National tax distribution
29 May 2009, 09:59 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: www.Surreyscoobies.co.uk
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National tax distribution
In an effort to start a bit of debate here I have just thought about this.
Is national tax distribution the right thing or if an areas economy slips is that the problem of that area?
In Surrey we pay £700m in road tax a year, We get £14m back in road repair.
We get about £225 per person for vital services in Manchester they get about £855 per person, Despite the county being massively more contributory per head then Manchester.
In Scotland prescriptions are free, in England they are about £7.20 a pop, Also uni is free whereas in England in costs about £3000 a year, This is despite England being the major fiscal force of the UK.
Now for the record I think we all have to stick together, if one area is doing better then share it about, just like when the north use to fund the south with its steel, ships, coal etc. But I thought it might make for an interesting debate, If not then just post pictures of *****.
Is national tax distribution the right thing or if an areas economy slips is that the problem of that area?
In Surrey we pay £700m in road tax a year, We get £14m back in road repair.
We get about £225 per person for vital services in Manchester they get about £855 per person, Despite the county being massively more contributory per head then Manchester.
In Scotland prescriptions are free, in England they are about £7.20 a pop, Also uni is free whereas in England in costs about £3000 a year, This is despite England being the major fiscal force of the UK.
Now for the record I think we all have to stick together, if one area is doing better then share it about, just like when the north use to fund the south with its steel, ships, coal etc. But I thought it might make for an interesting debate, If not then just post pictures of *****.
29 May 2009, 10:13 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Its one of the main differences between the UK and France/Germany IMO
They both have a very even distribution of successful industries and hence wealth/tax creation throughout the country
Ours is centred in the south east
They both have a very even distribution of successful industries and hence wealth/tax creation throughout the country
Ours is centred in the south east
29 May 2009, 10:14 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only £14m in road repairs? Most of that is spent on the M25! Surrey surely have the worst roads in the country, bar none!
Surrey has always been one of the richest parts of the country, especially twixt Guildford -Farnham.
Iron, Hops and Wool were the big earners.
Even just 30 years ago, I remember school X country runs through the hop fields arounf Frensham. All gone now, bar one.
Surrey has always been one of the richest parts of the country, especially twixt Guildford -Farnham.
Iron, Hops and Wool were the big earners.
Even just 30 years ago, I remember school X country runs through the hop fields arounf Frensham. All gone now, bar one.
Last edited by nixxon; 29 May 2009 at 10:19 AM.
29 May 2009, 10:26 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an effort to start a bit of debate here I have just thought about this.
Is national tax distribution the right thing or if an areas economy slips is that the problem of that area?
In Surrey we pay £700m in road tax a year, We get £14m back in road repair.
We get about £225 per person for vital services in Manchester they get about £855 per person, Despite the county being massively more contributory per head then Manchester.
In Scotland prescriptions are free, in England they are about £7.20 a pop, Also uni is free whereas in England in costs about £3000 a year, This is despite England being the major fiscal force of the UK.
Now for the record I think we all have to stick together, if one area is doing better then share it about, just like when the north use to fund the south with its steel, ships, coal etc. But I thought it might make for an interesting debate, If not then just post pictures of *****.
Is national tax distribution the right thing or if an areas economy slips is that the problem of that area?
In Surrey we pay £700m in road tax a year, We get £14m back in road repair.
We get about £225 per person for vital services in Manchester they get about £855 per person, Despite the county being massively more contributory per head then Manchester.
In Scotland prescriptions are free, in England they are about £7.20 a pop, Also uni is free whereas in England in costs about £3000 a year, This is despite England being the major fiscal force of the UK.
Now for the record I think we all have to stick together, if one area is doing better then share it about, just like when the north use to fund the south with its steel, ships, coal etc. But I thought it might make for an interesting debate, If not then just post pictures of *****.
NHS prescription charges have come down
Scotland are abolishing in 2011, currently set at £4.
I am always trying to multi task, it never works like it should.
29 May 2009, 10:31 AM
#6
I do think the expenditure distribution throughout the UK is vastly irregular to say the least.
Afterall its what creates the north/south divides in England, and segregates the UK; splitting Wales, NI and Scotland off from England. Its one reason why I feel devolution has been taken a few steps too far; Scottish Education and Welsh NHS should be the same as the rest of the country, making it separate, yet still UK funded distorts what should be a national standard.
And whilst I feel Scottish, NI and Welsh assemblies is good for the for those areas, it also gives it more weight in gaining funding and pursuing local change. The result is good for them, but negative to anyone in England north of London who gets a raw deal; they have no parliament that acts as their voice, whilst all the other areas do. Looking at the spending statistic for those areas shows a correlation to my thinking that these areas get less because they have little political voice or control.
Looking at the statistics, the amount spent per capita (or person, in English speak) is so diverse, and it also has sporadic correlation to do with an area's wealth and state of repair. In an area that's in decline with a high population, I can justify a higher focus of money spent. But sometimes I wonder if certain areas in the UK get prioritised more so for the politicly weighting of the MP's and the local governments that are affiliated with it, whilst other areas are left to rot in dire need.
Outside of London, Scotland, has the highest spent per capita, yet the return back to coffers is much less. Whilst I'm not arguing there are areas of mass decline. Parts of England and Wales also suffering just as badly, but don't have that same benefit.
Is that fair?
Afterall its what creates the north/south divides in England, and segregates the UK; splitting Wales, NI and Scotland off from England. Its one reason why I feel devolution has been taken a few steps too far; Scottish Education and Welsh NHS should be the same as the rest of the country, making it separate, yet still UK funded distorts what should be a national standard.
And whilst I feel Scottish, NI and Welsh assemblies is good for the for those areas, it also gives it more weight in gaining funding and pursuing local change. The result is good for them, but negative to anyone in England north of London who gets a raw deal; they have no parliament that acts as their voice, whilst all the other areas do. Looking at the spending statistic for those areas shows a correlation to my thinking that these areas get less because they have little political voice or control.
Looking at the statistics, the amount spent per capita (or person, in English speak) is so diverse, and it also has sporadic correlation to do with an area's wealth and state of repair. In an area that's in decline with a high population, I can justify a higher focus of money spent. But sometimes I wonder if certain areas in the UK get prioritised more so for the politicly weighting of the MP's and the local governments that are affiliated with it, whilst other areas are left to rot in dire need.
Outside of London, Scotland, has the highest spent per capita, yet the return back to coffers is much less. Whilst I'm not arguing there are areas of mass decline. Parts of England and Wales also suffering just as badly, but don't have that same benefit.
Is that fair?
Last edited by ALi-B; 29 May 2009 at 10:36 AM.
29 May 2009, 04:22 PM
#7
In an effort to start a bit of debate here I have just thought about this.
Is national tax distribution the right thing or if an areas economy slips is that the problem of that area?
In Surrey we pay £700m in road tax a year, We get £14m back in road repair.
We get about £225 per person for vital services in Manchester they get about £855 per person, Despite the county being massively more contributory per head then Manchester.
In Scotland prescriptions are free, in England they are about £7.20 a pop, Also uni is free whereas in England in costs about £3000 a year, This is despite England being the major fiscal force of the UK.
Now for the record I think we all have to stick together, if one area is doing better then share it about, just like when the north use to fund the south with its steel, ships, coal etc. But I thought it might make for an interesting debate, If not then just post pictures of *****.
Is national tax distribution the right thing or if an areas economy slips is that the problem of that area?
In Surrey we pay £700m in road tax a year, We get £14m back in road repair.
We get about £225 per person for vital services in Manchester they get about £855 per person, Despite the county being massively more contributory per head then Manchester.
In Scotland prescriptions are free, in England they are about £7.20 a pop, Also uni is free whereas in England in costs about £3000 a year, This is despite England being the major fiscal force of the UK.
Now for the record I think we all have to stick together, if one area is doing better then share it about, just like when the north use to fund the south with its steel, ships, coal etc. But I thought it might make for an interesting debate, If not then just post pictures of *****.
I agree it seems almost random. Londonners get many time more spent per capita on public transport then anywhere else, but then again the country relies on London keeping moving, so it's probably a good investment. Maybe it should come more from local taxation though.
Historically northern industry created huge wealth, but not for the northern workers.
London's affluence is relatively recent, and clearly not the secure backbone of the country people thought a couple of years ago...
York's in an annoying position (and I don't mean 20 miles from Leeds
)It has it's fair share of social problems, one of the highest teen parent rates in Eupope, it attracts people from local rural areas (and p!ssed Geordies come race week!), but it's not quite deprived enough to get funding from the government, so we have just about the lowest council tax in the country, but under-funding from central government, very little in the way of development grants, but we still import people from elsewhere - many bring expensive needs with them.
You can't put council tax up because a: the public revolt, ignoring the glaring facts, and b: the government won't let you, as it looks bad.
and I don't think perscription charges should be free - it'd end up with lazy ***** stocking up on all sorts just in case, and wasting NHS money.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wingnuttzz
Member's Gallery
30
26 April 2022 11:15 PM