Categories
Invincible Boris Johnson’s proposals appear to be popular – politicalbetting.com
Invincible Boris Johnson’s proposals appear to be popular – politicalbetting.com
Boris Johnson is in “invincible mode” and will push through a tax rise to fund social care despite “considerable” opposition within his cabinet https://t.co/abB51xwn2D
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Those erstwhile BJ fans have no cause to complain. All is good with His master plan.
The hand giveth, the hand taketh away...
Whatever "solution" is proposed for social care it will be a patch-up with sticky plaster.
The basic issue is obviously a matter of social insurance.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-adult-social-care
These are now clear underestimates, but they give an idea of the scale.
and ibid.
Insurance sounds positively cuddly. Insurance, you say? Well that's great - especially now you can't be too careful, etc...
"Hang on, you mean I have to pay for it? Booooooo"
And the ones really affected often aren't the 'chattering classes'.
Here we go!
For those on low incomes, but still in tax paying range, NI can cost about the same as income tax.
Along with VAT and income tax it's one of the big three, soo I'd assume most people realise it's just income tax wearing a dress.
https://smarkets.com/event/42288882/
I backed no at 4 and then laid off enough to cover the original stake at 2.44 (should have waited, it got as low as 1.8...). 3.4 for 'no' is starting to look attractive again (I still think it's a <50% chance restrictions come back). So wondering whether there's a report that restrictions might come back or whether it's just people getting jittery about Scotland and expecting a simlar spike in England?
What are Lab's top three "flagship" policies?
Social care - wealth tax
NHS investment of X amount
That's all they really need and they'd do a lot better
I know that Afghanistan is a far-away country, but the pictures from there aren't good, and that sort of thing soaks into people's minds and leaves a generally negative impression.
Loads of jokes about empty shelves and no lorry drivers don't help either. Much as bendy bananas helped to create the mood which led to Brexit.
National Insurance to pay for medical/care *sounds* middle-of-the-road, pay-for-stuff....
My guess is that, as is mentioned in the header, the government will conflate social care with the NHS - as "Social Care/NHS spending" where they can.
Labour's 2019 policies polled very well individually but the overall package was unappealing. I wonder if when the "package" is put together, the Tory offering will look significantly less popular.
Given NI is not paid by pensioners but income tax is clearly it is no surprise a NI rise is more popular overall than income tax and of course NI was originally set up to fund healthcare and unemployment insurance and state pensions so this is really just returning to its original role.
Another dementia tax to pay for at home social care as May discovered in 2017 would be deeply unpopular, indeed it was so unpopular then it lost her her majority.
So Boris chose the least worst option and as long as it is just a 1% NI rise and no more he will escape unscathed
What are the broad outlines of such a tax?
Increase Nat Insurance: +41
Increase Income Tax: +15
I think voters are mistaken, but there you go.....
That said, the Conservatives have a complete idiot as their leader and should replace him.
We have to ask how we are here. The raising of the tax free allowance by the LibDems lifted the bar where you start paying tax - a lot of people lifted out of income tax entirely or reduced to paying very little. And yet the "squeezed middle" is more squeezed than ever.
More disposable income = less money than ever to actually spend. Why? Because the cost of living is so huge. Everything costs more so your tax saving goes less far than before. Where has all the money gone. Normals haven't got it, the government apparently hasn't got it, so whose pockets is it sat? Council spending goes hand in hand with the social care crisis - councils are flat broke now the government has decided not to fund them, yet the government is also broke.
Somehow, Labour have drawn the wrong conclusions from the Corbyn Era.
The right conclusion is to take what was popular from 2017, cost it, and work out how to fund it properly with tax rises.
Instead, Labour have gone for a vacuous, grey, spongey, nothingness -- made flesh as Sir Keir.
My parents never had a driving license or a passport. They certainly never left a house to worry about. Now in my seventies, I have all three and think myself lucky. My wife comes from a long-lived family while mine were may-flies by comparison.
I'll probably leave the house to her and she could lose it gradually if she suffers from dementia. Meaning the kid's inheritance will be small. But we've given them help with buying houses already, and occasionally when otherwise needed. They can manage well.
Why fret about not having a house to leave? We won't need it.
Where the hell is Labour?
If you earn more, you'll pay 12% of your earnings between £9,568 and £50,270. You'll pay 2% on any earnings above £50,270.
Ie 50k a yr pays £ 4,851.84 500k a yr pays £13,878.84..
I have said over the last few days a NI rise polls well and of course if it is only to safeguard pensioners assets then that is wrong
However, there is more to this than just that, as an immediate 5.5 billion is to be given to the NHS for covid and to tackle the NHS backlog and eventually a portion of it will go to social care
I believe the NI increase is correct, but only if it is accompanied by working pensioners paying the full NI rate and an increase in IHT is also implemented
I reserve judgement on this issue until the full details are realised
However, re labour, Starmer says he will retain the £20 UC uplift and the 8%+ pensioner increase
Really
Once charts start to go around showing how much people lose - as well as who gains instead - and expect the losers to become irate and not forgiving.
The Tories can forget about my vote if they go ahead with this madness.
But it's not, of course. There are so many different budget items and so many possible tax sources that anyone from any point in the political spectrum can find a combiation they'd prefer. The risk of making proposals is that people who like any of the numerous alternatives feel hostile to your one. But I think people do exaggerate how strongly people react to small tax/NI increases - when we put up tax 1p to shorten NHS waiting times, nearly everyone saw the point and when the waitimng times came down in remained enduringly popular. Johnson is right that people will shrug off the 1p if it really does some perceptible good.
Jo Maugham
@JolyonMaugham
·
Sep 4
National insurance, unlike income tax, isn't paid on unearned income. Raising national insurance, rather than income tax, is a choice to favour people who don't have to work for a living.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1434072218724675589
You should pay, pay your own way
Nope. NI is a fantastic rise for the posho's as the more you earn the less you pay - that 2% rate once you tip through £50k makes it a far more palatable tax than income tax.
Labour's problem is this. 1% on NI raises Fuck All in comparison to what is needed. So it isn't even a sticking plaster to the solution but if they oppose it the Tories will smash them as having no solutions for the crisis. Or if they point out that it isn't enough the Tories will smash them as wanting to tax the hard working even harder to pay for their waste.
Starting with the people with the wealth and savings who want the provision of care, they can use their own savings. That's what its there for.
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
And by the way I qualified my support if you read my post properly
It should be on income tax, not on national insurance, as simple as that.
Unlike Income Tax there are so many exemptions whereby you don't need to pay NI, it stiffs the people who are paying their way on PAYE and nobody else.
Where the UK went wrong is that in the 80s we decided that a quick buck selling things off was economic activity of the same value as making things and investing in things.
It would be rather difficult now for the UK to try and reverse this and invest heavily in R&D and manufacturing - with a national ownership lock as our friends in Europe kept - to bring back productive work as opposed to warehouses shifting things that foreign productive work made.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Tax the wealthy and pay for it that way.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000, even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
Covid has changed everything and I am afraid it is a fact that tax rises are inevitable and my only concern with the NI increase is that it is seen as fair, hence why I want all working pensioners to pay it and an increase in IHT
Their supporters base includes large numbers of those who would get social care free or freeish because they don't hold assets and have low incomes; and people in Hampstead and Putney who 'go private' anyway.
The several million extra votes they need must come from the middling sort, who are currently hit by the risk of social care costs and will be hit by both NI and IT rises. The poorest and the wealthiest have the least to trouble about in this particular debate.
Labour therefore want to keep out because of their present base, but have a view because of the votes they need. Good luck.
Yet the young have ridiculous house prices, tuition fees because that generation pulled up the rug behind them.
And yet you still get pricks here saying "oh you can afford a house with inheritance", I hate the system as it is. I want to build more houses and mean people don't need to inherit wealth in order to be able to afford houses. That's not me boasting about inheriting, I realise how incredibly fortunate I am to be in this position and I've said that on every occasion but the reality is that the system is broken. I can hardly afford a house in London with a relative + inheritance, on my own I'd have no chance. Yet the elderly generation had no trouble at all.
Many of the elderly (some here have been decent to their credit), will do anything they can do bleed the youth dry, bunch of condescending, inconsiderate arseholes.
I'm going off a while, to work, as I have to earn money to live. Bye
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
They saved for a Rainy Day and then when the Rainy Day arrives expect others to pay more taxes so they don't have to use their own savings.
That is not a position I disagree with, but it is not what you have been saying.
So if something happens that changes Boris's mind (as with the NI increase) then we may have an Indy ref. That is not what you have been saying is it?
No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.
At present the elderly pay for their care from the asset that is their home down to £23,000
The new proposals will lift that £23,000 to £60,000 - £80,000 above which the pensioner will still be required to pay the costs
It is not that all the asset is protected
It costs a lot and brings sod all joy and benefit to those involved.
Why would people want to spend tens of thousands in lingering a little longer when senile and helpless when that money can materially improve their life for decades when they are younger.
How do people describe how they want to die ? Quickly, painlessly and while they're still healthy.
Social care is the opposite of that.
So what's the answer ?
A low ceiling on social care costs, maybe 5k or 10k, followed by dignitas.
For parts of the country its not huge even if you bought more recently.
My wife works in a Care Home. Some there enjoy their lives and want to make the most of their time remaining - but a lot of them are desperate to die. She has people begging her to let them die literally on a daily basis. 😢
50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
"Social care" begins long before people are "senile and helpless".
If I were a Doctor, I might prescribe a year of volunteering as a social care assistant.
If the Gov't is going to stick 2 pence on NI, it should instead stick 2p on income tax. It would both raise more and be more generationally fair.
His uncosted bullshit became popular and cost Mrs May a majority of 150 seats.
That would have allowed social care to be fixed.
We tax income too highly, wealth not enough
We consume too much, invest too little
Government spending has to rise to address demographics, levelling up, and climate change.
The policy follows from there.