Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 287 total)
  • Have we done the potential hike in N.I. payments?
  • Premier Icon dissonance
    Full Member

    so I expect them to have stretched the numbers to show the most favourable outcome (that the rich are oppressed by the workshy poor).

    Yes they have and its given away by the title of the thread. Income tax is only one of the taxes people pay.

    Premier Icon MrOvershoot
    Full Member

    Fair point, people will continue to talk up the NHS, most won’t be do keen to fork out more for it though.

    Always have been and have very forcefully said so, sadly many don’t see that point. 🙁

    Premier Icon anagallis_arvensis
    Free Member

    Tories gonna Tory

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Thinking about it, for a country running fiscally neutral (no surpless or deficit annually) and a progressive tax system, you’d expect half the population to pay in less than they use and half to pay in more than they use.

    Arithmetic fail.

    Premier Icon squirrelking
    Free Member

    what’s fundamentally wrong is people who fund their own care also end up subsidising people paid for by the state, no wonder care homes are so bad, the publically funded people should be paying the real cost.

    So in order to make public care homes better the users should have to pay more from funds they don’t have? 🤔

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Full Member

    why should someone else’s kids pay for your parents care through their taxes

    ??

    My money pays for loads of stuff I don’t use. This is how taxation works. How can you not know that?

    Premier Icon PJM1974
    Free Member

    My preferred option is that we budget properly for social care, education, the NHS and to rehouse the homeless and every November we organise a national charity telethon to fund trident missiles and nuclear subs.

    Premier Icon oldmanmtb2
    Free Member

    Best idea ever…

    Premier Icon poly
    Free Member

    The NHS is the worlds 10th largest employer. No offence to every nurse and doctor out there, who are obviously amazing etc but is there really a need for that many?

    You realise that if you treated healthcare in other countries as a single employer you would see even bigger “employers” – it doesn’t look that way because they are made up of multiple chunks.

    I’m not convinced people are necessarily ‘living longer’. It just looks like they are ‘statistically’ because so few people die at a young age now (no TB, plague, smallpox etc).

    Well the overall statistic is certainly affected by the improved infant mortality rate, but that’s not the effect we see in 21st century Britain driving up the life expectancy. This stuff is relatively easy to check if you are interested, and you either believe you are a genius who has spotted the statistical error all the actuaries and government planners have missed or are naively reposting crap you read from social media without giving it more than a moments thought to say, “why has nobody else spotted this”…

    Premier Icon poly
    Free Member

    This thread is highly predictable! In fact as predictable that post pandemic we would need to increase tax, and that the tories would dress it up as a way to look after their voters: the ageing, and the inheriting.

    1. Plenty of people who will have to pay more “tax” saying – I think the government should raise more money in tax, just not from people like me.

    2. Plenty of people suggesting that they want to leave a legacy to their children; children who are going to have to pay more tax today so that one day when they are not that far off retirement themselves you can leave them a big windfall.

    3. Plenty of people complaining that NI is unfair. Very few people suggesting that Inheritance Tax thresholds are far too generous and “unfair” on those who aren’t lucky enough to have a wealthy parent; and that since this will boost inheritance we should also fix that!

    4. Nobody questioning if the increase in employers NI will make employers hesitant to recruit, or create problems for public sector employers who will then be less able to pass on salary increases to staff.

    5. Almost everybody saying it’s good it applies to dividends too, but nobody asking if it shouldn’t be applied at double the rate for dividends as there is no employer NI contribution there?

    6. People calling for a wealth tax, actually just setting capital gains tax at a fairer level, applying it to people’s homes and being less generous with inheritance tax would achieve those things without needed new ways to make the wealthy hide their assets!

    Premier Icon dannyh
    Full Member

    The government managed to find hundreds of billions to waste on leaving the EU.

    Why not reverse that stupid decision and stick some more money into the NHS.

    I hear £350m a week would be a good figure.

    🙂

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Devil in the detail as always

    BBC News – Why the cap on care costs is not all it seems
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58442991

    I fear this is a half arsed attempt to solve a major problem by tinkering with what they hope is the least unpopular option, rather than properly resolving it with a sustainable longterm solution that will get cross party support.

    +1 on the CGT thing, treat it like income.

    Premier Icon DrJ
    Free Member

    I have no issues paying extra to fund people with less than me

    I have a massive issue paying extra to fund pensioners sitting on vast property wealth that they have accumulated through buying a house 50 years ago for a pittance, which they refuse to sell

    how naive – you think the tax rise will go to NHS and care homes? Sucker! It will go to make the Eton chums even more wealthy and idle than they are today.

    Premier Icon stumpyjon
    Full Member

    pay more from funds they don’t have?

    I meant the council or whoever is paying for the publically funded care should pay what it really costs, not expect people who are funding their own care to subsidise the council care when the people paying their own bills will have already contributed into the shared pot.

    My money pays for loads of stuff I don’t use.

    Talk about selective quoting and put a different spin on something. That’s it what I said at all. If you can’t understand what I put first time I can’t be bothered explaining it again.

    It will go to make the Eton chums even more wealthy and idle than they are today.

    I think alot of it will disappear in beuaracracy and managing the spending of the extra money, that’s even assuming it’s real money and isn’t just existing funding reannounced or a lot of creative maths.

    Premier Icon FuzzyWuzzy
    Full Member

    Still think we need no more staff, but better deployment of the existing ones.

    Based on what? That the NHS is the world’s 10th biggest employer? You know that has no bearing on how many doctors and nurses there are per capita in other countries where they have either more private healthcare or a different employment structure. People within the NHS (management and front-line) consistently say they need many more people (and there are a crazy amount of vacancies) – trouble is the government grossly under-values and under-pays them so they aren’t likely to fill those vacancies any time soon.

    Premier Icon TheBrick
    Free Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,

    This has probably been said but this is completely wrong and a misunderstanding of how the pension system works at a basic level. The working population pays for the non working population. There is no fund like a private pension. This is why dependency ratios matter. This is so basic I am amazed every time it has to be stated to anyone past school age.

    Premier Icon Flaperon
    Free Member

    The solution is simple, a tax on wealth.

    Look at council tax rates in London. Flats etc that were valued at pennies but now worth millions attract an absolutely derisory council tax rate, while at the same time leaching income from the rest of the country.

    Premier Icon squirrelking
    Free Member

    I meant the council or whoever is paying for the publically funded care should pay what it really costs, not expect people who are funding their own care to subsidise the council care when the people paying their own bills will have already contributed into the shared pot.

    Sorry, I’ve read that three times and it still doesn’t make sense. Seriously, not ripping it I’m just tired.

    Premier Icon boriselbrus
    Full Member

    It’s dead easy isn’t it.

    As soon as you have an incurable disease or are unable to look after yourself, you are destroyed.

    Just like Alpacas.

    Then all the people who are working in care homes can fill the vacancies in the hospitals thus fixing the waiting list issues!

    I’m a genius. You are welcome

    😁

    (Sorry Mum, I will visit soon…)

    Premier Icon convert
    Full Member

    Look at council tax rates in London. Flats etc that were valued at pennies but now worth millions attract an absolutely derisory council tax rate, while at the same time leaching income from the rest of the country.

    Not sure about this. Council tax property valuation rates are just about proportionality. New builds in England are valued at their 1991 equivalent price (2003 in Wales). If you increasing the values of the houses to 2021 prices the same number of houses would be in each band, just the band values would change. The local authority work out how much they want to raise through council tax and then work out the band value to get that number knowing the number of properties in each band for their LA. The actual market value of the prosperities is pretty immaterial as is the value that property would have in a different LA.

    Premier Icon hamishthecat
    Full Member

    The government managed to find hundreds of billions to waste on leaving the EU.

    Not to mention the Track and Trace billions.

    Premier Icon argee
    Full Member

    boriselbrus
    Full Member
    It’s dead easy isn’t it.

    As soon as you have an incurable disease or are unable to look after yourself, you are destroyed.

    Just like Alpacas.

    Yeah, and if they ever mention the words ‘i’ve paid NI all my life’ then they are instantly disqualified from using the NHS or other social services ;o)

    If we can also try and stick in some rule about OAPs and driving during daylight hours that would be appreciated as well!

    Premier Icon ta11pau1
    Full Member

    This has probably been said but this is completely wrong and a misunderstanding of how the pension system works at a basic level. The working population pays for the non working population. There is no fund like a private pension. This is why dependency ratios matter. This is so basic I am amazed every time it has to be stated to anyone past school age.

    Love that some people seem to think there’s a pot of billions of pounds sat there waiting to be paid out…

    Nope. Money comes in (NI/Tax etc) and it goes straight back out again (pensions/NHS etc etc etc).

    For someone on 30k it’s an extra £22 a month. I’ve saved far more than that the last 18 months not having to drive to work every day. A 1% pay rise covers the extra cost.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    1. Plenty of people who will have to pay more “tax” saying – I think the government should raise more money in tax, just not from people like me.

    I’m happy to be paying more tax. People on way less than me (and I’m on well below average) should not be paying more tax. Those earning much more than me should see their overall tax rate increase by more than me, not less. Small businesses struggling with increased red tape and the problems of the pandemic should not be paying more tax on their staff costs. Large businesses that have done very nicely out of the pandemic shouldn’t be paying such low amounts of tax.

    3. Plenty of people complaining that NI is unfair. Very few people suggesting that Inheritance Tax thresholds are far too generous and “unfair” on those who aren’t lucky enough to have a wealthy parent; and that since this will boost inheritance we should also fix that!

    Well, politicians are avoiding that… because of what happened to May. It does need addressing though. Why have we just increased the amount people can pass on tax free, and then soon after raised taxes on the working poor?

    This change in taxation is nothing to do with the NHS. It is nothing to do with care. It is all about shifting the burden of taxation onto medium and low earners, and away from medium and high owners. It is about plugging a gap in our finances caused by Brexit, and making sure the cost of that is born by workers and small businesses.

    Premier Icon somafunk
    Full Member

    After listening to PM’s questions I see the government is about to open a new revenue stream for insurance companies (tory mates perchance?) to offer policies against a possible need for care in the future, win/win for the tories on that one and opens the door for American style health insurance.

    Starmer as usual was utterly **** useless.

    Premier Icon Chew
    Free Member

    I’m happy to be paying more tax. People on way less than me (and I’m on well below average) should not be paying more tax. Those earning much more than me should see their overall tax rate increase by more than me, not less. Small businesses struggling with increased red tape and the problems of the pandemic should not be paying more tax on their staff costs. Large businesses that have done very nicely out of the pandemic shouldn’t be paying such low amounts of tax.

    Agree’s with Kelvin
    <nearly falls of chair..>

    If people want these services, then someone has to pay for them.

    The burden of these costs should fall on those with biggest weatlh, probably via some kind of wealth based tax (Capital Gains, Dividends, Inheritance, etc…)

    By going down the NI route it passes a lot of the burden onto the working population, especially those on low incomes. Those Carers earning near to NLW who we want to provide that care.

    Unfortunately many of these people are going to loose £1,000 of Universal Credit payments soon and then another ~£100 a year in increased Tax.

    Premier Icon poly
    Free Member

    Sorry, I’ve read that three times and it still doesn’t make sense. Seriously, not ripping it I’m just tired.


    @squirrelking
    I suspect that is because you are not understanding how care is actually funded.

    Let’s say a particular level of care costs 100/day for a private provide to provide. The local authority say – we will only fund 80/day for our users. So the private users have to pay 120/day for the same service. You can think of it as a bulk discount for the LA for paying for multiple users but often below the true cost of the service.

    You might ask why provide any service for LAs and the quick answer is it’s complicated. You might have users who start off private, their money runs out and go local authority. Your home might be in an area where the user demand is local authority or you might just feel a moral duty not to only look after the wealthy.

    Premier Icon joepud
    Full Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.

    I would agree with this argument if the rate had stayed the same but it hasn’t. And fact is I wont be retiring for another 30+ years (if ever) which im sure in that time I will still be paying for your care.

    They could have got this money in so many other ways but why would a bunch of rich people vote for a wealth tax, tax on second homes, or hell even a more fair NI tax.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    I agree with everything written by everyone in every post since my last one.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Agrees with Kelvin

    Yep me too. I’ll probably benefit hugely from this change and I think it stinks. It’s horrifying how they can so blatantly take from the poor and give to the rich, and then get re-elected by a worrying proportion of those self same poor.

    Even just the cap itself is stupid. Looking at the tranche of people who do end up needing loads of care costs, say £100k.

    The [relatively] poor ones with only £185k to their name end up losing 50% of their cash but the rich ones only lose a much smaller percentage.

    Plus ca change

    Premier Icon joepud
    Full Member

    I agree with everything written by everyone in every post since my last one.

    Thanks, not sure why you felt the need for the dig. but cool. cheers! 👍

    Or do you just not agree they could have raise this money in other ways?

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    I wasn’t having a dig! I was being genuine. And your post summed it up the most succinctly. I agree with you completely. They are increasing tax on low income workers and benefiting those with high capital/wealth.

    Premier Icon benpinnick
    Full Member

    Im guessing the tories have cottoned onto the fact that the red wall vote is swayed by single issue politics like Brexit, rather than nuanced long term tax changes. By recycling a Dave C policy they’re just getting ready for when the red wall moves back to red again and they’re acknowledging that it will only be so long before they become reliant on the older generation again as they were in Diddy Dave’s days.

    Premier Icon squirrelking
    Free Member

    @poly cheers!

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    @PJM1974 for election please.

    We need more ideas like that.

    Premier Icon poly
    Free Member

    Im guessing the tories have cottoned onto the fact that the red wall vote is swayed by single issue politics like Brexit, rather than nuanced long term tax changes. By recycling a Dave C policy they’re just getting ready for when the red wall moves back to red again and they’re acknowledging that it will only be so long before they become reliant on the older generation again as they were in Diddy Dave’s days.

    You are making an assumption that the red wall volters won’t think this is a good deal for them. I’m sure it can be spun in a way that aspirational tory voters in the north of England are made to believe this was for “THEM”.

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    For the Scottish policy aware people –

    how does this affect Scotland beyond the Barnett link increase in funding?

    Could Scottish government choose to spend the increase in a different way?

    I thought we have devolved income tax, but I don’t think we have devolved NI?

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Full Member

    My preferred option is that we budget properly for social care, education, the NHS and to rehouse the homeless and every November we organise a national charity telethon to fund trident missiles and nuclear subs.

    Similarly, I like that we have a Government supporting hypothecation of taxes. They just need to expand it a bit so we can vote on how much we allocate to Westminster refurbishments, London transport improvements and MPs remuneration.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Full Member

    Could Scottish government choose to spend the increase in a different way?

    I suspect that the Tories will try to bypass Holyrood and spend the Scottish sums some other way

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    Im guessing the tories have cottoned onto the fact that the red wall vote is swayed by single issue politics like Brexit,

    Inheritance tax and the right to pass on your home etc to you kids will go down very well with red wall voters, even those who don’t have a home. It’s a really contentious subject which most voters hold very strong opinions on.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 287 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.