Talk:Scottish variable rate
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scottish variable rate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Scottish variable rate be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Scotland may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Clarifications please
edit"the power to vary income tax by +/- 3p in every pound" - just the basic rate, or the higher rate too? And what happens if Scotland has (eg) a 23p basic rate, with the rest of the UK at 20p, then the UK Chancellor decides to cut it to 19p. Would Scotland be forced to come down to 22p to keep the 3p max differential? 86.143.54.72 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
editThe article talks about failure to use the tax varying power but makes no mention of the costs associated with collection which Customs and Revenue would charge for collection. Costs that would outweigh the amount collected by a small change in tax.
It also goes on to talk about a 'scandal' without reference to the wider facts, related to that mentioned above, in that the Scottish Government would have been required to pay C&R in advance for modifications to their systems that would allow the tax to be levied. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.4.251 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "tartan tax scandal" is used without any evidence this is not a phrase in general use either at the time or more importantly now with the benefits of an inquiry and hindsight. Is the phrase used in the same maner as Watergate, or was it one conjured-up by political opponents?