06:56
Love it. Never happen of course its too socialist and democratic.
2

alanh,

24/03/2008 00:30:29
not in favour of that.

Our govt are trying to abolish one indirect tax, in the council tax, as LIT is fairer. Why should higher vat prices instead of income tax be used when we see that it means lower paid people pay a higher proportion of what they have in indirect taxation
3

Matt there,

somewhere 24/03/2008 01:11:48
An interesting idea. I like his thinking. It might also encourage those on lower pay to save and invest as they'd have more cash to spare.

It might encourage some bosses to cut rates of pay, though.
4

The Daleks,

Longmen 24/03/2008 01:16:57
Good idea.
5

subrosa,

24/03/2008 01:48:01
This idea was mooted by someone on a thread last week I think. Great idea, tax spending. As he says we're already highly taxed by VAT and nobody is concerned about that anymore.

Pity John Swinney wouldn't look into it or perhaps it's just a bit too radical or date I say sensible.
6

subrosa,

24/03/2008 01:48:17
dare* ooops

7

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 24/03/2008 07:44:27
Glad to see the SNP's Thinktank is hard at work!
8

Doh,

24/03/2008 09:30:16


Good idea, but I doubt the shortfall could be made up from VAT.

Might be easier to increase personal allowance to something like £8,000 at least as a first step.
9

McMillar,

Fife 24/03/2008 10:39:07
Wow - great idea....got any others?
10

Doh,

24/03/2008 10:54:39


Actually, this is really a bit too Tory for me.

Reducing income and increasing VAT will simply make the poorer even poorer since many of the unempolyed or low paid dont pay income tax - now they would be expected to pay more VAT.

Half baked. He should stick to gay bashing.
11

sam the god,

24/03/2008 11:24:37
It will never happen how are we going to pay for all the asylum seeker that are in the country just now.
12

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 24/03/2008 12:27:05
Dangerous idea. At the moment are we taxed on income which is at least visible as a bottom line on the P60, along with NI which is just tax by another name. But we are also taxed to the hilt on practically anything else through VAT, insurance tax, council tax, airport tax, green taxes and so on ad nauseam. These are far less visible and so it is a lot easier for the unscrupulous in government such as the Chancer of the Exchequer to add bits here and there that effectively mean we are taxed at least 50% between income and other sources. That's a huge difference from the headline standard tax rate of 20%! But if you ask most people they would not have a clue. Bin it. Make them accountable for what they tax us on.
13

Busymale,

24/03/2008 12:39:35
I think its a great idea. With fewer taxes coming in those in the public sector will have to go out and find proper jobs!
14

Border Scot,

24/03/2008 12:55:40
#13 - There is nothing socialist about this idea at all. It is pure, right-wing, libertarian economics and means, as others have pointed out, that the least well-off will end up paying much more tax than they do at the moment as a proportion of their income.

For example, smeone working part-time and earning £100 per week pays no tax at the moment, but under Souter's suggestion they would see the prices that they pay in the shops shoot up and therefore, their disposable income diminish. For a couple of relatively high-earners on, say, £38,000 (meaning a household income of £76,000), the opposite would be true - their disposable income would shoot up.

It is also interesting to note that Mr Souter believes that anyone earning less than £40,000 is on a low income.

15

subrosa,

24/03/2008 13:06:55
At least the man is putting forward ideas to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share. Can't please all of the people all of the time.

I, for one, would suffer from a policy such as this but I don't spend much as a pensioner. Most pensioners don't mind paying their fair share as long as they can keep their homes.
16

antifa,

24/03/2008 14:02:12
This would radically cut costs for businesses like Souter's (employers share at least 50% of the cost of income tax with employees - in functioning labour markets, anyway) while hitting the poorest. It would move away from the principle of progressive taxation. Oh, and idea that you could fill the gap by increasing VAT and green taxes (to get people on buses, perhaps?) plus slight increases in tax for the very well off, is pure fairy-lend stuff.

By the way, why are the thoughts of this loony-toon newsworthy?
17

Robert,

Kirriemuir 24/03/2008 19:47:59
Abolish all tax, based on income, and make it through purchases. By doing this responsibility becomes an individual one on buying what each of us can afford. I certainly would feel that I was in control of my finances in this situation. Something like the US where one (at least 20 years ago) paid something like 7% State tax and 3% Federal tax on all purchases (here we pay 17.5% VAT in addition to income tax and community charge and etcetera)!
18

Eve,

Scotland 24/03/2008 21:06:32
Eh!!! The theroy sounds good lets NOT tax people whe earn under £40,000 a year.

Though to someone like me I wouldn't mind paying tax so much when I make over £20,000. Providing that the price of living hasn't drasticly went up.

BUT in what products and services do you put high taxs on!!!

Some products and services are need and would be essentail for every one!!!

Plus I think it's important that people on low wages have the opportunity to have treats once and while and NOT be in serous debt.

People need some enjoyment in their life if it's missing then they can react in a negative manner. There's nothing worse than not being able to afford to participate in a pastime or socialising.

I would worie that the price of sanitary products would go up I'm already paying between £5 & £10 (and 1 extreme case I've spent £15, and I was short of money that particular week) a month on these with current VAT. The product isn't exactly all that environmental friendly BUT it can't be helped. They are essential for most women inbeween the ages of 14 and 50, regardless of their earnings.
19

Russell M,

Stirling 29/04/2008 07:53:03
The other part of the equation is reducing the cost and/or size of government.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.