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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system (which as a conservative not a libertarian I would oppose) then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
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.
You should probably extend that chart back further.
In 1991, 51% of 16 to 34 year olds were home owners. In 2016, it was just 24%.
In the UK now, the average age one a first home is 34. That's almost a decade higher than it was in 1981.
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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
Butrd you are supporting a proposed system which gives you a lot more benefit than say Gallowgate in Newcastle for the same money. That's not conservatism, it's robbery.
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..
The Dilnot Report stated that the cost of the proposals to the Taxpayer would be £1.7 billion, rising to £3.6bn by 2025.
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.
The problem you run into, is that the idea that the family home is sacrosanct is deep rooted.
The other issue is that people are very, very wary of the attitude that "There is a lot of money in peoples houses. *We* should be spending that....."
""My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is. But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone."
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.
The Republican party has more loons than the Democrats right now, thanks to the Cult of Trump.
But the Democrats have a fair number of loons too.
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 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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
Butrd you are supporting a proposed system which gives you a lot more benefit than say Gallowgate in Newcastle for the same money. That's not conservatism, it's robbery.
More people in the North East own their own homes than in London now as a percentage, so more young people with grannies and parents in the Northeast will benefit from an inheritance over £100k percentage wise than those with grannies and parents in London
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.
The Republican party has more loons than the Democrats right now, thanks to the Cult of Trump.
But the Democrats have a fair number of loons too.
I don't think its controversial to say that America is full of loons of all colours and persuasions.
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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system (which as a conservative not a libertarian I would oppose) then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
"We do not have state funded plumbers and cars".
Although anythings possible with "The Socialist Cabal" of Johnson Sunak and Khan I suppose
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
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
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
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for 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
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
Or
[ ] Give me a bus pass to Mount St Bernard Abbey/Samye Ling/the nearest Hindu temple/etc so I can discard the world and become a penniless monk/sadhu/mendicant.
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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
Butrd you are supporting a proposed system which gives you a lot more benefit than say Gallowgate in Newcastle for the same money. That's not conservatism, it's robbery.
More people in the North East own their own homes than in London now as a percentage, so more young people with grannies and parents in the Northeast will benefit from an inheritance over £100k percentage wise than those with grannies and parents in London
But the London inheritance is much greater than the Northern one - much greater than the ratios of the percentages.
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.
Yes I get the point. It's a good one.
No it isn't. Which works of Kipling are no longer published, and wyh is it so ardh to know wehre the h goes in Gandhi? Tehm forrin names.
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
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.
You should probably extend that chart back further.
In 1991, 51% of 16 to 34 year olds were home owners. In 2016, it was just 24%.
In the UK now, the average age one a first home is 34. That's almost a decade higher than it was in 1981.
I would love to do so, but I expect I will have to read a dozen English Housing Surveys to find the data :-).
It's worth a note as context that:
UK life expectancy has also increased from 74 to 81 in that period. Age of starting full time work has increased by something like 4 years in the time.
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
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
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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system (which as a conservative not a libertarian I would oppose) then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
"We do not have state funded plumbers and cars".
Although anythings possible with "The Socialist Cabal" of Johnson Sunak and Khan I suppose
OH, what is that thing with four wheels that each of them rides around in? A Brexit Bus?
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
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
Yes, I reckon my MiL has got through about £90 k in 2 years of residential care. She has been well looked after, and mostly enjoyed life there.
I think it would be wrong to jack up NI on the young so that Mrs Foxy and her sister could inherit.
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
"Get out of cities". Has he seen Appalachian Trump country any time recently? The reality is that much of Philadelphia has been revitalized and is better than any time since the 1980s. But yes, ghettos still exist in the US and have done for over a century. That is what happens when low income people are all segregated from the wealthier white population, banks red line their neighborhoods to prevent funding going to them, educational spending is redirected to the suburbs and the policing is militarized.
Race baiting shit stirrers like Jack Posobiec don't really care about this. Or they actually want to encourage the poverty and social breakdown because it helps them politically. That is why he supported ending the eviction moratorium, wanted to cut the end of unemployment insurance and cheered on Trump's calls for more police brutality.
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?
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..
The Dilnot Report stated that the cost of the proposals to the Taxpayer would be £1.7 billion, rising to £3.6bn by 2025.
Where does this £20bn number come from?
The biggest change since the Dilnot Report will be on wages. Pre Brexit wages don't attract enough for the current demand let alone the increased demographic demand of the future.
Hard to tell what wages need to rise by to attract the required number of non immigrant staff into the care sector. I think it will be around 30%, maybe more where the variety of employment options are better.
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
It is not either. He does not care about their competence, indeed too much competence would be a threat. He cares about their loyalty.
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 issue, as always, is one of balance. Too much focus on protecting inherited wealth at the expense of flogging the crap out of earned incomes and what you get is an increasingly stratified society, with low social mobility and a large pauper class. A bit like pre-revolutionary Russia...
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
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
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
It is not either. He does not care about their competence, indeed too much competence would be a threat. He cares about their loyalty.
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
It is not either. He does not care about their competence, indeed too much competence would be a threat. He cares about their loyalty.
Well he's achieving that too.
Yes, great for Boris. Shit for those of us who want a competent govt, but hey, the right coloured rosette in number ten is more important than boring stuff like that.
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
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
Or
[ ] Give me a bus pass to Mount St Bernard Abbey/Samye Ling/the nearest Hindu temple/etc so I can discard the world and become a penniless monk/sadhu/mendicant.
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 issue, as always, is one of balance. Too much focus on protecting inherited wealth at the expense of flogging the crap out of earned incomes and what you get is an increasingly stratified society, with low social mobility and a large pauper class. A bit like pre-revolutionary Russia...
Not if the majority are home owners as like now in the UK and they and their heirs have an interest in passing on their estates.
In pre-revolutionary Russia the vast majority were tenant serfs or factory workers who rented with only a tiny minority of aristocrats and the very rich owning property.
I am not a great fan of higher income tax either, hence I would also oppose any NI rise above 1%
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
Sorry if I've missed the point. 🙃
Clue number one, stick a pony in me pocket....
Oh god yes sorry. Hands on face emoticon.
At least you escaped clue number two, which might have involved labelling you a bit of a plonker.
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
£3.91 ain't going to pay for more than an hour in a residential home...
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
It is not either. He does not care about their competence, indeed too much competence would be a threat. He cares about their loyalty.
Well he's achieving that too.
Yes, great for Boris. Shit for those of us who want a competent govt, but hey, the right coloured rosette in number ten is more important than boring stuff like that.
You must be young. This government is ok, and ok despite all the turmoil. Can you point to a better government?
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
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
People earning less than £30k will see a much smaller increase of course
Someone on £20k PA will pay £1.99 extra per week for example.
Its a bit late for you to start worrying about the plight of the poor BTW.
You can come and help me in Gussies food kitchen if you really want to help
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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
Butrd you are supporting a proposed system which gives you a lot more benefit than say Gallowgate in Newcastle for the same money. That's not conservatism, it's robbery.
More people in the North East own their own homes than in London now as a percentage, so more young people with grannies and parents in the Northeast will benefit from an inheritance over £100k percentage wise than those with grannies and parents in London
But the London inheritance is much greater than the Northern one - much greater than the ratios of the percentages.
Only for the minority who inherit, most Londoners now rent
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.
Just on that last bit, sneering at trade – it put me in mind of that famous school report from the 1920s – If he is to stay at a Public School he must aim at becoming educated. If he is to be solely a scientific specialist, he is wasting time at a Public School. Alan Turing.
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
It is not either. He does not care about their competence, indeed too much competence would be a threat. He cares about their loyalty.
Well he's achieving that too.
Yes, great for Boris. Shit for those of us who want a competent govt, but hey, the right coloured rosette in number ten is more important than boring stuff like that.
You must be young. This government is ok, and ok despite all the turmoil. Can you point to a better government?
All since I have had any political interest were better with the possible exceptions of May, Brown's last year and Thatcher's last term. Those three were comparably bad.
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
£3.91 ain't going to pay for more than an hour in a residential home...
Nor does it need to. That's a tax on every worker, every week, for their entire working life.
[Almost] everyone works their entire life, for four to five decades. Only a small minority end up in a care home and of those who do, most are only there for less than a year.
Oh dear. It's been shot but they still won't let the argument drop...
Alpaca experts complain to PM - and say Geronimo was 'dragged kicking and screaming' to his death
Alpaca experts have written a letter of complaint to the government and have vowed to take further action over the way Geronimo was dragged from his pen, bundled in a horsebox and killed.
The British Alpaca Society has complained to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Environment Secretary George Eustice, and various other government officials over the way the animal was removed from his owner's farm.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
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?
From succeeding generations of old people and their financially overburdened heirs. The harder it is made to accrue wealth, the more jealously it will be guarded.
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
£3.91 ain't going to pay for more than an hour in a residential home...
About 3 mins I think
Phil has completely lost it.
I have tried to rescue him from the wormhole for over an hour now but he is totally stuck.
"Get out of cities". Has he seen Appalachian Trump country any time recently? The reality is that much of Philadelphia has been revitalized and is better than any time since the 1980s. But yes, ghettos still exist in the US and have done for over a century. That is what happens when low income people are all segregated from the wealthier white population, banks red line their neighborhoods to prevent funding going to them, educational spending is redirected to the suburbs and the policing is militarized.
Race baiting shit stirrers like Jack Posobiec don't really care about this. Or they actually want to encourage the poverty and social breakdown because it helps them politically. That is why he supported ending the eviction moratorium, wanted to cut the end of unemployment insurance and cheered on Trump's calls for more police brutality.
I was once driven around rural Colorado by my then girlfriend. I saw poverty beyond measure - people in clothes little better than rags in RVs where the roof had partially caved in. It looked as bad as some Indian or South American cities, only hidden because it was rural.
Little wonder people turned to opiates to escape their miserable existence.
Dreadful, heartbreaking poverty has always existed in the US: it's just that now it's in the cities, it's a lot more obvious.
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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
Butrd you are supporting a proposed system which gives you a lot more benefit than say Gallowgate in Newcastle for the same money. That's not conservatism, it's robbery.
More people in the North East own their own homes than in London now as a percentage, so more young people with grannies and parents in the Northeast will benefit from an inheritance over £100k percentage wise than those with grannies and parents in London
But the London inheritance is much greater than the Northern one - much greater than the ratios of the percentages.
Only for the minority who inherit, most Londoners now rent
Of course you can always move up to Corby to buy if you don't have Mummy and Daddy 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?
From succeeding generations of old people and their financially overburdened heirs. The harder it is made to accrue wealth, the more jealously it will be guarded.
It is still a one person, one vote system. The harder it is to accrue wealth, the fewer there will be.
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
People earning less than £30k will see a much smaller increase of course
Someone on £20k PA will pay £1.99 extra per week for example.
Its a bit late for you to start worrying about the plight of the poor BTW.
You can come and help me in Gussies food kitchen if you really want to help
£1.99 per week, from their disposable income, every week of their entire working lives is a hell of a lot of money.
I've always worried about the plight of the poor, which is why I've long advocated lower taxes on the poor to end the poverty trap. Not adding taxes, so that those with houses in trusts or whatever can avoid using their savings and pass on a massive 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.
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
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
Oh dear. It's been shot but they still won't let the argument drop...
Alpaca experts complain to PM - and say Geronimo was 'dragged kicking and screaming' to his death
Alpaca experts have written a letter of complaint to the government and have vowed to take further action over the way Geronimo was dragged from his pen, bundled in a horsebox and killed.
The British Alpaca Society has complained to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Environment Secretary George Eustice, and various other government officials over the way the animal was removed from his owner's farm.
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
£3.91 ain't going to pay for more than an hour in a residential home...
About 3 mins I think
Phil has completely lost it.
I have tried to rescue him from the wormhole for over an hour now but he is totally stuck.
TTFN
I reckon on £700 per week, so £100 per day, more or less £4 per hour is the cost of residential care.
"Get out of cities". Has he seen Appalachian Trump country any time recently? The reality is that much of Philadelphia has been revitalized and is better than any time since the 1980s. But yes, ghettos still exist in the US and have done for over a century. That is what happens when low income people are all segregated from the wealthier white population, banks red line their neighborhoods to prevent funding going to them, educational spending is redirected to the suburbs and the policing is militarized.
Race baiting shit stirrers like Jack Posobiec don't really care about this. Or they actually want to encourage the poverty and social breakdown because it helps them politically. That is why he supported ending the eviction moratorium, wanted to cut the end of unemployment insurance and cheered on Trump's calls for more police brutality.
I was once driven around rural Colorado by my then girlfriend. I saw poverty beyond measure - people in clothes little better than rags in RVs where the roof had partially caved in. It looked as bad as some Indian or South American cities, only hidden because it was rural.
Little wonder people turned to opiates to escape their miserable existence.
Dreadful, heartbreaking poverty has always existed in the US: it's just that now it's in the cities, it's a lot more obvious.
The Killers new LP is a masterpiece. Personal stories of small town America hit by the opiate crisis and poverty.
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
It is not either. He does not care about their competence, indeed too much competence would be a threat. He cares about their loyalty.
Well he's achieving that too.
Yes, great for Boris. Shit for those of us who want a competent govt, but hey, the right coloured rosette in number ten is more important than boring stuff like that.
You must be young. This government is ok, and ok despite all the turmoil. Can you point to a better government?
All since I have had any political interest were better with the possible exceptions of May, Brown's last year and Thatcher's last term. Those three were comparably bad.
Ok, so Blair and the Coalition? Baffled as to Major.
In my view the best government we've ever had was Maggie. I really quite liked the coalition. They're 2nd best.
Huge gap thereafter. I'm excluding the current administration, but my suspicion is that they'll be in that gap.
In London Town this afternoon - busier but still not what you'd expect from a warm sunny Sunday afternoon. Walking down Piccadilly and Haymarket, the abandoned casualties of coronavirus sit as monuments to retail failure and to former times.
Empty real estate pervades the West End while the survivors luxuriate in the return of custom and customers. The continued absence of mass tourism allows for a more comfortable walk through Piccadilly Circus and Jermyn Street and even Fortnum & Mason lacked the throngs of pre-covid days.
Having stocked up on the victuals of life, home on another overcrowded weekend train with over-long service gaps on the various lines - 7 minutes on the District, 12 on the Circle. Are they short of drivers and prioritising the weekday service? Curious as the weekend passenger numbers have held up better - it's a nice day, people want to go out.
Friends unanimous there will be a new lockdown this autumn and winter. I sat, as so often in life, in a minority of one. Johnson cannot go back on a taste of freedom without paying a heavy price. Everyone also wanting the booster vaccination - Daily Mail vs the Government, only one winner there, you'd think.
As for "social care", trying to provide some facts above the hyperbole increasingly difficult. Adult social care represents nearly 40% of Surrey County Council's expenditure - some £372m in 2019-20. The cost of social care is not just the cost of care or residential homes, it's about the provision of care to those with dementia, those without family, those with other disabilities who, and let's be blunt, in former times, would not have lived this long.
The miracle of life or the curse of living - in many cases, I'm not sure.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
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?
That is not the same as we have a state funded health and social care system. We do not have state funded plumbers and cars.
If we moved to a purely insurance based system then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
Butrd you are supporting a proposed system which gives you a lot more benefit than say Gallowgate in Newcastle for the same money. That's not conservatism, it's robbery.
More people in the North East own their own homes than in London now as a percentage, so more young people with grannies and parents in the Northeast will benefit from an inheritance over £100k percentage wise than those with grannies and parents in London
But the London inheritance is much greater than the Northern one - much greater than the ratios of the percentages.
Only for the minority who inherit, most Londoners now rent
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
PS. Boris, don't even think about bringing back Hancock in next week's reshuffle.
I wonder if I might be a bit heartless. Being an adulterer is acting like a complete dick, appropriately enough, and cowardly to boot, and the manner in which it broke must have been painful for all concerned, but now it's out in the open I don't really see how Hancock keeping 'a low profile' as Vine suggests is warranted or indeed would be of much comfort to his wife and kids. The situation is what it is, he was a selfish arse, but if the relationship is ongoing, as seems to be the case, that fact won't change if he just sneaks her into whereever he is living thesedays.
Raab's fine. I have no idea what the criticism of him is. Williamson has been hopeless. However I really like that Boris is sticking with him. Good ministers will clearly be good at their jobs, and it really doesn't matter if they're popular or not. Maybe some of the Boris gang are going to prove good at their jobs.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
It is not either. He does not care about their competence, indeed too much competence would be a threat. He cares about their loyalty.
Well he's achieving that too.
Yes, great for Boris. Shit for those of us who want a competent govt, but hey, the right coloured rosette in number ten is more important than boring stuff like that.
You must be young. This government is ok, and ok despite all the turmoil. Can you point to a better government?
All since I have had any political interest were better with the possible exceptions of May, Brown's last year and Thatcher's last term. Those three were comparably bad.
Ok, so Blair and the Coalition? Baffled as to Major.
In my view the best government we've ever had was Maggie. I really quite liked the coalition. They're 2nd best.
Huge gap thereafter. I'm excluding the current administration, but my suspicion is that they'll be in that gap.
I'm a centrist so also liked the coalition, a lot of genuine competence there. Happy with Blair and Major. Can see the point of Thatcher's first two terms even if I would have preferred a different approach, and again lots of competence. Thatcher would have hated this government.
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
£3.91 ain't going to pay for more than an hour in a residential home...
Less, surely? If costs are £1000 a week (which seems to be about the bargain basement) then it costs £5.92 per hour.
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
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
Oh dear. It's been shot but they still won't let the argument drop...
Alpaca experts complain to PM - and say Geronimo was 'dragged kicking and screaming' to his death
Alpaca experts have written a letter of complaint to the government and have vowed to take further action over the way Geronimo was dragged from his pen, bundled in a horsebox and killed.
The British Alpaca Society has complained to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Environment Secretary George Eustice, and various other government officials over the way the animal was removed from his owner's farm.
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
Kind Regards
xxx
You're a very disingenuous accountant if so.
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
£3.91 ain't going to pay for more than an hour in a residential home...
About 3 mins I think
Phil has completely lost it.
I have tried to rescue him from the wormhole for over an hour now but he is totally stuck.
TTFN
I reckon on £700 per week, so £100 per day, more or less £4 per hour is the cost of residential care.
I think @Leon that I promised to report on 'Atlas Shrugged'.
It's a long read. A really long read. It's sort of an annoying read too. However it's a magnificent and interesting book. Anyone that denigrates it is a fool. I'm not sure that I'd choose to actively support her (Ayn Rand) views, but the book isn't a political diatribe anyway. Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all.
"Get out of cities". Has he seen Appalachian Trump country any time recently? The reality is that much of Philadelphia has been revitalized and is better than any time since the 1980s. But yes, ghettos still exist in the US and have done for over a century. That is what happens when low income people are all segregated from the wealthier white population, banks red line their neighborhoods to prevent funding going to them, educational spending is redirected to the suburbs and the policing is militarized.
Race baiting shit stirrers like Jack Posobiec don't really care about this. Or they actually want to encourage the poverty and social breakdown because it helps them politically. That is why he supported ending the eviction moratorium, wanted to cut the end of unemployment insurance and cheered on Trump's calls for more police brutality.
I was once driven around rural Colorado by my then girlfriend. I saw poverty beyond measure - people in clothes little better than rags in RVs where the roof had partially caved in. It looked as bad as some Indian or South American cities, only hidden because it was rural.
Little wonder people turned to opiates to escape their miserable existence.
Dreadful, heartbreaking poverty has always existed in the US: it's just that now it's in the cities, it's a lot more obvious.
The Killers new LP is a masterpiece. Personal stories of small town America hit by the opiate crisis and poverty.
I want to like it but I can’t get into them
I am currently almost convinced that three songs by Elliott Smith are the best three songs ever written: Angeles, Miss Misery and Pitseleh. It’s so nice when you hear music that you feel so moved by
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
But the blame isn't equal. That's a lazy and dangerous fatuity.
"Am I going to tell you how to raise the money? No" "Am I going to oppose all the possible ways without suggesting how to do it? Yes." "Am I essentially an opposition politician without any ideas of my own? Yes" "Do I have a plan to win the next election? No" "Does anyone at all read the Mirror? No".
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
My external impression is that there are plenty of silly Democrat legislators, and even running various cities and possibly states, and that's where most of the 'woke' stuff comes from, but that Biden and most of those in Congress really cannot be arsed with that stuff. And that it is one reason those who do aren't super entralled with Biden even before this Afghan business.
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
In London Town this afternoon - busier but still not what you'd expect from a warm sunny Sunday afternoon. Walking down Piccadilly and Haymarket, the abandoned casualties of coronavirus sit as monuments to retail failure and to former times.
Empty real estate pervades the West End while the survivors luxuriate in the return of custom and customers. The continued absence of mass tourism allows for a more comfortable walk through Piccadilly Circus and Jermyn Street and even Fortnum & Mason lacked the throngs of pre-covid days.
I was in Cambridge last Saturday myself and it was really rather busy. As with London, the streets are pockmarked with a certain number of empty units where the casualties of the decline in physical retail (both pre and post Covid) used to be, and one imagines it will take time for these spaces to be reinvented and filled - but nonetheless, not everyone wants to buy everything online and shops will survive. The retail estate will simply shrink until it matches the remaining demand.
Anyway, as ever, places with lots of well heeled visitors shall weather the storm comparatively unscathed - small commuter belt towns may even come out of this better, because of WFH - and it's the poorer neighbourhoods that will continue to suffer.
Friends unanimous there will be a new lockdown this autumn and winter. I sat, as so often in life, in a minority of one. Johnson cannot go back on a taste of freedom without paying a heavy price.
Neither he nor the economy can afford it, so outright lockdown won't be back unless the Government finds itself in a very desperate position indeed. And frankly, if the NHS can't be saved from falling over without resorting to extreme measures, given antibody prevalence approaching 95%, we might as well give up. How far they'll go down the route of trying to lock the unvaccinated out of society using vaxports, however, remains to be seen.
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.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
I think @Leon that I promised to report on 'Atlas Shrugged'.
It's a long read. A really long read. It's sort of an annoying read too. However it's a magnificent and interesting book. Anyone that denigrates it is a fool. I'm not sure that I'd choose to actively support her (Ayn Rand) views, but the book isn't a political diatribe anyway. Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all.
"Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all."
OK, I've read it more than once.
Here are two things that deserve condemnation:
(1) The sex scenes are literally the worst in any book I've ever read. (Yes, worse than the ones that won an award by a former PBer.)
Oh dear. It's been shot but they still won't let the argument drop...
Alpaca experts complain to PM - and say Geronimo was 'dragged kicking and screaming' to his death
Alpaca experts have written a letter of complaint to the government and have vowed to take further action over the way Geronimo was dragged from his pen, bundled in a horsebox and killed.
The British Alpaca Society has complained to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Environment Secretary George Eustice, and various other government officials over the way the animal was removed from his owner's farm.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
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.
Was he in the navy by any chance?
Is that a Dura ref? Don't fully get it if so because unlike my Uncle Albert he'd be well up for expropriating wealth unless he's been just kidding us all this time.
"Get out of cities". Has he seen Appalachian Trump country any time recently? The reality is that much of Philadelphia has been revitalized and is better than any time since the 1980s. But yes, ghettos still exist in the US and have done for over a century. That is what happens when low income people are all segregated from the wealthier white population, banks red line their neighborhoods to prevent funding going to them, educational spending is redirected to the suburbs and the policing is militarized.
Race baiting shit stirrers like Jack Posobiec don't really care about this. Or they actually want to encourage the poverty and social breakdown because it helps them politically. That is why he supported ending the eviction moratorium, wanted to cut the end of unemployment insurance and cheered on Trump's calls for more police brutality.
I was once driven around rural Colorado by my then girlfriend. I saw poverty beyond measure - people in clothes little better than rags in RVs where the roof had partially caved in. It looked as bad as some Indian or South American cities, only hidden because it was rural.
Little wonder people turned to opiates to escape their miserable existence.
Dreadful, heartbreaking poverty has always existed in the US: it's just that now it's in the cities, it's a lot more obvious.
The Killers new LP is a masterpiece. Personal stories of small town America hit by the opiate crisis and poverty.
I want to like it but I can’t get into them
I am currently almost convinced that three songs by Elliott Smith are the best three songs ever written: Angeles, Miss Misery and Pitseleh. It’s so nice when you hear music that you feel so moved by
I loved the first two albums, enjoyed the third, and then forgot about them.
Comments
If we moved to a purely insurance based system (which as a conservative not a libertarian I would oppose) then obviously everyone would have to take out private insurance for healthcare as there would be no NHS, just as they would do for social care. I don't have an objection to voluntary private insurance for care but as long as we have a state funded health and social care system then it should fund at home care too so people do not legally need to sell their own homes to pay for care at home
In 1991, 51% of 16 to 34 year olds were home owners. In 2016, it was just 24%.
In the UK now, the average age one a first home is 34. That's almost a decade higher than it was in 1981.
Where does this £20bn number come from?
The other issue is that people are very, very wary of the attitude that "There is a lot of money in peoples houses. *We* should be spending that....."
""My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone."
But the Democrats have a fair number of loons too.
Although anythings possible with "The Socialist Cabal" of Johnson Sunak and Khan I suppose
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
[ ] Give me a bus pass to Mount St Bernard Abbey/Samye Ling/the nearest Hindu temple/etc so I can discard the world and become a penniless monk/sadhu/mendicant.
Sorry if I've missed the point. 🙃
It's worth a note as context that:
UK life expectancy has also increased from 74 to 81 in that period.
Age of starting full time work has increased by something like 4 years in the time.
Goodnight
Employers NI comes from Employees Wages ultimately just as Fuel Duty goes on the cost of Fuel. Whether it appears on your payslip or not.
But even if you disingenuously wish to exclude Employers NI for no good reason, why would you think people's wages are from "Gross Pay"? People have take home pay going into their bank accounts not gross pay. Hence why I used "/68" as the benchmark, for someone on basic tax and NI that's already gone from their bank accounts via PAYE today even before this further tax increase. This is without considering that rent or mortgage and other fixed costs already exist too so the proportion of disposable income left over is even less than that.
As for your snooty attitude that its only £3.91 per week - maybe £3.91 per week isn't a lot of money for a Champagne Socialist whose house is in a trust and who has an Accountant to deal with their finances - but to people trying to make ends meet, with bills to pay, then actually £3.91 per week every week can be a lot of money.
I think it would be wrong to jack up NI on the young so that Mrs Foxy and her sister could inherit.
So is Boris carefully managing a team he knows will do the jobs well, or is he so ridiculous that he doesn't have a clue about his ministers or their jobs? I'll concede it's hard to know.
Race baiting shit stirrers like Jack Posobiec don't really care about this. Or they actually want to encourage the poverty and social breakdown because it helps them politically. That is why he supported ending the eviction moratorium, wanted to cut the end of unemployment insurance and cheered on Trump's calls for more police brutality.
Hard to tell what wages need to rise by to attract the required number of non immigrant staff into the care sector. I think it will be around 30%, maybe more where the variety of employment options are better.
That's a lot of time.
In pre-revolutionary Russia the vast majority were tenant serfs or factory workers who rented with only a tiny minority of aristocrats and the very rich owning property.
I am not a great fan of higher income tax either, hence I would also oppose any NI rise above 1%
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either?
I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either?
I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
Someone on £20k PA will pay £1.99 extra per week for example.
Its a bit late for you to start worrying about the plight of the poor BTW.
You can come and help me in Gussies food kitchen if you really want to help
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
[Almost] everyone works their entire life, for four to five decades.
Only a small minority end up in a care home and of those who do, most are only there for less than a year.
Alpaca experts complain to PM - and say Geronimo was 'dragged kicking and screaming' to his death
Alpaca experts have written a letter of complaint to the government and have vowed to take further action over the way Geronimo was dragged from his pen, bundled in a horsebox and killed.
The British Alpaca Society has complained to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Environment Secretary George Eustice, and various other government officials over the way the animal was removed from his owner's farm.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/alpaca-experts-complain-to-pm-and-say-geronimo-was-dragged-kicking-and-screaming-to-his-death/ar-AAO7uSq?ocid=winp1taskbar
Demands for a full judge-led public inquiry incoming in 5,4,3,2,1...
Phil has completely lost it.
I have tried to rescue him from the wormhole for over an hour now but he is totally stuck.
TTFN
Little wonder people turned to opiates to escape their miserable existence.
Dreadful, heartbreaking poverty has always existed in the US: it's just that now it's in the cities, it's a lot more obvious.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9958765/SARAH-VINE-thank-lucky-stars-wasnt-married-Hancock.html
PS. Boris, don't even think about bringing back Hancock in next week's reshuffle.
I've always worried about the plight of the poor, which is why I've long advocated lower taxes on the poor to end the poverty trap. Not adding taxes, so that those with houses in trusts or whatever can avoid using their savings and pass on a massive inheritance.
In my view the best government we've ever had was Maggie. I really quite liked the coalition. They're 2nd best.
Huge gap thereafter. I'm excluding the current administration, but my suspicion is that they'll be in that gap.
In London Town this afternoon - busier but still not what you'd expect from a warm sunny Sunday afternoon. Walking down Piccadilly and Haymarket, the abandoned casualties of coronavirus sit as monuments to retail failure and to former times.
Empty real estate pervades the West End while the survivors luxuriate in the return of custom and customers. The continued absence of mass tourism allows for a more comfortable walk through Piccadilly Circus and Jermyn Street and even Fortnum & Mason lacked the throngs of pre-covid days.
Having stocked up on the victuals of life, home on another overcrowded weekend train with over-long service gaps on the various lines - 7 minutes on the District, 12 on the Circle. Are they short of drivers and prioritising the weekday service? Curious as the weekend passenger numbers have held up better - it's a nice day, people want to go out.
Friends unanimous there will be a new lockdown this autumn and winter. I sat, as so often in life, in a minority of one. Johnson cannot go back on a taste of freedom without paying a heavy price. Everyone also wanting the booster vaccination - Daily Mail vs the Government, only one winner there, you'd think.
As for "social care", trying to provide some facts above the hyperbole increasingly difficult. Adult social care represents nearly 40% of Surrey County Council's expenditure - some £372m in 2019-20. The cost of social care is not just the cost of care or residential homes, it's about the provision of care to those with dementia, those without family, those with other disabilities who, and let's be blunt, in former times, would not have lived this long.
The miracle of life or the curse of living - in many cases, I'm not sure.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
What even is it
"We don't agree that is the appropriate way to do it. Do we accept we need more investment? Yes. Do we accept NI is the right way to do it? No."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-opposes-boris-johnsons-plan-24914929
So £3.91 pays for about 40 minutes.
I don’t think it has to be guinea fowl but that’s what they used here. With guinea fowl ragu. Dreamy
It's a long read. A really long read. It's sort of an annoying read too. However it's a magnificent and interesting book. Anyone that denigrates it is a fool. I'm not sure that I'd choose to actively support her (Ayn Rand) views, but the book isn't a political diatribe anyway. Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all.
I am currently almost convinced that three songs by Elliott Smith are the best three songs ever written: Angeles, Miss Misery and Pitseleh. It’s so nice when you hear music that you feel so moved by
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
"Am I going to oppose all the possible ways without suggesting how to do it? Yes."
"Am I essentially an opposition politician without any ideas of my own? Yes"
"Do I have a plan to win the next election? No"
"Does anyone at all read the Mirror? No".
Anyway, as ever, places with lots of well heeled visitors shall weather the storm comparatively unscathed - small commuter belt towns may even come out of this better, because of WFH - and it's the poorer neighbourhoods that will continue to suffer. Neither he nor the economy can afford it, so outright lockdown won't be back unless the Government finds itself in a very desperate position indeed. And frankly, if the NHS can't be saved from falling over without resorting to extreme measures, given antibody prevalence approaching 95%, we might as well give up. How far they'll go down the route of trying to lock the unvaccinated out of society using vaxports, however, remains to be seen.
OK, I've read it more than once.
Here are two things that deserve condemnation:
(1) The sex scenes are literally the worst in any book I've ever read. (Yes, worse than the ones that won an award by a former PBer.)
(2) It could have done with a good editor.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Now listening to the new album.