Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Absolutely. Where the hell are the Tories of tomorrow going to come from?
One thing I've seen is forty year mortgages.
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
I am self employed so we don't have a retirement age. Sheriffs and Judges have to retire at 75 now, used to be 70.
I can't actually imagine being useful or worth my fee at that age, not always sure I am now to be honest. Certainly not as quick as I was 20 years ago. But I am experienced and have seen most things before, some of them I can even remember.
What is pissing me off just a tad as it gets nearer is that there will be no leisurely retirement with fancy cruises etc. I will work until I am too ill to work and then have a short time with poor health before I cop it. That's the way its going to be. It doesn't seem very fair but them I am a boring prat with few hobbies and at least I will never have to take up golf.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
How do you get 2%? Just wondering - employer as well, or in disposable income terms?
Employer as well, since employers will factor it into pay reviews.
In disposable income terms its really 3% of take home pay lost.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Absolutely. Where the hell are the Tories of tomorrow going to come from?
One thing I've seen is forty year mortgages.
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
How about less inflation of prices by the Government by demand side subsidies?
Anyhoo, not sure about this "where are the first time buyers" stuff. Like the claims about people buying homes very very much later in life, it seems to have elements of a folk-myth about it.
The number of FTBs doubled in the last 10 years or so. I'd be interested to see the numbers from 2000-2010.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
Ha! Money purchase schemes are a crock of shite. I know, I used to work in that business. Even twenty years ago, the amount of money you had to shovel into them to get any kind of decent return was so much that no-one not already in receipt of a handsome salary could afford the cost, and sustain any decent standard of living off of what was left. And things have got considerably worse since then, life expectancy having lengthened and annuity rates having been further depressed in direct consequence.
At a guess, I'd say Government will eventually be forced to start rapidly increasing the state retirement age to avert the ultimate collapse of the system. As a man in his mid 40s, I reckon I'll end up not receiving my state handout until my early 70s, though I'm in one of the last surviving private sector defined benefit pension schemes so I might be very fortunate and find myself able to throw in the towel at 65. Today's young, save for those in high flying careers, heirs of very rich families, and the odd Lotto winner, are going to be flogged until they drop down dead of exhaustion.
It’s just a reversion to the historical (pre-1945) norm.
Basically, the boomers engineered politics to award themselves a one-off bounty, to be able to not work for last two-to-three decades of their life.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
LOL
The good news is that without having any of these financial resources I managed to buy my first property in my early 20s (not sure I have ever mentioned 15% rate on here) and progressed to a huge detached house* in London fully paid of by me and me alone by 40.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Absolutely. Where the hell are the Tories of tomorrow going to come from?
One thing I've seen is forty year mortgages.
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
I am self employed so we don't have a retirement age. Sheriffs and Judges have to retire at 75 now, used to be 70.
I can't actually imagine being useful or worth my fee at that age, not always sure I am now to be honest. Certainly not as quick as I was 20 years ago. But I am experienced and have seen most things before, some of them I can even remember.
What is pissing me off just a tad as it gets nearer is that there will be no leisurely retirement with fancy cruises etc. I will work until I am too ill to work and then have a short time with poor health before I cop it. That's the way its going to be. It doesn't seem very fair but them I am a boring prat with few hobbies and at least I will never have to take up golf.
Would you not charge less once you get slightly less effective/quick due to being older? The benefit of 30+ years of experience at a slightly more leisurely pace.
The Conservatives also need to opposed the financial abuse of encouraging teenagers to get tens of thousands in debt before they know hat they want to do with their lives or have experienced the world of work.
It really does show how totally dysfunctional America is that elected Representatives are trying to frustrate an investigation of a coup attempt by a defeated President, and that there is a realistic chance of him being re-elected.
It's the sort of thing that used to happen in Latin America or Africa, and not in an established democracy.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Absolutely. Where the hell are the Tories of tomorrow going to come from?
One thing I've seen is forty year mortgages.
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
How about less inflation of prices by the Government?
Anyhoo, not sure about this "where are the first time buyers" stuff. Like the claims about people buying homes very very much later in life, it seems to have elements of a folk-myth about it.
The number of FTBs doubled in the last 10 years or so. I'd be interested to see the numbers from 2000-2010.
Beware baselines, 2009 was during the downturn post-financial crisis.
But yes first time purchases did improve in the past decade led by new construction and policies like help to buy. But not by enough to reverse the decline that had occurred over the prior decade.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
Ha! Money purchase schemes are a crock of shite. I know, I used to work in that business. Even twenty years ago, the amount of money you had to shovel into them to get any kind of decent return was so much that no-one not already in receipt of a handsome salary could afford the cost, and sustain any decent standard of living off of what was left. And things have got considerably worse since then, life expectancy having lengthened and annuity rates having been further depressed in direct consequence.
At a guess, I'd say Government will eventually be forced to start rapidly increasing the state retirement age to avert the ultimate collapse of the system. As a man in his mid 40s, I reckon I'll end up not receiving my state handout until my early 70s, though I'm in one of the last surviving private sector defined benefit pension schemes so I might be very fortunate and find myself able to throw in the towel at 65. Today's young, save for those in high flying careers, heirs of very rich families, and the odd Lotto winner, are going to be flogged until they drop down dead of exhaustion.
Depends how much you want to live on, if you own your own home by your mid 60s you only really need to pay for the basics and a few luxuries, transport costs are not that high either with no commute and a bus pass. Without private occupational pensions topping up state pensions the situation would be even more difficult.
It is also not possible to do physically demanding work much beyond your mid 60s
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Absolutely. Where the hell are the Tories of tomorrow going to come from?
One thing I've seen is forty year mortgages.
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
I am self employed so we don't have a retirement age. Sheriffs and Judges have to retire at 75 now, used to be 70.
I can't actually imagine being useful or worth my fee at that age, not always sure I am now to be honest. Certainly not as quick as I was 20 years ago. But I am experienced and have seen most things before, some of them I can even remember.
What is pissing me off just a tad as it gets nearer is that there will be no leisurely retirement with fancy cruises etc. I will work until I am too ill to work and then have a short time with poor health before I cop it. That's the way its going to be. It doesn't seem very fair but them I am a boring prat with few hobbies and at least I will never have to take up golf.
Would you not charge less once you get slightly less effective/quick due to being older? The benefit of 30+ years of experience at a slightly more leisurely pace.
Weirdly, it tends to work in reverse. I may well take silk and become a QC. My grey/white hair seems to justify a better fee than being a sharp young whippersnapper.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Absolutely. Where the hell are the Tories of tomorrow going to come from?
One thing I've seen is forty year mortgages.
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
I am self employed so we don't have a retirement age. Sheriffs and Judges have to retire at 75 now, used to be 70.
I can't actually imagine being useful or worth my fee at that age, not always sure I am now to be honest. Certainly not as quick as I was 20 years ago. But I am experienced and have seen most things before, some of them I can even remember.
What is pissing me off just a tad as it gets nearer is that there will be no leisurely retirement with fancy cruises etc. I will work until I am too ill to work and then have a short time with poor health before I cop it. That's the way its going to be. It doesn't seem very fair but them I am a boring prat with few hobbies and at least I will never have to take up golf.
It is a nightmare, I feel incredibly guilty amongst my peers that I'm looking at retiring in the next decade, in my early 50s (I probably won't, but it is nice to that option.)
I consider myself incredibly fortunate that I've not had rent or a mortgage to pay since 2007, nor have I had to pay childcare costs for the last decade thanks to my parents providing a 168 hrs a week of free childcare. Childcare costs are also another evil in the economy that stops people getting on the property ladder.
I realise how lucky I've been on the financial front, I think being raised by a mother who viewed debt, aside from mortgages, as the eighth deadliest sin helped.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Absolutely. Where the hell are the Tories of tomorrow going to come from?
One thing I've seen is forty year mortgages.
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
How about less inflation of prices by the Government?
Anyhoo, not sure about this "where are the first time buyers" stuff. Like the claims about people buying homes very very much later in life, it seems to have elements of a folk-myth about it.
The number of FTBs doubled in the last 10 years or so. I'd be interested to see the numbers from 2000-2010.
Beware baselines, 2009 was during the downturn post-financial crisis.
But yes first time purchases did improve in the past decade led by new construction and policies like help to buy. But not by enough to reverse the decline that had occurred over the prior decade.
As I said - I would like the numbers for the context.
If you have them to underpin your statement, that would be great.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
LOL
The good news is that without having any of these financial resources I managed to buy my first property in my early 20s (not sure I have ever mentioned 15% rate on here) and progressed to a huge detached house* in London fully paid of by me and me alone by 40.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
Ha! Money purchase schemes are a crock of shite. I know, I used to work in that business. Even twenty years ago, the amount of money you had to shovel into them to get any kind of decent return was so much that no-one not already in receipt of a handsome salary could afford the cost, and sustain any decent standard of living off of what was left. And things have got considerably worse since then, life expectancy having lengthened and annuity rates having been further depressed in direct consequence.
At a guess, I'd say Government will eventually be forced to start rapidly increasing the state retirement age to avert the ultimate collapse of the system. As a man in his mid 40s, I reckon I'll end up not receiving my state handout until my early 70s, though I'm in one of the last surviving private sector defined benefit pension schemes so I might be very fortunate and find myself able to throw in the towel at 65. Today's young, save for those in high flying careers, heirs of very rich families, and the odd Lotto winner, are going to be flogged until they drop down dead of exhaustion.
Depends how much you want to live on, if you own your own home by your mid 60s you only really need to pay for the basics and a few luxuries, transport costs are not that high either with no commute and a bus pass. Without private occupational pensions topping up state pensions the situation would be even more difficult.
It is also not possible to do physically demanding work much beyond your mid 60s
Your last sentence is crass
I was able to do physically demanding work into my seventies
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
Ha! Money purchase schemes are a crock of shite. I know, I used to work in that business. Even twenty years ago, the amount of money you had to shovel into them to get any kind of decent return was so much that no-one not already in receipt of a handsome salary could afford the cost, and sustain any decent standard of living off of what was left. And things have got considerably worse since then, life expectancy having lengthened and annuity rates having been further depressed in direct consequence.
At a guess, I'd say Government will eventually be forced to start rapidly increasing the state retirement age to avert the ultimate collapse of the system. As a man in his mid 40s, I reckon I'll end up not receiving my state handout until my early 70s, though I'm in one of the last surviving private sector defined benefit pension schemes so I might be very fortunate and find myself able to throw in the towel at 65. Today's young, save for those in high flying careers, heirs of very rich families, and the odd Lotto winner, are going to be flogged until they drop down dead of exhaustion.
Depends how much you want to live on, if you own your own home by your mid 60s you only really need to pay for the basics and a few luxuries, transport costs are not that high either with no commute and a bus pass. Without private occupational pensions topping up state pensions the situation would be even more difficult.
It is also not possible to do physically demanding work much beyond your mid 60s
Your last sentence is crass
I was able to do physically demanding work into my seventies
You cannot be a labourer, construction worker, be an on the beat policeman or soldier or work heavy machinery in a factory effectively to the level required in your 70s. It is simply not physically possible.
Plus in terms of middle class professional work your memory and cognitive skills start to decline in due course too, see Biden, even if you can do it a few years longer
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
LOL
The good news is that without having any of these financial resources I managed to buy my first property in my early 20s (not sure I have ever mentioned 15% rate on here) and progressed to a huge detached house* in London fully paid of by me and me alone by 40.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
FPT - Tip. If anyone recommends you should read Robin Diangelo, Afua Hirsch, Renni Eddo-Lodge, Akala, or June Sarpong your antenna should immediately go up. It's a massive warning sign.
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.
Ignorance is Strength.
All of those are worth reading, or at least the 2/3 on both lists that I have read. I have also read the works of a number of white supremacists (after all, such views were commonplace and mainstream in my lifetime) and of libertarian and free market theorists. It is useful to read works you disagree with. It helps shape your own arguments and sharpens your thinking, and occasionally completely changes your opinion of something.
A key point imo. People often rail against new thinking - esp if it sounds a little bit "round glasses and hairy armpits" - but they also often apply the wrong test. No theory in the sociological or political or economic sphere explains the world or gets anywhere close. The test is whether it provides insights of value. Eg Marxism, Monetarism, these do, despite being at odds. Ditto for Woke thinking. Does it explain even a small fraction of what goes on in life? No. But does it add to our understanding? Yes it does.
There is a also the problem of people ignoring the "old thinking" on the basis that "I know what that was, even without actually knowing what it was".
I gave a historian some plus once, when I shared some stuff from a biography of General Groves. The academic thinking on the Manhattan project was shaped by the scientists. His astonishment at the actual quotes and actions by Groves was fascinating - this was an expert in the area.
You will need to elaborate a little for me to pocket the value here.
For example, Groves, in written records at the time, stated that he recruited Oppenheimer to lead the project, despite the known issue of his brother being half way to being a Soviet agent... because he was quite sure they could manage the security issue, since Oppenheimer as head of the project would be under non-stop surveillance/guard, and that Oppie was vital to the project....
Additionally, it was far better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than running round as an embittered exile...
Because he (Oppenheimer) was totally driven to be the creator of the first atomic bomb - he would (according to Groves in 1942) express horror and revulsion afterwards, but he was seeking both fame and, due to an interesting personality, would seek the combined fame/blame. And the blame was almost as important to Oppenheimer as the fame...
It was a devastatingly accurate and rather funny sketch of Oppenheimer and showed Groves to be a long way from the thuggish idiot that the scientists liked to claim latter.
Ah ok, yes, so what you're saying is right wingers from the past sometimes get trendily demonized when the truth is more complex. Yep, I think that's a good and relevant point. Such people can become mere vessels for an outpouring of performative disapproval from the bean peasants. A great example is Nick Clegg. What an unfairly maligned politician. Also HYUFD, although he is not a figure from the past. He's with us here today. Very much so.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
Socialist? Anyone who doesn't own their own home gets squat from this but more taxes. The proposal is to increase the taxes on the poorest in society in order to protect the inheritances of the wealthiest in society. That is the complete polar opposite of socialist. It is robbing the poorest, to protect the inheritances of the richest.
And your maths are atrocious. 2% of (£30,000 - £9,594) is £408 per annum. For a couple earning that each it is £808 per annum.
For a couple earning £35k each it is £1,000 per annum between employees and employers NI (and yes employers NI comes from the wage budget and drops wages accordingly).
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
All sensible parents in Surrey (as in Chesterfield) will already have their houses in Trust so cannot be touched by the Social Care provider.
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
That's more like it! A decent loco at last. Split headcode boxes and the little Scottie on it. Not bad looking in BR blue with yellow cabs, either. Sadly cut up over 30 years ago.
The foundations of civil life and morality is a belief in the principle of universalizability. If it's wrong for [a] to do it, then it's wrong for [b].
If it was left wing supporters of Hilary Clinton invading the Capitol in 2016, would they have deserved to go to prison?
My answer to this, by the way, is yes. It doesn't matter who you are, you don't get to engage in criminal trespass.
But this view that "my side is in the right, therefore anything I do for my side is right" is incredibly corrosive to civil society. America needs a great leader to stand up and say this. I don't see one right now.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
LOL
The good news is that without having any of these financial resources I managed to buy my first property in my early 20s (not sure I have ever mentioned 15% rate on here) and progressed to a huge detached house* in London fully paid of by me and me alone by 40.
I would imagine however you were on significantly more than the average salary to be able to do so, certainly if you bought a detached house in London
Correct
So this argument only really applies to average earners whether in London or elsewhere, high earners can generally buy at least a flat or 1 or 2 bed house anywhere as a starter home.
It is average earners who decide elections, not high earners
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
1% is not equal to 3% no matter how many times you say it.
If you cant afford an extra £200 a year perhaps you should employ an accountant to look at your finances.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Mulling over the potato peeling, which I have just finished, it occurs to me that the current proposals are along the lines of an insurance scheme.
A and B and C and ... all have to pay 1% on their gross salary, so they can avoid the 10% chance of losing out on their inheritance from mum and dad.
Of course, tough if there is no mum and dad, or they live in social housing.
And, of course, it is tough on A who is a Geordie, and who is charged the same price as B, who lives in, say, Epping and whose M&d's house is worth maybe 2-3X A's M&d's house.
The same applies when it comes to A and B's own old age and leaving houses to their children.
You couldn't sell it as a rational proposal. So what am I missing?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Looking at the matter dispassionately, you could always reason that it is worth voting Tory because they'll probably put up taxes by less than Labour would?
Since Government can't fund its spiralling costs entirely through issuing new debt forever, taxes are going up. The only question is which taxes and by how much.
That's more like it! A decent loco at last. Split headcode boxes and the little Scottie on it. Not bad looking in BR blue with yellow cabs, either. Sadly cut up over 30 years ago.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
1% is not equal to 3% no matter how many times you say it.
If you cant afford an extra £200 a year perhaps you should employ an accountant to look at your finances.
You really are a champagne socialist. I don't have an accountant, I manage my own finances.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Then you get a labour govt or coalition that will do the same,
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
I know Boris has now enacted most of Corbyns 2017 Manifesto already but there are still one or two things left.
I think i might vote for him in 2024 now i have resigned my Labour membership
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
LOL
The good news is that without having any of these financial resources I managed to buy my first property in my early 20s (not sure I have ever mentioned 15% rate on here) and progressed to a huge detached house* in London fully paid of by me and me alone by 40.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Looking at the matter dispassionately, you could always reason that it is worth voting Tory because they'll probably put up taxes by less than Labour would?
Since Government can't fund its spiralling costs entirely through issuing new debt forever, taxes are going up. The only question is which taxes and by how much.
No, if the Tories are putting up taxes in order to featherbed the inheritances of the wealthiest then that is not funding that needs to occur. I believe in a party of aspiration where you can work hard to provide for yourself, not a party that wants to tax people in order to redistribute that money to others to stop them losing their inheritance because the money's been spent.
If the party is no longer the party of low tax, then they deserve to lose. Screw the Tories, if they put my taxes up then I hope they lose.
PS no doubt I'll still be accused of working for CCHQ in the future though. Despite writing that.
The foundations of civil life and morality is a belief in the principle of universalizability. If it's wrong for [a] to do it, then it's wrong for [b].
If it was left wing supporters of Hilary Clinton invading the Capitol in 2016, would they have deserved to go to prison?
My answer to this, by the way, is yes. It doesn't matter who you are, you don't get to engage in criminal trespass.
But this view that "my side is in the right, therefore anything I do for my side is right" is incredibly corrosive to civil society. America needs a great leader to stand up and say this. I don't see one right now.
To stand up and say it AND get elected is the challenge.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Then you get a labour govt or coalition that will do the same,
At least the Tories learn not to break their promises and a new leader doesn't make the same mistake again next time they win.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
LOL
The good news is that without having any of these financial resources I managed to buy my first property in my early 20s (not sure I have ever mentioned 15% rate on here) and progressed to a huge detached house* in London fully paid of by me and me alone by 40.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
It is reality and truth, you are far more likely to be able to make a significant contribution to a deposit to buy a property via an inheritance from a grandparent than avoiding a 1% NI rise if you are only on an average income
It's going to be even harder to raise a deposit if you're paying more tax and thus have less disposable income.
Remember a reasonable percentage of young people are already paying a higher tax rate due to the repayment of student loads.
All this policy does is increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.
1% NI may not seem much but that is of gross salary, and by the time the rest of the NI and income tax and rent have come off, it is quite a significant chunk of the rest.
As I recall when I was young and paying off a (by modern standards almost trivial) overdraft for my student days (havign studied rather than worked in most vacs), an even very small increase in salary by way of career progression had an amazing effect on my finances: suddenly I was actually saving money and soon had a deposit for my house.
The biggest payrise I ever had was from £23,000 to £28,000/year. My disposable income increased about four-fold, and I went from worrying about making it to the end of the month to having enough money to go out pretty much whenever I wanted.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Boris' 1% NI rise will lose far fewer votes than May's dementia tax did, if a few liberals like you move to your natural home in the LDs because you want a wealth tax or to take peoples' inheritance away all to the good, it will make the Tories purer with genuine conservatives anyway
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
All sensible parents in Surrey (as in Chesterfield) will already have their houses in Trust so cannot be touched by the Social Care provider.
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
NHS/NCS socialism in action
If your house is in trust you don't benefit from the £1m IHT threshold for one so you've lost £250k of potential tax-free benefit immediately.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Boris' 1% NI rise will lose far fewer votes than May's dementia tax did, if a few liberals like you move to your natural home in the LDs because you want a wealth tax or to take peoples' inheritance away all to the good, it will make the Tories purer with genuine conservatives anyway
I don't want to take people's inheritance away.
If people spend their money while they're alive so there is no inheritance then that's their choice.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
All sensible parents in Surrey (as in Chesterfield) will already have their houses in Trust so cannot be touched by the Social Care provider.
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
NHS/NCS socialism in action
If your house is in trust you don't benefit from the £1m IHT threshold for one so you've lost £250k of potential tax-free benefit immediately.
Also, local authorities will accuse you of deliberately disinvesting your property and charge you anyway as if you still owned the house.
That's more like it! A decent loco at last. Split headcode boxes and the little Scottie on it. Not bad looking in BR blue with yellow cabs, either. Sadly cut up over 30 years ago.
Where is that? Crinalarich? Tyndrum?
The only place I can think of with mountains like that in the background, and that sort of infrastructure, would be Fort Bill.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
A genuine conservative doesn't believe in the state subsidising social care for the rich at the expense of the poor. Nobody is entitled to an inheritance.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Boris' 1% NI rise will lose far fewer votes than May's dementia tax did, if a few liberals like you move to your natural home in the LDs because you want a wealth tax or to take peoples' inheritance away all to the good, it will make the Tories purer with genuine conservatives anyway
I don't want to take people's inheritance away.
If people spend their money while they're alive so there is no inheritance then that's their choice.
It is taking peoples' homes away that is the issue, peoples' savings excluding their home are already liable for personal care at home
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
All sensible parents in Surrey (as in Chesterfield) will already have their houses in Trust so cannot be touched by the Social Care provider.
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
NHS/NCS socialism in action
If your house is in trust you don't benefit from the £1m IHT threshold for one so you've lost £250k of potential tax-free benefit immediately.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Then you get a labour govt or coalition that will do the same,
At least the Tories learn not to break their promises and a new leader doesn't make the same mistake again next time they win.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha etc I thought breaking promises was part of Boris's brilliant realpolitik? A "they don't like it up em" situation here.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
All sensible parents in Surrey (as in Chesterfield) will already have their houses in Trust so cannot be touched by the Social Care provider.
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
NHS/NCS socialism in action
If your house is in trust you don't benefit from the £1m IHT threshold for one so you've lost £250k of potential tax-free benefit immediately.
Twice as much for a married couple, no?
It's £125k*2 or at least it was in the previous tax year.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
That's like saying when you pay for fuel the only tax you pay is VAT and you don't pay fuel duty. 🤦♂️
Employers NI is a tax on wages that comes out of labour budgets. To say otherwise just because it doesn't appear on the payslip (just as fuel duty doesn't appear on a fuel receipt unlike VAT) is pure sophistry.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Boris' 1% NI rise will lose far fewer votes than May's dementia tax did, if a few liberals like you move to your natural home in the LDs because you want a wealth tax or to take peoples' inheritance away all to the good, it will make the Tories purer with genuine conservatives anyway
I don't want to take people's inheritance away.
If people spend their money while they're alive so there is no inheritance then that's their choice.
It is taking peoples' homes away that is the issue, peoples' savings excluding their home are already liable for personal care at home
FPT - Tip. If anyone recommends you should read Robin Diangelo, Afua Hirsch, Renni Eddo-Lodge, Akala, or June Sarpong your antenna should immediately go up. It's a massive warning sign.
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.
Ignorance is Strength.
All of those are worth reading, or at least the 2/3 on both lists that I have read. I have also read the works of a number of white supremacists (after all, such views were commonplace and mainstream in my lifetime) and of libertarian and free market theorists. It is useful to read works you disagree with. It helps shape your own arguments and sharpens your thinking, and occasionally completely changes your opinion of something.
A key point imo. People often rail against new thinking - esp if it sounds a little bit "round glasses and hairy armpits" - but they also often apply the wrong test. No theory in the sociological or political or economic sphere explains the world or gets anywhere close. The test is whether it provides insights of value. Eg Marxism, Monetarism, these do, despite being at odds. Ditto for Woke thinking. Does it explain even a small fraction of what goes on in life? No. But does it add to our understanding? Yes it does.
There is a also the problem of people ignoring the "old thinking" on the basis that "I know what that was, even without actually knowing what it was".
I gave a historian some plus once, when I shared some stuff from a biography of General Groves. The academic thinking on the Manhattan project was shaped by the scientists. His astonishment at the actual quotes and actions by Groves was fascinating - this was an expert in the area.
You will need to elaborate a little for me to pocket the value here.
For example, Groves, in written records at the time, stated that he recruited Oppenheimer to lead the project, despite the known issue of his brother being half way to being a Soviet agent... because he was quite sure they could manage the security issue, since Oppenheimer as head of the project would be under non-stop surveillance/guard, and that Oppie was vital to the project....
Additionally, it was far better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than running round as an embittered exile...
Because he (Oppenheimer) was totally driven to be the creator of the first atomic bomb - he would (according to Groves in 1942) express horror and revulsion afterwards, but he was seeking both fame and, due to an interesting personality, would seek the combined fame/blame. And the blame was almost as important to Oppenheimer as the fame...
It was a devastatingly accurate and rather funny sketch of Oppenheimer and showed Groves to be a long way from the thuggish idiot that the scientists liked to claim latter.
Ah ok, yes, so what you're saying is right wingers from the past sometimes get trendily demonized when the truth is more complex. Yep, I think that's a good and relevant point. Such people can become mere vessels for an outpouring of performative disapproval from the bean peasants. A great example is Nick Clegg. What an unfairly maligned politician. Also HYUFD, although he is not a figure from the past. He's with us here today. Very much so.
No - It's not really left/right. It's that views of the past are often coloured by the views of the... viewer.
In this case a historian went with the "proper" view of the past - why read a biography of an idiot like Groves?
For example, the Battle of Midway has been rather misunderstood, because people took the version published by one Japanese officer as gospel. It turned out, when you look at Japanese primary sources, that things were rather different.. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249
Equally, we have had decades of hagiography of Ghandi - when the view from India is rather different.
The important thing is the wide range, to challenge views.
One problem is, I think, the bowdlerising of past works. which can have strange effects.
In the case of Kipling (for example) the actually racist stuff is no longer published. I don't mean the questionable nature of the "White Man's Burden" - there is some hard core stuff in his writings.
So people, coming to his works, now can't understand why there was a problem.....
EDIT: With Groves, it was actually a class/culture thing - he was bossing around people with Nobel Prizes and he didn't have a scientific background. The attitude towards him and the industrial engineers had a great deal of snearing at "trade", to it.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
A genuine conservative doesn't believe in the state subsidising social care for the rich at the expense of the poor. Nobody is entitled to an inheritance.
If you need to move full time into residential care the state already takes your home, it is the state taking your home after you have died when you had at home personal care and still lived at home I and most voters object to and objected to in 2017.
Preserving family estates and inheritance is one of the key components of conservatism as opposed to free market liberalism which is more concerned with preserving income and socialism which is more focused on heavy taxation rates for both wealth, inheritance and income
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
All sensible parents in Surrey (as in Chesterfield) will already have their houses in Trust so cannot be touched by the Social Care provider.
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
NHS/NCS socialism in action
But it isn't. Socialism would be taxing high incomes plus wealth to give everyone dignity in old age. As regards the latter - taxing wealth - I just do not buy that it's impossible or even fiendishly difficult.
"No point targeting the rich, they'll just hire accountants and avoid it or skidaddle abroad."
If I've heard that once I've heard it a thousand times and as often as not it's from people who aren't rich and don't know anybody even close to it.
Like my Uncle Albert. He was a car mechanic and he used to tell me this with as much certainty as he would diagnose an issue with the cylinder head gasket.
I think it speaks to the power of the propaganda pumped out incessantly on this topic by vested interests. The elites who do so fabulously well out of the notion that taxing their wealth is a challenge akin to time travel.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
A genuine conservative doesn't believe in the state subsidising social care for the rich at the expense of the poor. Nobody is entitled to an inheritance.
If you need to move full time into residential care the state already takes your home, it is the state taking your home after you have died when you had at home personal care I and most voters object to and objected to in 2017.
Preserving family estates and inheritance is one of the key components of conservatism as opposed to free market liberalism which is more concerned with preserving income and socialism which is more focused on heavy taxation rates for both wealth, inheritance and income
The state's not taking your home.
If you use your savings in your home to pay for private care then that's your choice. That's what your savings are there for.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
The opt-out rate for the auto-enroll pension sign up is very low. That is for a benefit in about 45 years' time.
There is significantly more certainty in receiving something from a private pension than there is from an inheritance 45 years' in the future. Grandma could have spunked it all on strippers and blow in Las Vegas before then.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
A genuine conservative doesn't believe in the state subsidising social care for the rich at the expense of the poor. Nobody is entitled to an inheritance.
If you need to move full time into residential care the state already takes your home, it is the state taking your home after you have died when you had at home personal care I and most voters object to and objected to in 2017.
Preserving family estates and inheritance is one of the key components of conservatism as opposed to free market liberalism which is more concerned with preserving income and socialism which is more focused on heavy taxation rates for both wealth, inheritance and income
Conservatism is about preserving people's right to an inheritance and the family estate if available, not guaranteeing that it will indeed be available.
Perhaps the government just pay for my dad's boiler to be fixed just in case I inherit £1,000 less when he dies. In fact maybe the state should buy my dad a new car so I can inherit £20,000 more?
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
A genuine conservative doesn't believe in the state subsidising social care for the rich at the expense of the poor. Nobody is entitled to an inheritance.
If you need to move full time into residential care the state already takes your home, it is the state taking your home after you have died when you had at home personal care I and most voters object to and objected to in 2017.
Preserving family estates and inheritance is one of the key components of conservatism as opposed to free market liberalism which is more concerned with preserving income and socialism which is more focused on heavy taxation rates for both wealth, inheritance and income
The state's not taking your home.
If you use your savings in your home to pay for private care then that's your choice. That's what your savings are there for.
You can as you can use your assets to pay for anything, however it is the state by force of law taking your home when you still lived in it until death to pay for at home care that is objectionable
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
That's like saying when you pay for fuel the only tax you pay is VAT and you don't pay fuel duty. 🤦♂️
Employers NI is a tax on wages that comes out of labour budgets. To say otherwise just because it doesn't appear on the payslip (just as fuel duty doesn't appear on a fuel receipt unlike VAT) is pure sophistry.
I just do not agree and the public will see £207 taken in tax in their payslip
The fact is you have made it plain you oppose tax increases but in the end covid has changed everything and hard decisions have to be made
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
May's dementia tax cost the Tories mainly Redwall seats and London marginals in 2017
If the Tories vote to increase taxes now then I hope they lose the next election.
Boris' 1% NI rise will lose far fewer votes than May's dementia tax did, if a few liberals like you move to your natural home in the LDs because you want a wealth tax or to take peoples' inheritance away all to the good, it will make the Tories purer with genuine conservatives anyway
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
1% is not equal to 3% no matter how many times you say it.
If you cant afford an extra £200 a year perhaps you should employ an accountant to look at your finances.
If you can't afford £200/year, you probably can't afford an accountant.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
1% is not equal to 3% no matter how many times you say it.
If you cant afford an extra £200 a year perhaps you should employ an accountant to look at your finances.
You really are a champagne socialist. I don't have an accountant, I manage my own finances.
2/68 is 3% whether you like it or not.
Dear Phil
I am an Accountant and you need one by the looks of it
If you earn £30k you will pay £204 a year so thats 0.68% of your gross pay
If you earn 30k you are currently paying £2448.69 NI
It will increase by 8% to £2652
So you could potentially run around hysterically saying you are paying 8% more instead of running round hysterically saying you are paying 3% extra
Either way lets hope nobody points out its only £3.91 per week extra.
If your whole politics is swayed on £3.91 a week perhaps its time to have a good look at yourself
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
0/10 see me
I do see you.
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
Your £1000 worse off per year is nowhere near correct
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
£204 a year so that the children of parents in Surrey can inherit their parents home tax free
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
All sensible parents in Surrey (as in Chesterfield) will already have their houses in Trust so cannot be touched by the Social Care provider.
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
NHS/NCS socialism in action
But it isn't. Socialism would be taxing high incomes plus wealth to give everyone dignity in old age. As regards the latter - taxing wealth - I just do not buy that it's impossible or even fiendishly difficult.
"No point targeting the rich, they'll just hire accountants and avoid it or skidaddle abroad."
If I've heard that once I've heard it a thousand times and as often as not it's from people who aren't rich and don't know anybody even close to it.
Like my Uncle Albert. He was a car mechanic and he used to tell me this with as much certainty as he would diagnose an issue with the cylinder head gasket.
I think it speaks to the power of the propaganda pumped out incessantly on this topic by vested interests. The elites who do so fabulously well out of the notion that taxing their wealth is a challenge akin to time travel.
That's more like it! A decent loco at last. Split headcode boxes and the little Scottie on it. Not bad looking in BR blue with yellow cabs, either. Sadly cut up over 30 years ago.
Where is that? Crinalarich? Tyndrum?
The only place I can think of with mountains like that in the background, and that sort of infrastructure, would be Fort Bill.
Comments
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
Wealth taxes are massively intrusive and not very effective.
Flat rate property taxes capture most of the wealth , don’t disincentivise saving, are simpler and a lot harder to avoid
I can't actually imagine being useful or worth my fee at that age, not always sure I am now to be honest. Certainly not as quick as I was 20 years ago. But I am experienced and have seen most things before, some of them I can even remember.
What is pissing me off just a tad as it gets nearer is that there will be no leisurely retirement with fancy cruises etc. I will work until I am too ill to work and then have a short time with poor health before I cop it. That's the way its going to be. It doesn't seem very fair but them I am a boring prat with few hobbies and at least I will never have to take up golf.
In disposable income terms its really 3% of take home pay lost.
Send on the likes of Grealish, but Kane did 90 mins last game, just like he will next and the next and the next.
Anyhoo, not sure about this "where are the first time buyers" stuff. Like the claims about people buying homes very very much later in life, it seems to have elements of a folk-myth about it.
The number of FTBs doubled in the last 10 years or so. I'd be interested to see the numbers from 2000-2010.
Basically, the boomers engineered politics to award themselves a one-off bounty, to be able to not work for last two-to-three decades of their life.
Such a settlement was and is unsustainable.
The good news is that without having any of these financial resources I managed to buy my first property in my early 20s (not sure I have ever mentioned 15% rate on here) and progressed to a huge detached house* in London fully paid of by me and me alone by 40.
* Maybe not as big as @MaxPB or @kinabalu houses.
👍
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23234033
The Conservatives also need to opposed the financial abuse of encouraging teenagers to get tens of thousands in debt before they know hat they want to do with their lives or have experienced the world of work.
It's the sort of thing that used to happen in Latin America or Africa, and not in an established democracy.
But yes first time purchases did improve in the past decade led by new construction and policies like help to buy. But not by enough to reverse the decline that had occurred over the prior decade.
It is also not possible to do physically demanding work much beyond your mid 60s
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
You're incapable of addressing the point because you know I'm right. But you'd rather back this policy than admit it.
I consider myself incredibly fortunate that I've not had rent or a mortgage to pay since 2007, nor have I had to pay childcare costs for the last decade thanks to my parents providing a 168 hrs a week of free childcare. Childcare costs are also another evil in the economy that stops people getting on the property ladder.
I realise how lucky I've been on the financial front, I think being raised by a mother who viewed debt, aside from mortgages, as the eighth deadliest sin helped.
If you have them to underpin your statement, that would be great.
I was able to do physically demanding work into my seventies
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
Plus in terms of middle class professional work your memory and cognitive skills start to decline in due course too, see Biden, even if you can do it a few years longer
What earnings are you basing it on?
No NI Pd on first £9594 of earnings so a person earning £30k will be £17 a moth worse off ie £204 a year
Far less than the average car insurance and you get to keep your house.
Bargain.
Great to see the PM is a Socialist
I think you are far more a champagne socialist rather than a real one.
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
And your maths are atrocious. 2% of (£30,000 - £9,594) is £408 per annum. For a couple earning that each it is £808 per annum.
For a couple earning £35k each it is £1,000 per annum between employees and employers NI (and yes employers NI comes from the wage budget and drops wages accordingly).
Gives an excuse to post this:
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_08_2014/post-7898-0-91462900-1408967344.jpg
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Re using tax to fund the Social Care service fantastic news.The rich worker in Surrey will pay a tiny bit more for those unfortunate enough to need Social Care.
NHS/NCS socialism in action
Will definitely take that. 291 on Day 5 is very challenging still though.
Max has had a good day of live cricket.
If it was left wing supporters of Hilary Clinton invading the Capitol in 2016, would they have deserved to go to prison?
My answer to this, by the way, is yes. It doesn't matter who you are, you don't get to engage in criminal trespass.
But this view that "my side is in the right, therefore anything I do for my side is right" is incredibly corrosive to civil society. America needs a great leader to stand up and say this. I don't see one right now.
It is average earners who decide elections, not high earners
If you cant afford an extra £200 a year perhaps you should employ an accountant to look at your finances.
A and B and C and ... all have to pay 1% on their gross salary, so they can avoid the 10% chance of losing out on their inheritance from mum and dad.
Of course, tough if there is no mum and dad, or they live in social housing.
And, of course, it is tough on A who is a Geordie, and who is charged the same price as B, who lives in, say, Epping and whose M&d's house is worth maybe 2-3X A's M&d's house.
The same applies when it comes to A and B's own old age and leaving houses to their children.
You couldn't sell it as a rational proposal. So what am I missing?
Since Government can't fund its spiralling costs entirely through issuing new debt forever, taxes are going up. The only question is which taxes and by how much.
2/68 is 3% whether you like it or not.
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
I think i might vote for him in 2024 now i have resigned my Labour membership
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
If the party is no longer the party of low tax, then they deserve to lose. Screw the Tories, if they put my taxes up then I hope they lose.
PS no doubt I'll still be accused of working for CCHQ in the future though. Despite writing that.
What is happening to America?
https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1434518004876857347?s=21
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
Downtown Seattle, Portland, San Fran, all getting bad before covid, with scenes like that, I saw it with my own eyes.
It does not solve social care
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
If people spend their money while they're alive so there is no inheritance then that's their choice.
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
I am with @bigjohnowls on this
Employers NI is a tax on wages that comes out of labour budgets. To say otherwise just because it doesn't appear on the payslip (just as fuel duty doesn't appear on a fuel receipt unlike VAT) is pure sophistry.
In this case a historian went with the "proper" view of the past - why read a biography of an idiot like Groves?
For example, the Battle of Midway has been rather misunderstood, because people took the version published by one Japanese officer as gospel. It turned out, when you look at Japanese primary sources, that things were rather different.. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249
Equally, we have had decades of hagiography of Ghandi - when the view from India is rather different.
The important thing is the wide range, to challenge views.
One problem is, I think, the bowdlerising of past works. which can have strange effects.
In the case of Kipling (for example) the actually racist stuff is no longer published. I don't mean the questionable nature of the "White Man's Burden" - there is some hard core stuff in his writings.
So people, coming to his works, now can't understand why there was a problem.....
EDIT: With Groves, it was actually a class/culture thing - he was bossing around people with Nobel Prizes and he didn't have a scientific background. The attitude towards him and the industrial engineers had a great deal of snearing at "trade", to it.
Preserving family estates and inheritance is one of the key components of conservatism as opposed to free market liberalism which is more concerned with preserving income and socialism which is more focused on heavy taxation rates for both wealth, inheritance and income
"No point targeting the rich, they'll just hire accountants and avoid it or skidaddle abroad."
If I've heard that once I've heard it a thousand times and as often as not it's from people who aren't rich and don't know anybody even close to it.
Like my Uncle Albert. He was a car mechanic and he used to tell me this with as much certainty as he would diagnose an issue with the cylinder head gasket.
I think it speaks to the power of the propaganda pumped out incessantly on this topic by vested interests. The elites who do so fabulously well out of the notion that taxing their wealth is a challenge akin to time travel.
If you use your savings in your home to pay for private care then that's your choice. That's what your savings are there for.
Perhaps the government just pay for my dad's boiler to be fixed just in case I inherit £1,000 less when he dies. In fact maybe the state should buy my dad a new car so I can inherit £20,000 more?
The fact is you have made it plain you oppose tax increases but in the end covid has changed everything and hard decisions have to be made
I am an Accountant and you need one by the looks of it
If you earn £30k you will pay £204 a year so thats 0.68% of your gross pay
If you earn 30k you are currently paying £2448.69 NI
It will increase by 8% to £2652
So you could potentially run around hysterically saying you are paying 8% more instead of running round hysterically saying you are paying 3% extra
Either way lets hope nobody points out its only £3.91 per week extra.
If your whole politics is swayed on £3.91 a week perhaps its time to have a good look at yourself
Kind Regards
xxx