Just got off the phone with our accounting software provider about "making tax digital"... something the Gov't seems to have been remarkably quiet on.
Never mind our individual difficulties (Group structure, supplies of goods from EU registered suppliers going direct from say France to Germany frequently) How on earth this is going to be phased in given the as yet unknown (And supposedly transitioning) trading and VAT relationship with the EU post Brexit I have absolubtely no idea. It's nonsense on stilts dreamt up by a bod in whitehall to tackle VAT fraud (Which it probably won't).
I don't believe it will happen. Theoretically it's supposed to go live in 10 months time, but for that to be achievable most companies would have to be running dummy data entry already, in preparation. The government seems to have largely forgotten about it, and introducing it simultaneously with Brexit is, err, brave. So I think the overwhelming likelihood is that they'll suddenly realise it's impossible, and postpone it, probably for a long time.
I hope so, nevertheless it's my job to prepare for it at the moment (As it is theoretically happening).
According tothe Guardian the Electoral Commission reported that Labour raised £16m in subscriptions last year while the Tories only raised £835,000. I assume that the first figure includes the political levy, of course. The Commission also notes that Labour raised £10m more than the Tories last year.
Just got off the phone with our accounting software provider about "making tax digital"... something the Gov't seems to have been remarkably quiet on.
Never mind our individual difficulties (Group structure, supplies of goods from EU registered suppliers going direct from say France to Germany frequently) How on earth this is going to be phased in given the as yet unknown (And supposedly transitioning) trading and VAT relationship with the EU post Brexit I have absolubtely no idea. It's nonsense on stilts dreamt up by a bod in whitehall to tackle VAT fraud (Which it probably won't).
I don't believe it will happen. Theoretically it's supposed to go live in 10 months time, but for that to be achievable most companies would have to be running dummy data entry already, in preparation. The government seems to have largely forgotten about it, and introducing it simultaneously with Brexit is, err, brave. So I think the overwhelming likelihood is that they'll suddenly realise it's impossible, and postpone it, probably for a long time.
I hope so, nevertheless it's my job to prepare for it at the moment (As it is theoretically happening).
Yep, unfortunately we all have to work on the assumption that it will happen.
Off topic - any thoughts on how long I should go for my next gas/electricity price fix. I’m being offered a one year deal which offers the most savings but wonder whether I should go for a longer-term fix?
Thanks in advance.
Spooky, I was pondering that decision last night. I was thinking because of Brexit it might be worth fixing for longer than a year, but I don't know whether the premium on fixing for longer is worth it.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
While I agree that the State (working taxpayers) should not subsidise large inheritances by taking on the whole burden of social care, calling it an ‘irrelevant waste’ is rather asocial. Don’t you think the dignity of the elderly is important? It’s also amusing that at the same time you advocate self-reliance for others, you, an able-bodied person with a good job, whinges about the withdrawal of services you use! Physician, heal thyself. Your attitude does however demonstrate that it will be political suicide for councils to provide purely statutory services and axe libraries, garden waste etc. They would do better to raise council tax and maintain broader service provision, but the Coalition has made that very difficult.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
Yes, hardly a ringing endorsement according to the report.
There are two rival models - merging all non-Nottingham councils into the county (many Conservatives like this) and merging all suburban councils into the city (many Labour people like this). The problem, crudely speaking, is that fairly prosperous Nottingham suburbs feel little in common either with deprived inner-city wards like the Meadows or distant and deprived northern county towns like Mansfield, and correctly think they are likely to be seen as a lower priority in either case.
"fairly prosperous Nottingham suburbs feel little in common either with deprived inner-city wards like the Meadows"
Perhaps they feel like that, but in truth the fact that the likes of West Bridgford are not part of the city is ludicrous – people are happy to use the neighbouring city centre for shopping and work, it's a functioning part of the same whole.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
A few years ago I might have been more likely to agree with you but getting past 80 and not being quite as spry as I was causes me furiously to think! And count my pennies!
That isn’t to say that I think the present system is, in practice, within a light-year or two of being ideal. I my working life I was seconded ‘as necessary’ to the predecessor of the CQC and while in my limited experience LA Homes were, in my time visiting them not the ‘best' they were not by any manner of means the worst, either!
One thing I think most of us would agree on is that very few people are keen to go into a care home.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
Do you know any Leavers who would vote Remain in such a referendum? I know one possible, and dozens of others who wouldn’t even consider it.
It's not whether they vote Remain, it's whether they vote.
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Why do you expert doctors to be experts on the UK visa and immigration system? Is it really a good use of their (very limited) time to have to learn the difference in entitlements between, say a marriage visitor visa (no NHS entitlement) vs Tier 2 student (entitled)? Even if you have comprehensive knowledge of the system, the rules are constantly changing.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
I see it in much the same light as my having to check the identities of new clients.
Are your clients in danger of dying whilst you spend time scrutinising their passport?
Our overseas patient officer does this already, so we medics don't need to do so.
According tothe Guardian the Electoral Commission reported that Labour raised £16m in subscriptions last year while the Tories only raised £835,000. I assume that the first figure includes the political levy, of course. The Commission also notes that Labour raised £10m more than the Tories last year.
That £10 million is mainly from Labour's rich Jewish donors.
Mr. Cooke, on the psychology, if a referendum were May's Terrible Deal or Remain, that helps Remain.
Leavers could, legitimately, say: we're better off out. But the deal May has negotiated is so ****ing atrocious we get the disadvantages of membership without the benefits of leaving. We'd be better off in compared to leaving on such terms.
I do think Remain could win such a referendum. They could try to pose it as a question of confidence in May's dithering capitulation of a negotiation.
In a Leave/Remain straight up vote, Leave, I think, would win handily.
Mr Dancer, I think that's spot on. In such a situation, you almost have to change the specifics of what was voted on in order to get any movement: "Leave", in that situation, wouldn't be the Leave they thought they'd chosen and thus there's no "we were wrong" element.
The rightness or wrongness of such a move is indeed beside this specific question; if the Governments of the future ignored the issues raised, they'd be toast.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
It's a credible line and indeed speaks to the traditional conservative values of family and self-responsibility. I can't agree on "social care" being an irrelevant waste - I don't use the education service in Newham though I contribute to it and I don't see that as an "irrelevant waste". Just because you don't use something doesn't mean it doesn't have a value to others.
The Conservatives have also gone strong on "inheritance" - you're correct of course it's not a sacred right and I was appalled by the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposal to substantially raise the value of "untouchable" assets from £23,500 where it currently sits.
Yet when I argued that was wrong and simply shifted the financial burden onto the rest of us the pro-May loyalists howled in anger.
Most people simply don't have the funding or the assets to support prolonged periods of even basic residential care yet alone dementia or nursing care and what happens when the asset well runs dry?
I'm a working taxpayer too - I don't begrudge elderly people I don't know being well looked after in their latter years. Short of providing all care free funded out of general taxation, I'm pushed to see an alternative that works.
I think both the Nick Timothy proposals from last year and those recommendations of the Dilnot Commission were both sensible way forwards.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Sweeties like improved OAP care... Which you support?
Sweeties such as "free" University places which lock Scottish children out of clearing and undermine the financial standing of important Scottish Institutions; "free" personal care for everyone rather than means testing it; "free" prescriptions instead of asking people like me to contribute towards the cost of the medicines I use.
None of these improve our economic competitiveness and each puts burdens on the general taxpayer instead of those gaining from the service that they are using. The concept of "free" is one that the Scottish government turns to again and again. They find it irresistible. I accept it is political catnip but it is not addressing let alone solving our problems.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
I think it's a really obvious case for compulsory insurance, either through a state model (pay tax, get looked after) or a privatised one (pay insurance, poor people get subsidised to do it). Roughly 10% of us will need home care, 90% won't, and we have literally no idea which of us it will be.
I agree with Casino that the family *should* rally round - I looked after my bedridden mother for a year: it wasn't easy for various reasons but we made it work. But some people don't have families, or families willing to do it. I've little sympathy for the idea that protecting their inheritance is more important than decent care.
Not all care situations are awful, of course. My uncle is in care in Penzance and really seems happier than when he was alone.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
I agree that if you have savings for a rainy day, when those rainy days come, you should use those savings. But as we saw during last year’s election campaign, that was a rather unpopular view.
Having made so much of protecting and increasing peoples’ inheritances, the Tories were rather hoist by their own petard when they were seen as threatening it. But an inheritance should come second to not expecting others, often poorer than you, to pay for your care when you need it.
I agree. Life is a bit of a lottery and shit happens.
My view is that it’s the responsibility of the individual to plan and prepare for that from their own resources as best they can, without making a call on the state. Any inheritance at the end is a bonus.
Yes, life isn’t always fair, and you get a rum deal, but as long as you can maintain independent living from your own resources I don’t see why (above a reasonable floor) it should be the obligation of others to step in.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
In Singapore you get tax breaks and subsidies if children look after elderly parents and grandparents after grandchildren
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
While I agree that the State (working taxpayers) should not subsidise large inheritances by taking on the whole burden of social care, calling it an ‘irrelevant waste’ is rather asocial. Don’t you think the dignity of the elderly is important? It’s also amusing that at the same time you advocate self-reliance for others, you, an able-bodied person with a good job, whinges about the withdrawal of services you use! Physician, heal thyself. Your attitude does however demonstrate that it will be political suicide for councils to provide purely statutory services and axe libraries, garden waste etc. They would do better to raise council tax and maintain broader service provision, but the Coalition has made that very difficult.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
Try reading my posts again and the nuances within them.
It’s the overtaxing of the taxpayer when those who have assets could partly or wholly support themselves that I object to. Not that the elderly should just be left to rot.
Please don’t go all reducto ad absurdium because that prevents a sensible debate.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
It's a credible line and indeed speaks to the traditional conservative values of family and self-responsibility. I can't agree on "social care" being an irrelevant waste - I don't use the education service in Newham though I contribute to it and I don't see that as an "irrelevant waste". Just because you don't use something doesn't mean it doesn't have a value to others.
The Conservatives have also gone strong on "inheritance" - you're correct of course it's not a sacred right and I was appalled by the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposal to substantially raise the value of "untouchable" assets from £23,500 where it currently sits.
Yet when I argued that was wrong and simply shifted the financial burden onto the rest of us the pro-May loyalists howled in anger.
Most people simply don't have the funding or the assets to support prolonged periods of even basic residential care yet alone dementia or nursing care and what happens when the asset well runs dry?
I'm a working taxpayer too - I don't begrudge elderly people I don't know being well looked after in their latter years. Short of providing all care free funded out of general taxation, I'm pushed to see an alternative that works.
I think both the Nick Timothy proposals from last year and those recommendations of the Dilnot Commission were both sensible way forwards.
NI rises are the most likely way forward, making assets above £23k liable for all personal care costs like residential care costs are now will not be proposed again after the general election result
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Why should people’s adult children have to bear the considerable financial costs of having to pay for their care? You are handing some unlucky people a five figure bill purely by chance. And of course in the modern world, those children could be living on the other side of the world.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
I agree that if you have savings for a rainy day, when those rainy days come, you should use those savings. But as we saw during last year’s election campaign, that was a rather unpopular view.
Having made so much of protecting and increasing peoples’ inheritances, the Tories were rather hoist by their own petard when they were seen as threatening it. But an inheritance should come second to not expecting others, often poorer than you, to pay for your care when you need it.
I agree. Life is a bit of a lottery and shit happens.
My view is that it’s the responsibility of the individual to plan and prepare for that from their own resources as best they can, without making a call on the state. Any inheritance at the end is a bonus.
Yes, life isn’t always fair, and you get a rum deal, but as long as you can maintain independent living from your own resources I don’t see why (above a reasonable floor) it should be the obligation of others to step in.
The problem is, when it comes to it, no one is going to chuck an OAP on to the streets. So there is no penalty for not saving or giving your wealth to your kids earlier in life.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
Do you know any Leavers who would vote Remain in such a referendum? I know one possible, and dozens of others who wouldn’t even consider it.
I know a fair number of those who would change. I think only about half of either Leavers or Remainers are passionate, a good number just find it a bore. Would they turnout again, and if so for the same side?
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
As long as the architects of Brexit can avoid taking responsibility by blaming the lackluster outcome on sabotage by “Remoaners” or the intransigence of Brussels, May will continue to soldier on. She’s betting that the country will at some point tire of Brexit and that a settlement will be reached that most Britons will be able to live with, allowing Britain to move on to other subjects.
If she can pull off that feat, she is bound to go down in history as one of the greatest prime ministers of our time and the epitome of the authentic brand of conservatism — prudent, cautious and incremental — championed by the great British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott.
This cautious disposition stands in sharp contrast to the zero-sum zeal endemic to self-styled conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. More importantly, it serves as a reminder of what democratic politics is supposed to be like: the art of forging compromises that most people can live with (sometimes unenthusiastically). The Western world could do a whole lot worse than to emulate that approach.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Why should people’s adult children have to bear the considerable financial costs of having to pay for their care? You are handing some unlucky people a five figure bill purely by chance. And of course in the modern world, those children could be living on the other side of the world.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
My objection is that those same children who have declined that obligation should not benefit to the tune of £1m in inheritances whilst the tax payer picks up the tab. The cost of care is a lottery but I'm afraid that those who need it should contribute post mortem. If the children don't like it they can make other arrangements or take on the care themselves.
So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?
It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require Landlords, Employers, or Banks to check the immigration status of those that they deal with.
Nor do I but it is not winning the government many friends.
It would be reasonable if there was a single, trustworthy and secure way of proving one's right to residence, i.e. ID cards. Unfortunately the Tories got rid of those. This leaves multiple loopholes in the system that cause needless pain to some individuals, cf the Windrush case.
It doesn't look as though that would help much in the case outlined by NPXMP. They would face the same issues getting an ID card that they face in getting a passport. In fact, by making it impossible to stay in B&Bs (which would almost certainly require their production at registration) it's easy to imagine it could make matters much worse.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Sweeties like improved OAP care... Which you support?
Sweeties such as "free" University places which lock Scottish children out of clearing and undermine the financial standing of important Scottish Institutions; "free" personal care for everyone rather than means testing it; "free" prescriptions instead of asking people like me to contribute towards the cost of the medicines I use.
None of these improve our economic competitiveness and each puts burdens on the general taxpayer instead of those gaining from the service that they are using. The concept of "free" is one that the Scottish government turns to again and again. They find it irresistible. I accept it is political catnip but it is not addressing let alone solving our problems.
The way the free fees scheme ghettoises and disadvantages the Scottish poor is one of the most chilling unintended consequences I have ever seen.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Sweeties like improved OAP care... Which you support?
Sweeties such as "free" University places which lock Scottish children out of clearing and undermine the financial standing of important Scottish Institutions;
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
While I agree that the State (working taxpayers) should not subsidise large inheritances by taking on the whole burden of social care, calling it an ‘irrelevant waste’ is rather asocial. Don’t you think the dignity of the elderly is important? It’s also amusing that at the same time you advocate self-reliance for others, you, an able-bodied person with a good job, whinges about the withdrawal of services you use! Physician, heal thyself. Your attitude does however demonstrate that it will be political suicide for councils to provide purely statutory services and axe libraries, garden waste etc. They would do better to raise council tax and maintain broader service provision, but the Coalition has made that very difficult.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
Try reading my posts again and the nuances within them.
It’s the overtaxing of the taxpayer when those who have assets could partly or wholly support themselves that I object to. Not that the elderly should just be left to rot.
Please don’t go all reducto ad absurdium because that prevents a sensible debate.
‘Irrelevant waste’. Very nuanced!
Fundamentally, I think your grievance that working age taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden is misguided. Most pensioners have significantly lower incomes than working age people, so the burden will always fall on workers. It’s true that some pensioners get to hand over their house to their offspring and get the social care from the State, but against that we levy one of the highest rates of inheritance tax in the OECD.
I think a sensible reform would be to unify income tax and NI so that pensioners have the same all-in tax rates as those working. Most pensioners wouldn’t be affected because their incomes would be too low, so it’s not a silver bullet.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Why should people’s adult children have to bear the considerable financial costs of having to pay for their care? You are handing some unlucky people a five figure bill purely by chance. And of course in the modern world, those children could be living on the other side of the world.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
The idea that children should help look after their own elderly parents in a way they did for them when they were younger and helpless isn’t a controversial one in most countries.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Sweeties like improved OAP care... Which you support?
Sweeties such as "free" University places which lock Scottish children out of clearing and undermine the financial standing of important Scottish Institutions; "free" personal care for everyone rather than means testing it; "free" prescriptions instead of asking people like me to contribute towards the cost of the medicines I use.
None of these improve our economic competitiveness and each puts burdens on the general taxpayer instead of those gaining from the service that they are using. The concept of "free" is one that the Scottish government turns to again and again. They find it irresistible. I accept it is political catnip but it is not addressing let alone solving our problems.
Not to mention bus fares.
' The concept of “free” ' Nice generalisation of the idea of a free lunch, and not even qualified by “at the point of use”.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
It's a credible line and indeed speaks to the traditional conservative values of family and self-responsibility. I can't agree on "social care" being an irrelevant waste - I don't use the education service in Newham though I contribute to it and I don't see that as an "irrelevant waste". Just because you don't use something doesn't mean it doesn't have a value to others.
The Conservatives have also gone strong on "inheritance" - you're correct of course it's not a sacred right and I was appalled by the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposal to substantially raise the value of "untouchable" assets from £23,500 where it currently sits.
Yet when I argued that was wrong and simply shifted the financial burden onto the rest of us the pro-May loyalists howled in anger.
Most people simply don't have the funding or the assets to support prolonged periods of even basic residential care yet alone dementia or nursing care and what happens when the asset well runs dry?
I'm a working taxpayer too - I don't begrudge elderly people I don't know being well looked after in their latter years. Short of providing all care free funded out of general taxation, I'm pushed to see an alternative that works.
I think both the Nick Timothy proposals from last year and those recommendations of the Dilnot Commission were both sensible way forwards.
I think the only way forward, now that is issue is so politicised, is to either implement the Dilnot proposals as they are, or a short Royal Commission to report back in 18 months’ time and with prior agreement of all political parties to implement whatever is suggested.
Doing nothing isn’t an option, the problem is going to get a lot worse.
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
It still seems to be about name recognition. Mainly the politicians score in order of how famous they are. The only interesting finding is where it can be argued there are two exceptions to that rule, with Ruth Davidson polling better than expected and Michael Gove worse.
A courtesy letter sent from Home Secretary Sajid Javid to the Home Affairs Select Committee Chair, Yvette Cooper outlining the mistakes of the Home Office over Windrush has mysteriously been leaked to the Guardian’s Amelia Gentleman, who has selectively quoted from it in an article published last night.
The coverage glossed over one of the most striking parts of Sajid’s letter – the revelation that half of the 164 Windrush removals and detentions began under Labour between 2002 and 2010 – when David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith, and Alan Johnson were Home Secretaries. Amelia Gentlemen, who often writes Guardian stories which are flattering to Yvette Cooper, neglects to report this part of the story. Will Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott be personally apologising on behalf of the Labour Party for their historic policy towards the Windrush generation?
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Sweeties like improved OAP care... Which you support?
Sweeties such as "free" University places which lock Scottish children out of clearing and undermine the financial standing of important Scottish Institutions;
There's some kind of race memory at work here. My parents and grandparents had an automatic, reflexive horror of 'means testing' - an echo from the Depression. They passed it down to us. Given our changed circumstances, benefits need to be a damn sight less universal, particularly for wealthy pensioners. It's not about the absolute amount - the winter fuel allowance 'only' costs £2-3bn p.a. However, we could probably trim overall pensioner benefits by around £1.5-2bn by excluding everyone bar those receiving pension credit.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
While I agree that the State (working taxpayers) should not subsidise large inheritances by taking on the whole burden of social care, calling it an ‘irrelevant waste’ is rather asocial. Don’t you think the dignity of the elderly is important? It’s also amusing that at the ader service provision, but the Coalition has made that very difficult.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
Try reading my posts again and the nuances within them.
It’s the overtaxing of the taxpayer when those who have assets could partly or wholly support themselves that I object to. Not that the elderly should just be left to rot.
Please don’t go all reducto ad absurdium because that prevents a sensible debate.
‘Irrelevant waste’. Very nuanced!
Fundamentally, I think your grievance that working age taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden is misguided. Most pensioners have significantly lower incomes than working age people, so the burden will always fall on workers. It’s true that some pensioners get to hand over their house to their offspring and get the social care from the State, but against that we levy one of the highest rates of inheritance tax in the OECD.
I think a sensible reform would be to unify income tax and NI so that pensioners have the same all-in tax rates as those working. Most pensioners wouldn’t be affected because their incomes would be too low, so it’s not a silver bullet.
It a hypothecated NI focused on the NHS and social care and with pensioners liable too.
Thanks to Osborne of course estates over £1 million are immune from inheritance tax
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
While I agree that the State (working taxpayers) should not subsidise large inheritances by taking on the whole burden of social care, calling it an ‘irrelevant waste’ is rather asocial. Don’t you think the dignity of the elderly is important? It’s also amusing that at the same time you advocate self-reliance for others, you, an able-bodied person with a good job, whinges about the withdrawal of services you use! Physician, heal thyself. Your attitude does however demonstrate that it will be political suicide for councils to provide purely statutory services and axe libraries, garden waste etc. They would do better to raise council tax and maintain broader service provision, but the Coalition has made that very difficult.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
Try reading my posts again and the nuances within them.
It’s the overtaxing of the taxpayer when those who have assets could partly or wholly support themselves that I object to. Not that the elderly should just be left to rot.
Please don’t go all reducto ad absurdium because that prevents a sensible debate.
‘Irrelevant waste’. Very nuanced!
Fundamentally, I think your grievance that working age taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden is misguided. Most pensioners have significantly lower incomes than working age people, so the burden will always fall on workers. It’s true that some pensioners get to hand over their house to their offspring and get the social care from the State, but against that we levy one of the highest rates of inheritance tax in the OECD.
I think a sensible reform would be to unify income tax and NI so that pensioners have the same all-in tax rates as those working. Most pensioners wouldn’t be affected because their incomes would be too low, so it’s not a silver bullet.
Better still, unify income tax and inheritance tax
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
It still seems to be about name recognition. Mainly the politicians score in order of how famous they are. The only interesting finding is where it can be argued there are two exceptions to that rule, with Ruth Davidson polling better than expected and Michael Gove worse.
Yes but Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary so the name recognition score is less relevant for them, the fact Javid is now 16% ahead of Hunt and 20% ahead of Gove is, same applies to Boris.
I think the only way forward, now that is issue is so politicised, is to either implement the Dilnot proposals as they are, or a short Royal Commission to report back in 18 months’ time and with prior agreement of all political parties to implement whatever is suggested.
Doing nothing isn’t an option, the problem is going to get a lot worse.
The second option would be a disgraceful abdication of responsibility by politicians and in any case would likely be politically impossible to implement.
I suspect what will happen is the current system will be propped up by giving it just enough money to keep it going mixed with quietly and haphazardly cutting standards and depth of provision. Up until we get a decent sized majority government and a relatively brave PM.
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
It still seems to be about name recognition. Mainly the politicians score in order of how famous they are. The only interesting finding is where it can be argued there are two exceptions to that rule, with Ruth Davidson polling better than expected and Michael Gove worse.
Yes but Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary so the name recognition score is less relevant for them, the fact Javid is now 16% ahead of Hunt and 20% ahead of Gove is, same applies to Boris.
Davidson clearly has the broadest appeal
Do we have any data from past changes in leadership of how predictive these kinds of hypothetical questions actually are?
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
It still seems to be about name recognition. Mainly the politicians score in order of how famous they are. The only interesting finding is where it can be argued there are two exceptions to that rule, with Ruth Davidson polling better than expected and Michael Gove worse.
Yes but Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary so the name recognition score is less relevant for them, the fact Javid is now 16% ahead of Hunt and 20% ahead of Gove is, same applies to Boris.
Davidson clearly has the broadest appeal
Name recognition is still relevant because it seems to be that what is being polled, regardless of the question asked. Of course, you could argue that it is a politician's job to increase their name recognition, but that will happen ex officio for the next Prime Minister.
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Sweeties like improved OAP care... Which you support?
Sweeties such as "free" University places which lock Scottish children out of clearing and undermine the financial standing of important Scottish Institutions;
There's some kind of race memory at work here. My parents and grandparents had an automatic, reflexive horror of 'means testing' - an echo from the Depression. They passed it down to us. Given our changed circumstances, benefits need to be a damn sight less universal, particularly for wealthy pensioners. It's not about the absolute amount - the winter fuel allowance 'only' costs £2-3bn p.a. However, we could probably trim overall pensioner benefits by around £1.5-2bn by excluding everyone bar those receiving pension credit.
Whether means testing is good or not depends very much on the circumstances of the benefit you’re handing out, and what proportion of the population would expect to receive it. It won’t save much money if you’re handing something to 90% of the population and making them all fill out forms, whereas if you only want to give the benefit to a third of people it makes sense. Obviously the higher the level of benefit itself, the more there’s a case for means-testing. Something that no-one talks about is that the fact of a means test itself dissuades a number of people who would otherwise be entitled to it, which can be problematic if we’re talking about things like benefits for the vulnerable or disabled. Can save a fortune though.
IMO yes I’d roll WFA into pensions credit, as it would not only reduce the overall bureaucracy but also save a lot of money. My relatively wealthy parents don’t need a Christmas bonus from the government.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Why should people’s adult children have to bear the considerable financial costs of having to pay for their care? You are handing some unlucky people a five figure bill purely by chance. And of course in the modern world, those children could be living on the other side of the world.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
The idea that children should help look after their own elderly parents in a way they did for them when they were younger and helpless isn’t a controversial one in most countries.
But should the principle be a legal imposition? It's easy to think of cases where doing so would seem severely unjust, eg children who were abused by their parents or have been estranged for many years in addition to the geographic separation issue. It gets even messier when you start looking at step-parents, foster parents etc.
And one could also argue that children should not be held responsible for their parents' financial choices.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Why should people’s adult children have to bear the considerable financial costs of having to pay for their care? You are handing some unlucky people a five figure bill purely by chance. And of course in the modern world, those children could be living on the other side of the world.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
My objection is that those same children who have declined that obligation should not benefit to the tune of £1m in inheritances whilst the tax payer picks up the tab. The cost of care is a lottery but I'm afraid that those who need it should contribute post mortem. If the children don't like it they can make other arrangements or take on the care themselves.
I completely agree inheritance tax should be reformed and the rates be far higher, in order to encourage those with considerable assets to pay for their own care rather than pass it onto heirs.
I think the only way forward, now that is issue is so politicised, is to either implement the Dilnot proposals as they are, or a short Royal Commission to report back in 18 months’ time and with prior agreement of all political parties to implement whatever is suggested.
Doing nothing isn’t an option, the problem is going to get a lot worse.
The second option would be a disgraceful abdication of responsibility by politicians and in any case would likely be politically impossible to implement.
I suspect what will happen is the current system will be propped up by giving it just enough money to keep it going mixed with quietly and haphazardly cutting standards and depth of provision. Up until we get a decent sized majority government and a relatively brave PM.
Sadly you may be right. Unlike most people I thought a great deal of Mrs May for having the balls to put that proposal in the manifesto. Sadly the way it was presented was terrible and allowed the subject to be defied pejoratively by political opponents before it could be sold by the Conservatives.
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
The format of those surveys is pretty bizarre, asking who you think will win not who you will vote for. Certainly the Guardian should not do what they did in their headline, that imply they are measures of voting intention.
With alternative Conservative leaders: Johnson: Level pegging in VI (38 to 38) Ress-Mogg: Tories 5% behind (35 to 40) Gove: Tories 10% behind (30 to 40) Javid: Tories 11% behind (29 to 40) Hunt: Tories 12% behind (29 to 41)
That gives a very different picture regarding Johnson's appeal.
The idea that children should help look after their own elderly parents in a way they did for them when they were younger and helpless isn’t a controversial one in most countries.
But should the principle be a legal imposition? It's easy to think of cases where doing so would seem severely unjust, eg children who were abused by their parents or have been estranged for many years in addition to the geographic separation issue. It gets even messier when you start looking at step-parents, foster parents etc.
And one could also argue that children should not be held responsible for their parents' financial choices.
It depends if they benefitted from the bank of mum and dad.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
Try reading my posts again and the nuances within them.
It’s the overtaxing of the taxpayer when those who have assets could partly or wholly support themselves that I object to. Not that the elderly should just be left to rot.
Please don’t go all reducto ad absurdium because that prevents a sensible debate.
‘Irrelevant waste’. Very nuanced!
Fundamentally, I think your grievance that working age taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden is misguided. Most pensioners have significantly lower incomes than working age people, so the burden will always fall on workers. It’s true that some pensioners get to hand over their house to their offspring and get the social care from the State, but against that we levy one of the highest rates of inheritance tax in the OECD.
This argument fails now that most houses are excluded form IHT altogether.
As for incomes, the stats show that actually pensioners now have a higher average income than working age people. And that is before you take into account that pensioners probably don't have housing costs (likely either paid off mortgage or receiving housing benefit), don't have commuting costs, get free goodies like WFA, TV License and the bus pass and are exempt from NI.
At the very least, pensioners should pay NI - perhaps at a higher starting threshold than working age
I think the only way forward, now that is issue is so politicised, is to either implement the Dilnot proposals as they are, or a short Royal Commission to report back in 18 months’ time and with prior agreement of all political parties to implement whatever is suggested.
Doing nothing isn’t an option, the problem is going to get a lot worse.
The second option would be a disgraceful abdication of responsibility by politicians and in any case would likely be politically impossible to implement.
I suspect what will happen is the current system will be propped up by giving it just enough money to keep it going mixed with quietly and haphazardly cutting standards and depth of provision. Up until we get a decent sized majority government and a relatively brave PM.
Sadly you may be right. Unlike most people I thought a great deal of Mrs May for having the balls to put that proposal in the manifesto. Sadly the way it was presented was terrible and allowed the subject to be defied pejoratively by political opponents before it could be sold by the Conservatives.
Charities and newspapers, iirc, not the other parties, coined the dementia tax name.
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
It still seems to be about name recognition. Mainly the politicians score in order of how famous they are. The only interesting finding is where it can be argued there are two exceptions to that rule, with Ruth Davidson polling better than expected and Michael Gove worse.
Yes but Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary so the name recognition score is less relevant for them, the fact Javid is now 16% ahead of Hunt and 20% ahead of Gove is, same applies to Boris.
Davidson clearly has the broadest appeal
Do we have any data from past changes in leadership of how predictive these kinds of hypothetical questions actually are?
Yes, Major polled best in 1990 v Kinnock and Cameron polled best v Blair and Brown in 2005. Clarke polled best in 1997 and 2001.
For Labour Blair polled best in 1994, Brown in 2007, David Miliband in 2010 and Burnham in 2015
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Why should people’s adult children have to bear the considerable financial costs of having to pay for their care? You are handing some unlucky people a five figure bill purely by chance. And of course in the modern world, those children could be living on the other side of the world.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
Given the policy options under debate, the funding in question is loss of a potential inheritance, not an obligation on the children to pay from their own resources. It is entirely reasonable that someone with significant means should contribute towards their own care costs, provided that people with no means are looked after to a satisfactory level.
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
The format of those surveys is pretty bizarre, asking who you think will win not who you will vote for. Certainly the Guardian should not do what they did in their headline, that imply they are measures of voting intention.
With alternative Conservative leaders: Johnson: Level pegging in VI (38 to 38) Ress-Mogg: Tories 5% behind (35 to 40) Gove: Tories 10% behind (30 to 40) Javid: Tories 11% behind (29 to 40) Hunt: Tories 12% behind (29 to 41)
That gives a very different picture regarding Johnson's appeal.
Wasn’t that also before he made a prize prat of himself a couple of weeks ago?
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
The format of those surveys is pretty bizarre, asking who you think will win not who you will vote for. Certainly the Guardian should not do what they did in their headline, that imply they are measures of voting intention.
With alternative Conservative leaders: Johnson: Level pegging in VI (38 to 38) Ress-Mogg: Tories 5% behind (35 to 40) Gove: Tories 10% behind (30 to 40) Javid: Tories 11% behind (29 to 40) Hunt: Tories 12% behind (29 to 41)
That gives a very different picture regarding Johnson's appeal.
I think the only way forward, now that is issue is so politicised, is to either implement the Dilnot proposals as they are, or a short Royal Commission to report back in 18 months’ time and with prior agreement of all political parties to implement whatever is suggested.
Doing nothing isn’t an option, the problem is going to get a lot worse.
The second option would be a disgraceful abdication of responsibility by politicians and in any case would likely be politically impossible to implement.
I suspect what will happen is the current system will be propped up by giving it just enough money to keep it going mixed with quietly and haphazardly cutting standards and depth of provision. Up until we get a decent sized majority government and a relatively brave PM.
Sadly you may be right. Unlike most people I thought a great deal of Mrs May for having the balls to put that proposal in the manifesto. Sadly the way it was presented was terrible and allowed the subject to be defied pejoratively by political opponents before it could be sold by the Conservatives.
Charities and newspapers, iirc, not the other parties, coined the dementia tax name.
Caroline Lucas was the first to use it, followed by Yvette Cooper I think.
Do we have any data from past changes in leadership of how predictive these kinds of hypothetical questions actually are?
I believe there was plenty of polling evidence that Gordon Brown would be a great choice as leader...
Indeed. But then in 2007, the public had seen 10 years of Brown as Chancellor and another five as Shadow Chancellor - he'd been a very high-profile front-bencher for a long time. I don't think the same can be said of Javid, or even Gove or Hunt, whose public personas have been framed as much by extra-Westminster opponents as by their own actions. That's not to say that there isn't some relevance to the figures but I'd take them as only one piece of the picture. I wonder, for example, how many people are aware of Gove's hand in the government's much more active environmental policy? Or of his (brief) record at Justice?
Though Boris and Javid on -18% each on Tories more likely to win under than Mogg on -19% and far better than Hunt on -34% and Gove on -38%. Tories by +8% net think the party would do better under Boris
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
It still seems to be about name recognition. Mainly the politicians score in order of how famous they are. The only interesting finding is where it can be argued there are two exceptions to that rule, with Ruth Davidson polling better than expected and Michael Gove worse.
Yes but Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary so the name recognition score is less relevant for them, the fact Javid is now 16% ahead of Hunt and 20% ahead of Gove is, same applies to Boris.
Davidson clearly has the broadest appeal
Tough call for the Tories: get Davidson in as an MP with a friendly retirment, but risk losing a raft of seats of Scotland. (Although maybe they would keep the appeal in Scotland if she was the Tory leader?)
A Davidson leader/Javid deputy could - on paper - be an appealing double act. Probably touches more bases overall than Boris. (Still worry that Javid as leader could be terminally dull....)
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
OTOH, East Sussex faces a similar budget crisis not if its making and it seems absurd well-run authorities are facing the same hard decisions but is it not a consequence of the continuation of the absurdity of two-tier local Government? Dorset is disappearing next year as is Northants but how long can the likes of Surrey, East and West Sussex and others resist the pull towards unitary status?
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
What we are seeing in local government very much confirms my view that the austerity policies implemented by the Coalition government were seriously unbalanced in terms of the emphasis given to public expenditure cuts rather than increases in taxation. I know the LibDems like to claim credit for the significant increase in Personal Allowances implemented during that period , but frankly it was entirely inappropriate to have done that at a time of fiscal stringency.Whilst it was less reprehensible than reducing the standard rate of Income Tax , it should in no way have been a policy priority in those circumstances.
What we are seeing in local government very much confirms my view that the austerity policies implemented by the Coalition government were seriously unbalanced in terms of the emphasis given to public expenditure cuts rather than increases in taxation. I know the LibDems like to claim credit for the significant increase in Personal Allowances implemented during that period , but frankly it was entirely inappropriate to have done that at a time of fiscal stringency.Whilst it was less reprehensible than reducing the standard rate of Income Tax , it should in no way have been a policy priority in those circumstances.
This argument fails now that most houses are excluded form IHT altogether.
As for incomes, the stats show that actually pensioners now have a higher average income than working age people. And that is before you take into account that pensioners probably don't have housing costs (likely either paid off mortgage or receiving housing benefit), don't have commuting costs, get free goodies like WFA, TV License and the bus pass and are exempt from NI.
At the very least, pensioners should pay NI - perhaps at a higher starting threshold than working age
Pensioners with incomes equivalent to the national average pay 20% income tax.
Working people in their 30s with incomes equivalent to the national average pay 20% income tax plus 12% NI plus from next year at least 4% towards their workplace pension (or most likely more than that in reality) plus most likely 9% for 30 years as a tax on their higher education (or if you like a student loan that will never be repaid). So that's at least 45% of deductions or more.
And as you say pensioners have the lowest housing and general living costs with a range of freebies, whereas someone in their 30s will be up to their hilt with mortgage or rental payments.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
I think it works both ways.
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Why should people’s adult children have to bear the considerable financial costs of having to pay for their care? You are handing some unlucky people a five figure bill purely by chance. And of course in the modern world, those children could be living on the other side of the world.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
I completely agree inheritance tax should be reformed and the rates be far higher, in order to encourage those with considerable assets to pay for their own care rather than pass it onto heirs.
Perhaps we could arrange matters so that care costs were a charge on a person's estate? This caters for a very common situation where one partner goes into care. Selling the other's home to pay for care costs would be onerous. Naturally, edge cases will abound, but we do need to deal with this issue.
Comments
The Commission also notes that Labour raised £10m more than the Tories last year.
It’s very easy to say the elderly should paddle their own canoes, but the vast costs involved and the unpredictability of demand at the individual level mean that a large role for the State is inevitable and justified.
Perhaps they feel like that, but in truth the fact that the likes of West Bridgford are not part of the city is ludicrous – people are happy to use the neighbouring city centre for shopping and work, it's a functioning part of the same whole.
https://twitter.com/ncpoliticsuk/status/1032222741016002560?s=21
Older people are responsible to look after and provide themselves as best they can from their own resources. And I think their adult children, in particular, should do what they can to look after and support their parents in the final 2-3 years of their life, which (guilt aside) is usually what the parents would prefer anyway.
There are some who’d think that point of view is me being selfish. But I actually think it’s the other way round.
Trickier in GP though.
What? Too soon?
In such a situation, you almost have to change the specifics of what was voted on in order to get any movement: "Leave", in that situation, wouldn't be the Leave they thought they'd chosen and thus there's no "we were wrong" element.
The rightness or wrongness of such a move is indeed beside this specific question; if the Governments of the future ignored the issues raised, they'd be toast.
None of these improve our economic competitiveness and each puts burdens on the general taxpayer instead of those gaining from the service that they are using. The concept of "free" is one that the Scottish government turns to again and again. They find it irresistible. I accept it is political catnip but it is not addressing let alone solving our problems.
I agree with Casino that the family *should* rally round - I looked after my bedridden mother for a year: it wasn't easy for various reasons but we made it work. But some people don't have families, or families willing to do it. I've little sympathy for the idea that protecting their inheritance is more important than decent care.
Not all care situations are awful, of course. My uncle is in care in Penzance and really seems happier than when he was alone.
My view is that it’s the responsibility of the individual to plan and prepare for that from their own resources as best they can, without making a call on the state. Any inheritance at the end is a bonus.
Yes, life isn’t always fair, and you get a rum deal, but as long as you can maintain independent living from your own resources I don’t see why (above a reasonable floor) it should be the obligation of others to step in.
It’s the overtaxing of the taxpayer when those who have assets could partly or wholly support themselves that I object to. Not that the elderly should just be left to rot.
Please don’t go all reducto ad absurdium because that prevents a sensible debate.
Surely one of the main purposes of government is to protect people from hardship caused by circumstances beyond their control (and conversely, ensure the gains who have gained wealth by good fortune are shared)
One way to find out...
Davidson does best on -7% but still worse on a net basis than under May
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/22/tories-leadership-may-johnson-rees-mogg-icm-poll
If she can pull off that feat, she is bound to go down in history as one of the greatest prime ministers of our time and the epitome of the authentic brand of conservatism — prudent, cautious and incremental — championed by the great British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott.
This cautious disposition stands in sharp contrast to the zero-sum zeal endemic to self-styled conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. More importantly, it serves as a reminder of what democratic politics is supposed to be like: the art of forging compromises that most people can live with (sometimes unenthusiastically). The Western world could do a whole lot worse than to emulate that approach.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/08/20/why-theresa-may-is-a-great-prime-minister/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.711e8dd94766
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/27/poor-scots-squeezed-out-of-university-by-snp-cap-on-places/
Fundamentally, I think your grievance that working age taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden is misguided. Most pensioners have significantly lower incomes than working age people, so the burden will always fall on workers. It’s true that some pensioners get to hand over their house to their offspring and get the social care from the State, but against that we levy one of the highest rates of inheritance tax in the OECD.
I think a sensible reform would be to unify income tax and NI so that pensioners have the same all-in tax rates as those working. Most pensioners wouldn’t be affected because their incomes would be too low, so it’s not a silver bullet.
' The concept of “free” '
Nice generalisation of the idea of a free lunch, and not even qualified by “at the point of use”.
Doing nothing isn’t an option, the problem is going to get a lot worse.
The coverage glossed over one of the most striking parts of Sajid’s letter – the revelation that half of the 164 Windrush removals and detentions began under Labour between 2002 and 2010 – when David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith, and Alan Johnson were Home Secretaries. Amelia Gentlemen, who often writes Guardian stories which are flattering to Yvette Cooper, neglects to report this part of the story. Will Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott be personally apologising on behalf of the Labour Party for their historic policy towards the Windrush generation?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/22/labour-responsible-half-windrush-removals/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Thanks to Osborne of course estates over £1 million are immune from inheritance tax
Davidson clearly has the broadest appeal
I suspect what will happen is the current system will be propped up by giving it just enough money to keep it going mixed with quietly and haphazardly cutting standards and depth of provision. Up until we get a decent sized majority government and a relatively brave PM.
IMO yes I’d roll WFA into pensions credit, as it would not only reduce the overall bureaucracy but also save a lot of money. My relatively wealthy parents don’t need a Christmas bonus from the government.
And one could also argue that children should not be held responsible for their parents' financial choices.
What matters is voting intention under scenarios with different leaders.
YouGov did that a month ago.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/vxuhlu27eg/SundayTimesResults_180720_for_web.pdf
The default position was that the Tories were 1% behind Labour in a May v Corbyn match up (38 to 39).
With alternative Conservative leaders:
Johnson: Level pegging in VI (38 to 38)
Ress-Mogg: Tories 5% behind (35 to 40)
Gove: Tories 10% behind (30 to 40)
Javid: Tories 11% behind (29 to 40)
Hunt: Tories 12% behind (29 to 41)
That gives a very different picture regarding Johnson's appeal.
As for incomes, the stats show that actually pensioners now have a higher average income than working age people. And that is before you take into account that pensioners probably don't have housing costs (likely either paid off mortgage or receiving housing benefit), don't have commuting costs, get free goodies like WFA, TV License and the bus pass and are exempt from NI.
At the very least, pensioners should pay NI - perhaps at a higher starting threshold than working age
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1032161635375480832
For Labour Blair polled best in 1994, Brown in 2007, David Miliband in 2010 and Burnham in 2015
Just one story on the breakfast news programmes this morning...
MSNBC enjoying themselves.
A Davidson leader/Javid deputy could - on paper - be an appealing double act. Probably touches more bases overall than Boris. (Still worry that Javid as leader could be terminally dull....)
Working people in their 30s with incomes equivalent to the national average pay 20% income tax plus 12% NI plus from next year at least 4% towards their workplace pension (or most likely more than that in reality) plus most likely 9% for 30 years as a tax on their higher education (or if you like a student loan that will never be repaid). So that's at least 45% of deductions or more.
And as you say pensioners have the lowest housing and general living costs with a range of freebies, whereas someone in their 30s will be up to their hilt with mortgage or rental payments.
It has become a huge generational divide.
And she's too remainy for the gammon horde to select her in the membership vote.