Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Invincible Boris Johnson’s proposals appear to be popular – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • This policy isn't fair because it makes young people pay for elderly care, elderly people don't pay it and won't pay for very long as they'll be dead.

    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

    'Condescending, inconsiderate arseholes'. Have you been having an early morning drink with Max?
  • I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.
  • tlg86 said:

    I would suggest there is some misunderstanding in the proposals relating to elderly care

    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

    Does the NI increase cover more than that cost? We don't hypothecate taxes (except for the BBC) in this country, so it wouldn't surprise me if the government is trying to raise taxes in general (i.e. to cover the cost of COVID) and doing it under the cover of "solving social care".
    As I understand it an announcement is due that 5.5 billion is to be given to the NHS immediately to deal with covid and the backlog and in time some of that will be utilised for social care

    There does seem to be a considerable amount of confusion at present and I expect Rishi is going to have to come out and outline the whole proposals re the NHS and social care including whether working pensioners will pay NI and even if there is to be an increase in IHT
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tax wealth, not workers. This is such a good line, I am genuinely astonished Labour is not running on it

    Because they are in a tough place. Labour hold Bootle and Putney, but not Hartlepool or Mansfield. They want to win 100+ seats among the middling sort because they already hold the educated academe, super urban, Bame and woke ones.

    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.

    Their woke middle class anti Brexit support are unlikely to start voting Tory just because Labour wants to tax them more. In fact many champagne socialists would be happy to pay more tax.
    Wealthy left liberals in Hampstead, Cambridge, Oxford, Holborn and St Pancras, Hornsey and Wood Green, Islington etc could certainly go LD if Labour proposes big rises in tax on their properties
    Since LDs are now the Upper Quartile Party, I think 10%-er households will find themselves exempted from LD proposals for LVT.
  • kjh said:

    I would suggest there is some misunderstanding in the proposals relating to elderly care

    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

    Good point BigG. Do any of us actually know what the proposal is yet? Would be ironic if the proposal was an increase in NI and yet HYUFD still couldn't actually inherit his parent's house.
    The current proposal as trailed is a cap (as per Dilnot) and not an increase as BigG is proposing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/05/pm-risks-significant-backlash-over-national-insurance-rise-says-hammond

    So I don't think BigG is correct unless he is privy to something I am not.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,889

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I don't think it should be compulsory, or cost-related but I certainly think it should be optional for those who want it.

    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. 😢
    The situation with animals is (provided minimal distress is caused at the time of death) far kinder when it's 'time to go'.
    It's a line that's almost impossible to put into law though.
  • kjh said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Trouble is this is, irrationally, also a suicide decision as far as many voters are concerned.
    Indeed, but it could be spun as a tax you never pay while you're alive/show your love for the NHS.

    It was a great irony that both my grandmothers only ever became higher rate taxpayers was when they died.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    That's rather a misanthropic answer imo. Shades of "sod the oldies".

    "Social care" begins long before people are "senile and helpless".
    But quite a lot of that is already paid for by the tax payer.
    And quite a lot of it isn't.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,889
    edited September 2021

    I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    Making it 2k for a band D, nationally would both raise cash and be popular in the red wall.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,314
    edited September 2021

    tlg86 said:

    I would suggest there is some misunderstanding in the proposals relating to elderly care

    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

    Does the NI increase cover more than that cost? We don't hypothecate taxes (except for the BBC) in this country, so it wouldn't surprise me if the government is trying to raise taxes in general (i.e. to cover the cost of COVID) and doing it under the cover of "solving social care".
    As I understand it an announcement is due that 5.5 billion is to be given to the NHS immediately to deal with covid and the backlog and in time some of that will be utilised for social care

    There does seem to be a considerable amount of confusion at present and I expect Rishi is going to have to come out and outline the whole proposals re the NHS and social care including whether working pensioners will pay NI and even if there is to be an increase in IHT
    5.5 billion is to be given to the NHS immediately to deal with covid and the backlog and in time some of that will be utilised for social care.

    Hm. That doesn't sound like a very promising plan to deal with social care to me.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360

    algarkirk said:

    Tax wealth, not workers. This is such a good line, I am genuinely astonished Labour is not running on it

    Because they are in a tough place. Labour hold Bootle and Putney, but not Hartlepool or Mansfield. They want to win 100+ seats among the middling sort because they already hold the educated academe, super urban, Bame and woke ones.

    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.

    Their woke middle class anti Brexit support are unlikely to start voting Tory just because Labour wants to tax them more. In fact many champagne socialists would be happy to pay more tax.
    Hi Gallowgate, three points on this: champagne socialists are a mixed bunch including quite a few who think that equality over health care, social care, opportunity, wealth, education, housing and other things is good in principle but does not apply to them. Along with the educated they also indulge in group think much more than they realise.

    Secondly, no they won't vote Tory but LD and Greens remain as options for a virtue signalling vote which delivers a Tory government without it being their fault.

    Thirdly Labour are addressing several groups with incompatible interests, while needing millions of votes from yet more groups. They have stopped centring on the middling sort. This is a policy problem for them.



  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    The state of this discussion.

    No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.

    Quite. There will be carpet biting before elevenses, never mind tears befor bedtime, at this rate.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    Making it 2k for a band D, nationally would both raise cash and be popular in the red wall.
    Indeed.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123

    I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    Lol, that's already happened in Tory run Surrey.
  • I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    I like this. The way I would do it is put several more bands above Band H and make it big!

    And of course we could have a special rate eg x3 on all second property/BTL?
  • tlg86 said:

    I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    Lol, that's already happened in Tory run Surrey.
    You should consider yourself fortunate, Surrey has the best councillors in the country.
  • I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    There is no doubt that more bands are urgently needed
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    kjh said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Trouble is this is, irrationally, also a suicide decision as far as many voters are concerned.
    Inheritance tax is one of the most avoidable of all taxes, and the richer you are the more you can afford the advice and planning needed. Ask the Duke of Devonshire or any farmer who owns his own land.

  • I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    I like this. The way I would do it is put several more bands above Band H and make it big!

    And of course we could have a special rate eg x3 on all second property/BTL?
    I would also shift the onus to pay from the tenant to the owner.

    Currently many tenants can reduce the amount they need to pay because of their earnings being low - and many people refuse to pay leading to Councils needing to chase through the Courts and get a tiny amount per week back via Attachment of Earnings Orders.

    Its far tougher for an owner to refuse to pay and if they do refuse to pay then you don't need an Attachment of Earnings Order - they can face the threat of losing the house if they're not paying its bills.

    Would clear up a lot of cases from the courts too as far as I understand.
  • algarkirk said:

    Tax wealth, not workers. This is such a good line, I am genuinely astonished Labour is not running on it

    Because they are in a tough place. Labour hold Bootle and Putney, but not Hartlepool or Mansfield. They want to win 100+ seats among the middling sort because they already hold the educated academe, super urban, Bame and woke ones.

    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.

    Their woke middle class anti Brexit support are unlikely to start voting Tory just because Labour wants to tax them more. In fact many champagne socialists would be happy to pay more tax.
    Not just champagne socialists. Some of us red wine and beer socialists would be happy to pay more tax too.
  • I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    I like this. The way I would do it is put several more bands above Band H and make it big!

    And of course we could have a special rate eg x3 on all second property/BTL?
    Scrap council tax.

    What kind of country is so decrepit as to base it’s local tax on valuations from the early 90s?

    Replace it with a flat per annum 0.5% tax on property, or even better, a 1.5% tax on unimproved land value.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Voters clearly realise that after Covid more funds need to go into the NHS and the Tory manifesto also promised more funds for the NHS and social care.

    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

    I wonder if it will be so popular when we learn that the elderly won't pay anything.
    The elderly have already paid NI all their working lives and the triple lock it is reported will be frozen not rise
    They didn't pay this rate of NI, if they did it wouldn't be going up. 🙄🤦‍♂️

    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.
    In 1964 I bought a new 3 bedroomed bungalow in SE Essex for £2.5k. Five years later I new moved up to a fairly new four bedroomed house for £14k, which the bank manager thought was expensive, 'but in these inflationary times'... still got the letter! Sold it 30 years later for over 20 times it's original price.

    Conversely in the mid eighties I had a (very) part-time job which paid £3k pa. In both 1910 and 1938 as an almost full-time job that paid £200 pa.

    My point is that the rise was almost entirely due to inflation. Little or nothing to do with my efforts, and contrasted very, much with the situation when National Insurance etc were being developed.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,873

    This policy isn't fair because it makes young people pay for elderly care, elderly people don't pay it and won't pay for very long as they'll be dead.

    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

    This deserved a like, and has got none.

    Raise income tax. Stop lying and lying. Raise income tax by 1% and then we ALL are in it together.
    (Personally, scrap national insurance entirely - raise income tax by 15% and introduce a £5k personal allowance for those over state pension age).
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    edited September 2021

    kjh said:

    I would suggest there is some misunderstanding in the proposals relating to elderly care

    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

    Good point BigG. Do any of us actually know what the proposal is yet? Would be ironic if the proposal was an increase in NI and yet HYUFD still couldn't actually inherit his parent's house.
    The current proposal as trailed is a cap (as per Dilnot) and not an increase as BigG is proposing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/05/pm-risks-significant-backlash-over-national-insurance-rise-says-hammond

    So I don't think BigG is correct unless he is privy to something I am not.
    Must admit I thought it was a cap. Can't read article as pay walled. Cheers for that.
  • kjh said:

    I would suggest there is some misunderstanding in the proposals relating to elderly care

    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

    Good point BigG. Do any of us actually know what the proposal is yet? Would be ironic if the proposal was an increase in NI and yet HYUFD still couldn't actually inherit his parent's house.
    The current proposal as trailed is a cap (as per Dilnot) and not an increase as BigG is proposing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/05/pm-risks-significant-backlash-over-national-insurance-rise-says-hammond

    So I don't think BigG is correct unless he is privy to something I am not.
    Actually you do seem to be correct and that £80,000 will be a cap which is circa 2 years care fees

    Thanks for pointing that out
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264
    edited September 2021

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
  • MattW said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    That's rather a misanthropic answer imo. Shades of "sod the oldies".

    "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.
    The money spent on the last months and years of a sick oldie would have been far more advantageous for them if they'd had that money when younger.

    That's the reality, you may think its misanthropic but its undeniable.
  • The state of this discussion.

    No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.

    This is all Jeremy Corbyn's fault.

    His uncosted bullshit became popular and cost Mrs May a majority of 150 seats.

    That would have allowed social care to be fixed.
    I blame George Osborne. He wanted only millionaires to pay IHT, and now people want only millionaires to pay any tax.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    In other words, Mr Osborne's [edit] was a policy that hugely favoured Tory-voting families in the SE and London suburbs. Bribery.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360

    If the government were serious it would build a consensus around the following:

    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.

    Good point but:

    The hardest taxes to avoid are those on fixed property and income.

    Wealth taxes apart from on fixed property are the easiest to avoid.

    Property taxes are hard to relate to ability to pay.

    All parties rely on high consumption for votes.

    People never vote for tax rises except for other people.

    The best ways of avoiding tax is to be very rich or very poor.

    All parties need the votes of the middling sort. Especially the Tories, for it is almost their entire voter base. They are the very people least able to avoid taxes.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264

    I would suggest there is some misunderstanding in the proposals relating to elderly care

    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

    The home is still protected for at home social care, just not for residential care
  • Net "in favour"

    Increase Nat Insurance: +41
    Increase Income Tax: +15



    I think voters are mistaken, but there you go.....

    Most voters approved of Corbyn's plans individually as well, this is what I keep saying...
    Corbyn's ideas in the 2017 manifesto were very popular, but they were not costed at all.

    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.
    Labour's 2017 manifesto was costed. HTH. VAT on private school fees was to raise £1.6 billion, for instance. Behavioural changes to avoid paying Labour's new taxes were forecast to cost £3.9 billion.

    You might choose not to believe Labour's costings but they were made.
  • The state of this discussion.

    No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.

    People don't want to pay for other people's care. And don't want to pay for their parent's care from their forthcoming inheritance. There is no solution without a complete remap of how we live our lives and none of the politicians want to talk beyond the immediate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD you forcefully point out that Boris won't allow an Indy referendum because it was a promise. How does that differ from a promise not to increase NI?

    As Covid necessitated extra funds for the NHS, it did not necessitate indyref2, in fact the reverse
    Ah ok. So when you say never what you really mean is that if Boris can find a good reason to break that promise it is ok then.

    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?
    He won't, he had made clear he will not allow an indyref2 while he is PM as he knows if he lost it he would have to resign and become the 21st century Lord North.

    A 1% NI rise for the NHS with negligible electoral risk is entirely different
  • The state of this discussion.

    No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.

    People don't want to pay for other people's care. And don't want to pay for their parent's care from their forthcoming inheritance. There is no solution without a complete remap of how we live our lives and none of the politicians want to talk beyond the immediate.
    Rochdale - genuine question - have LDs set out how they would fund this?
  • moonshine said:

    Despite what that poll may show, this policy is an open goal for Labour because I suspect support is broad but shallow. No doubt Starmer will scuff it again. If he were more politically ruthless, he would stoke this ready made culture war.

    Because like all good culture wars it’s built on a greater truth: that the modern British system of capitalism is rigged in favour of those with capital and against those who are seeking to build wealth through endeavour.

    In short, Labour needs to become Thatcherite, the party for the strivers, and stand against the deeply embedded advantages of a powerful bloc that is extracting from the economy rather than adding. Thatcher had the unions and nationalised industries, Starmer has the non-working holders of capital. Yes, don’t hide at the back there. Many of the people on here.

    Tie it all together in a neat bow. The inter generational tax and spend arrangements, the planning system and housing inequity, and yes, the north south divide which Johnson seems to think he now owns as an issue and can neglect.

    People so quickly forget that Corbyn only 4 years ago took 40% of the vote, despite all the baggage around the IRA, Agent Cob, perceived disrespect for British values / identity etc… a Labour offering without that baggage could earn a majority in my view.

    A Thatcherite Labour that understood the importance of making work pay could win my vote.

    Certainly more than a "tax the workers to redistribute the money to inheritances" Tory Party would.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,287

    I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    Yes, that's what most County and Upper Tier authorities are expecting: there's already an additional (2 or 3%) precept hypothecated for social care. Guess is that will be made permanent and perhaps at a higher rate.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    I have liked. My like is because HYUFD is spot on here and not necessarily because I agree with the policy.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD you forcefully point out that Boris won't allow an Indy referendum because it was a promise. How does that differ from a promise not to increase NI?

    As Covid necessitated extra funds for the NHS, it did not necessitate indyref2, in fact the reverse
    Ah ok. So when you say never what you really mean is that if Boris can find a good reason to break that promise it is ok then.

    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?
    He won't, he had made clear he will not allow an indyref2 while he is PM as he knows if he lost it he would have to resign and become the 21st century Lord North.

    A 1% NI rise for the NHS with negligible electoral risk is entirely different
    Er, you are saying he keeps or breaks his promises depending on what is in it for him personally.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Voters clearly realise that after Covid more funds need to go into the NHS and the Tory manifesto also promised more funds for the NHS and social care.

    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

    I wonder if it will be so popular when we learn that the elderly won't pay anything.
    The elderly have already paid NI all their working lives and the triple lock it is reported will be frozen not rise
    They didn't pay this rate of NI, if they did it wouldn't be going up. 🙄🤦‍♂️

    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.
    In 1964 I bought a new 3 bedroomed bungalow in SE Essex for £2.5k. Five years later I new moved up to a fairly new four bedroomed house for £14k, which the bank manager thought was expensive, 'but in these inflationary times'... still got the letter! Sold it 30 years later for over 20 times it's original price.

    Conversely in the mid eighties I had a (very) part-time job which paid £3k pa. In both 1910 and 1938 as an almost full-time job that paid £200 pa.

    My point is that the rise was almost entirely due to inflation. Little or nothing to do with my efforts, and contrasted very, much with the situation when National Insurance etc were being developed.


    And because we borrow money to buy a house, the equity gains that individuals make are even more absurd than that. My first house purchase was in 2000ish, and a £7k deposit on a £70k house became £47k equity in a £110k house three years later. From then onwards, buying houses is remarkably easy.

    That was an extreme example, but the general principle still holds now. And it is money for not very much. Which both messes up the effort-reward calculation and leads to the question...

    We can't all just get rich by doing not very much- so from where (or more exactly, from whom) did that wealth come? I suspect that's a large part of why we can't afford nice things.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,889
    edited September 2021

    I still think an option that should be looked at is increasing council tax, bigly.

    Fair on everybody that.

    I like this. The way I would do it is put several more bands above Band H and make it big!

    And of course we could have a special rate eg x3 on all second property/BTL?
    Scrap council tax.

    What kind of country is so decrepit as to base it’s local tax on valuations from the early 90s?

    Replace it with a flat per annum 0.5% tax on property, or even better, a 1.5% tax on unimproved land value.
    1.5% tax on unimproved land value.

    That being property value less rebuild cost ?!

    Hah - I think that would clobber Londoners and the Home counties even more than my 2k nationally for a band D.
    Council tax as it is though is pretty well rigged against the north.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.

    You should pay, pay your own way

    I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so

    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
    Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.

    If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
    Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.

    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.

    You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦‍♂️

    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.
    Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!

    So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    moonshine said:

    Despite what that poll may show, this policy is an open goal for Labour because I suspect support is broad but shallow. No doubt Starmer will scuff it again. If he were more politically ruthless, he would stoke this ready made culture war.

    Because like all good culture wars it’s built on a greater truth: that the modern British system of capitalism is rigged in favour of those with capital and against those who are seeking to build wealth through endeavour.

    In short, Labour needs to become Thatcherite, the party for the strivers, and stand against the deeply embedded advantages of a powerful bloc that is extracting from the economy rather than adding. Thatcher had the unions and nationalised industries, Starmer has the non-working holders of capital. Yes, don’t hide at the back there. Many of the people on here.

    Tie it all together in a neat bow. The inter generational tax and spend arrangements, the planning system and housing inequity, and yes, the north south divide which Johnson seems to think he now owns as an issue and can neglect.

    People so quickly forget that Corbyn only 4 years ago took 40% of the vote, despite all the baggage around the IRA, Agent Cob, perceived disrespect for British values / identity etc… a Labour offering without that baggage could earn a majority in my view.

    Labour had two big policies in 2017 that resonated with voters:

    1) The policy of Jezza surfing a large but brief wave

    2) The policy of not being T May

    Neither policy can be repeated, and even with those two excellent and popular ones they still fell over 60 seats short of a majority.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD you forcefully point out that Boris won't allow an Indy referendum because it was a promise. How does that differ from a promise not to increase NI?

    As Covid necessitated extra funds for the NHS, it did not necessitate indyref2, in fact the reverse
    Ah ok. So when you say never what you really mean is that if Boris can find a good reason to break that promise it is ok then.

    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?
    He won't, he had made clear he will not allow an indyref2 while he is PM as he knows if he lost it he would have to resign and become the 21st century Lord North.

    A 1% NI rise for the NHS with negligible electoral risk is entirely different
    Er, you are saying he keeps or breaks his promises depending on what is in it for him personally.
    Yes and banning indyref2 is good for him personally as no risk of Scottish independence or him leaving No 10
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    I have liked. My like is because HYUFD is spot on here and not necessarily because I agree with the policy.
    Quite, though to eb pedantic I believe HYUFD is actually wrong in detail - the £1m is only for couples with children, it's much less for couples with 'only' nieces and nephews etc (and I think that's the current figure rather than the one applying in Mr Osborne's tenure?).
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360

    Net "in favour"

    Increase Nat Insurance: +41
    Increase Income Tax: +15



    I think voters are mistaken, but there you go.....

    Most voters approved of Corbyn's plans individually as well, this is what I keep saying...
    Corbyn's ideas in the 2017 manifesto were very popular, but they were not costed at all.

    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.
    Labour's 2017 manifesto was costed. HTH. VAT on private school fees was to raise £1.6 billion, for instance. Behavioural changes to avoid paying Labour's new taxes were forecast to cost £3.9 billion.

    You might choose not to believe Labour's costings but they were made.
    This may be true but £1.6 bn is a footnote in government accounting, being much less than 1/1000th of GDP. And there is no evidence that champagne socialists would vote for it in an election they thought Labour would win, otherwise they might have to pay VAT on Tristan and Isolde's school fees.

  • HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    So your choices are:
    (a) print money to pay for it
    (b) increase taxes to pay for it
    (c) let people fend for themselves so there is no elderly care to pay for

    As "Tory principles" protect the small minority who have no money concerns, it will be c won't it?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690

    moonshine said:

    Despite what that poll may show, this policy is an open goal for Labour because I suspect support is broad but shallow. No doubt Starmer will scuff it again. If he were more politically ruthless, he would stoke this ready made culture war.

    Because like all good culture wars it’s built on a greater truth: that the modern British system of capitalism is rigged in favour of those with capital and against those who are seeking to build wealth through endeavour.

    In short, Labour needs to become Thatcherite, the party for the strivers, and stand against the deeply embedded advantages of a powerful bloc that is extracting from the economy rather than adding. Thatcher had the unions and nationalised industries, Starmer has the non-working holders of capital. Yes, don’t hide at the back there. Many of the people on here.

    Tie it all together in a neat bow. The inter generational tax and spend arrangements, the planning system and housing inequity, and yes, the north south divide which Johnson seems to think he now owns as an issue and can neglect.

    People so quickly forget that Corbyn only 4 years ago took 40% of the vote, despite all the baggage around the IRA, Agent Cob, perceived disrespect for British values / identity etc… a Labour offering without that baggage could earn a majority in my view.

    A Thatcherite Labour that understood the importance of making work pay could win my vote.

    Certainly more than a "tax the workers to redistribute the money to inheritances" Tory Party would.
    It needs a supremely talented political leader to carry off the re-branding exercise and to drag the party laggards with him. Imagine a Labour leader standing up at conference and seeking to loudly and proudly co-opt Thatcher and her agenda!

    The trouble is, Starmer doesn’t get it, as seen with Brexit. Easier instead to sneer at the strivers complaining about globalisation driven wage stagnation.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    edited September 2021
    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Trouble is this is, irrationally, also a suicide decision as far as many voters are concerned.
    Inheritance tax is one of the most avoidable of all taxes, and the richer you are the more you can afford the advice and planning needed. Ask the Duke of Devonshire or any farmer who owns his own land.

    Very good point. I have liked your other post of bullet points that I think are spot on. I do wonder how much inheritance tax planning however people in my position do though. We are both healthy in our 60s and built up a nest egg to live on till we die (no real pension to speak of). If we were to die in a car crash say the IHT bill will be eye watering.

    Not that I care.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.

    You should pay, pay your own way

    I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so

    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
    Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.

    If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
    Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.

    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.

    You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦‍♂️

    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.
    Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!

    So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
    No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.

    But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.

    Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.

    As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
  • moonshine said:

    Despite what that poll may show, this policy is an open goal for Labour because I suspect support is broad but shallow. No doubt Starmer will scuff it again. If he were more politically ruthless, he would stoke this ready made culture war.

    Because like all good culture wars it’s built on a greater truth: that the modern British system of capitalism is rigged in favour of those with capital and against those who are seeking to build wealth through endeavour.

    In short, Labour needs to become Thatcherite, the party for the strivers, and stand against the deeply embedded advantages of a powerful bloc that is extracting from the economy rather than adding. Thatcher had the unions and nationalised industries, Starmer has the non-working holders of capital. Yes, don’t hide at the back there. Many of the people on here.

    Tie it all together in a neat bow. The inter generational tax and spend arrangements, the planning system and housing inequity, and yes, the north south divide which Johnson seems to think he now owns as an issue and can neglect.

    People so quickly forget that Corbyn only 4 years ago took 40% of the vote, despite all the baggage around the IRA, Agent Cob, perceived disrespect for British values / identity etc… a Labour offering without that baggage could earn a majority in my view.

    There is a problem. The strivers have been persuaded that the best thing for them would be to vote against any proposals which lift them out of barely surviving. They won't threaten the wealth class because they believe that if they keep working 12 hour days driving their Uber they will one day also be the wealth class. Its the British version of the American Dream - a lie.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD you forcefully point out that Boris won't allow an Indy referendum because it was a promise. How does that differ from a promise not to increase NI?

    As Covid necessitated extra funds for the NHS, it did not necessitate indyref2, in fact the reverse
    Ah ok. So when you say never what you really mean is that if Boris can find a good reason to break that promise it is ok then.

    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?
    He won't, he had made clear he will not allow an indyref2 while he is PM as he knows if he lost it he would have to resign and become the 21st century Lord North.

    A 1% NI rise for the NHS with negligible electoral risk is entirely different
    Er, you are saying he keeps or breaks his promises depending on what is in it for him personally.
    Yes and banning indyref2 is good for him personally as no risk of Scottish independence or him leaving No 10
    But there is a majority for it in the Scottish parliament and it is the will of the electors in Scotland. It’s a poor narrative to see the ‘English’ parliament refusing to let Scotland carry out a policy its ruling parties supported.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264

    HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    So your choices are:
    (a) print money to pay for it
    (b) increase taxes to pay for it
    (c) let people fend for themselves so there is no elderly care to pay for

    As "Tory principles" protect the small minority who have no money concerns, it will be c won't it?
    No Tory principles protect the majority of property owners who own their own home outright or with a mortgage in this country and their families
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    My two takes on social care:
    1. There is little appetite to raise taxes to pay for it.
    2. There is a well defined life lottery. Some people spend years in a nursing home; others never see the inside of one.
    So I think it needs to be insurance-based. Everyone is required to put aside a sum of money each year leading into old age, where the pot of money can pay for an average length of stay, which I think is some months, given not everyone goes to a home. Possibly need to include costs of potential at home care.

    The premiums need to be taken in advance, not at death, but people could mortgage their assets to cover the premium. The State would means-test premiums and covers anyone unlucky enough to require a nursing home before the premiums are fully vested.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    So your choices are:
    (a) print money to pay for it
    (b) increase taxes to pay for it
    (c) let people fend for themselves so there is no elderly care to pay for

    As "Tory principles" protect the small minority who have no money concerns, it will be c won't it?
    No Tory principles protect the majority of property owners who own their own home outright or with a mortgage in this country and their families
    If a property owner spends their own money on themselves then that's their own free choice is it not?

    Why should we redistribute other people's taxes to prevent people from spending their own money on themselves?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    moonshine said:

    Despite what that poll may show, this policy is an open goal for Labour because I suspect support is broad but shallow. No doubt Starmer will scuff it again. If he were more politically ruthless, he would stoke this ready made culture war.

    Because like all good culture wars it’s built on a greater truth: that the modern British system of capitalism is rigged in favour of those with capital and against those who are seeking to build wealth through endeavour.

    In short, Labour needs to become Thatcherite, the party for the strivers, and stand against the deeply embedded advantages of a powerful bloc that is extracting from the economy rather than adding. Thatcher had the unions and nationalised industries, Starmer has the non-working holders of capital. Yes, don’t hide at the back there. Many of the people on here.

    Tie it all together in a neat bow. The inter generational tax and spend arrangements, the planning system and housing inequity, and yes, the north south divide which Johnson seems to think he now owns as an issue and can neglect.

    People so quickly forget that Corbyn only 4 years ago took 40% of the vote, despite all the baggage around the IRA, Agent Cob, perceived disrespect for British values / identity etc… a Labour offering without that baggage could earn a majority in my view.

    A Thatcherite Labour that understood the importance of making work pay could win my vote.

    Certainly more than a "tax the workers to redistribute the money to inheritances" Tory Party would.
    Labour will never become that. It’s a party of single issue obsessives held together under the labour umbrella.
  • HYUFD said:

    I would suggest there is some misunderstanding in the proposals relating to elderly care

    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

    The home is still protected for at home social care, just not for residential care
    Yes and as I agree the £80,000 is a residential care cap equating to approx 2 years care

    The idea that pensioners will pay nothing is not correct as they will still pay up to £80,000 under these proposals
  • Taz said:

    moonshine said:

    Despite what that poll may show, this policy is an open goal for Labour because I suspect support is broad but shallow. No doubt Starmer will scuff it again. If he were more politically ruthless, he would stoke this ready made culture war.

    Because like all good culture wars it’s built on a greater truth: that the modern British system of capitalism is rigged in favour of those with capital and against those who are seeking to build wealth through endeavour.

    In short, Labour needs to become Thatcherite, the party for the strivers, and stand against the deeply embedded advantages of a powerful bloc that is extracting from the economy rather than adding. Thatcher had the unions and nationalised industries, Starmer has the non-working holders of capital. Yes, don’t hide at the back there. Many of the people on here.

    Tie it all together in a neat bow. The inter generational tax and spend arrangements, the planning system and housing inequity, and yes, the north south divide which Johnson seems to think he now owns as an issue and can neglect.

    People so quickly forget that Corbyn only 4 years ago took 40% of the vote, despite all the baggage around the IRA, Agent Cob, perceived disrespect for British values / identity etc… a Labour offering without that baggage could earn a majority in my view.

    A Thatcherite Labour that understood the importance of making work pay could win my vote.

    Certainly more than a "tax the workers to redistribute the money to inheritances" Tory Party would.
    Labour will never become that. It’s a party of single issue obsessives held together under the labour umbrella.
    Eventually the party will decide they want to win rather than be obsessive. They're not their yet.

    But if the Tories are high tax and redistribution, and Labour are obsessives, I suppose I'll look for a protest vote. Maybe the LibDems unless Davey backs this madness?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    So your choices are:
    (a) print money to pay for it
    (b) increase taxes to pay for it
    (c) let people fend for themselves so there is no elderly care to pay for

    As "Tory principles" protect the small minority who have no money concerns, it will be c won't it?
    No Tory principles protect the majority of property owners who own their own home outright or with a mortgage in this country and their families
    Either you are saying that the Tories are screwing most property owners, or you have forgotten a comma ...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    The Guardian..... yes, all right ...... there is a piece about Mark Drakeford, which includes
    'While Drakeford’s detail-oriented, carefully considered approach to policy may not excite, it turns out that, when the going got tough, this was exactly what most of the Welsh electorate wanted from their political leader. '

    I wonder whether after a few years of the bumptious, joke-telling but substance-lacking PM Johnson the English public will turn with relief to the calmer, thoughtful Starmer, rather as Churchill was replaced by the charisma-lacking Attlee.
  • I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.
  • I'm surprised Boris is bothering with all this. Long-termism is hardly his thing. Can't he just kick it into the long grass and let PM Rishi worry about it later?

    Maybe that's the idea behind putting forward something so obviously wrong. He put a plan forward, it would have been brilliant, but the doomsters and gloomsters and Starmers stopped him doing it.

    And if granny has to sell her house, it's Not His Fault.
  • The state of this discussion.

    No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.

    People don't want to pay for other people's care. And don't want to pay for their parent's care from their forthcoming inheritance. There is no solution without a complete remap of how we live our lives and none of the politicians want to talk beyond the immediate.
    Rochdale - genuine question - have LDs set out how they would fund this?
    Nope - because there is no solution to pay for the current mess - only to completely replace the whole system and start again. 2019 manifesto was 1p on income tax (fairer than the NI proposal) to provide interim funds to help, with a cross-party working group to try and create something better that is sustainable. Labour had a similar step-change proposal in 2010.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.

    You should pay, pay your own way

    I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so

    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
    Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.

    If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
    Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.

    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.

    You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦‍♂️

    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.
    Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!

    So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
    No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.

    But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.

    Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.

    As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
    You looked at Barking and Dagenham which is the cheapest borough in London and indeed cheaper than most parts of the Home Counties. Indeed Barking and Dagenham is listed in the top 10 worst places to live in England, there is a reason it is so cheap (apologies to any Barking and Dagenham residents).
    https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-and-dagenham-listed-in-britain-s-top-10-chav-3295626

    According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.


    So the average couple on an average London wage could not afford even to buy the average London flat let alone a semi-detached property there
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2021

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Its often said that politicians read PB.

    I'll be glad if they do, or I'll be getting my pitchfork out. 🔱
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    FF43 said:

    My two takes on social care:

    1. There is little appetite to raise taxes to pay for it.
    2. There is a well defined life lottery. Some people spend years in a nursing home; others never see the inside of one.
    So I think it needs to be insurance-based. Everyone is required to put aside a sum of money each year leading into old age, where the pot of money can pay for an average length of stay, which I think is some months, given not everyone goes to a home. Possibly need to include costs of potential at home care.

    The premiums need to be taken in advance, not at death, but people could mortgage their assets to cover the premium. The State would means-test premiums and covers anyone unlucky enough to require a nursing home before the premiums are fully vested.
    Doesn't work - why should people pay a large sum upfront for something that might never happen - it's literally a variation of May's deal with added private firms involved.

    The strange thing is that the easiest win is 1% on NI with no other changes.

    No one sane will attack a 1% increase in NI to support the NHS (which social care actually does by ideally reducing emergency hospital admissions of the elderly) - the issue is if it's attached to any change in how social care works.





  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.

    You should pay, pay your own way

    I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so

    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
    Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.

    If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
    Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.

    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.

    You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦‍♂️

    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.
    Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!

    So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
    No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.

    But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.

    Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.

    As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
    You looked at Barking and Dagenham which is the cheapest borough in London and indeed cheaper than most parts of the Home Counties. Indeed Barking and Dagenham is listed in the top 10 worst places to live in England, there is a reason it is so cheap (apologies to any Barking and Dagenham residents).
    https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-and-dagenham-listed-in-britain-s-top-10-chav-3295626

    According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.


    So the average couple on an average London wage could not afford even to buy the average London flat let alone a semi-detached property there
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html
    Why the hell do you think that a First Time Buyer buys an average property?

    Are you too thick to understand that most people pay for a less than average one?

    Who do you think is paying for the less than average ones, if FTBs are going for average ones?

    Can you answer that point please instead of harping on about averages that are absolutely meaningless to the individual?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Its often said that politicians read PB.

    I'll be glad if they do, or I'll be getting my pitchfork out. 🔱
    That's a trident, not a pitchfork. More appropriate for Mr Johnson and his fishing expotition.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    I'm pondering whether inheritance tax should be increased.

    50% above £325,000 and 66% above £500,000.
    Absolutely not, Osborne's raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples was the single most popular Tory policy this century and single handedly prevented Brown calling an election in 2007 as his poll lead evaporated.

    By contrast May's dementia tax was the single most unpopular Tory policy this century and lost her her majority in 2017.

    Boris of course being far more politically savvy would not go near such a policy which would betray Tory principles
    So your choices are:
    (a) print money to pay for it
    (b) increase taxes to pay for it
    (c) let people fend for themselves so there is no elderly care to pay for

    As "Tory principles" protect the small minority who have no money concerns, it will be c won't it?
    No Tory principles protect the majority of property owners who own their own home outright or with a mortgage in this country and their families
    If a property owner spends their own money on themselves then that's their own free choice is it not?

    Why should we redistribute other people's taxes to prevent people from spending their own money on themselves?
    Why should we spend other peoples' taxes on the NHS and state education for property owners with assets too? They should take out private insurance or use private education
  • HYUFD said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
    You're a party loyalist and will spin on a sixpence if you think the line has changed. If the Tories came out in favour of a Scottish Independence referendum you'd be its biggest cheerleader.

    When was the last time on here you opposed a Tory government policy?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Why not just rebadge social care as part of Our NHS, so everyone will love it and want to give it 350m a week? This is a serious proposal, which would work.
  • Carnyx said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Its often said that politicians read PB.

    I'll be glad if they do, or I'll be getting my pitchfork out. 🔱
    That's a trident, not a pitchfork. More appropriate for Mr Johnson and his fishing expotition.
    I know that, but its the closest emoji I could find.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264

    HYUFD said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
    You're a party loyalist and will spin on a sixpence if you think the line has changed. If the Tories came out in favour of a Scottish Independence referendum you'd be its biggest cheerleader.

    When was the last time on here you opposed a Tory government policy?
    No I wouldnt, as I made clear I opposed May's dementia tax in 2017
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Why not just rebadge social care as part of Our NHS, so everyone will love it and want to give it 350m a week? This is a serious proposal, which would work.

    The NHS has already got the £350m from the EU so where would you get a new £350m from?
  • The state of this discussion.

    No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.

    People don't want to pay for other people's care. And don't want to pay for their parent's care from their forthcoming inheritance. There is no solution without a complete remap of how we live our lives and none of the politicians want to talk beyond the immediate.
    Rochdale - genuine question - have LDs set out how they would fund this?
    Nope - because there is no solution to pay for the current mess - only to completely replace the whole system and start again. 2019 manifesto was 1p on income tax (fairer than the NI proposal) to provide interim funds to help, with a cross-party working group to try and create something better that is sustainable. Labour had a similar step-change proposal in 2010.
    Fair enough, thanks
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD you forcefully point out that Boris won't allow an Indy referendum because it was a promise. How does that differ from a promise not to increase NI?

    As Covid necessitated extra funds for the NHS, it did not necessitate indyref2, in fact the reverse
    Ah ok. So when you say never what you really mean is that if Boris can find a good reason to break that promise it is ok then.

    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?
    He won't, he had made clear he will not allow an indyref2 while he is PM as he knows if he lost it he would have to resign and become the 21st century Lord North.

    A 1% NI rise for the NHS with negligible electoral risk is entirely different
    You are missing the point. You say never, but also agree if circumstances change for something else he will. They are contradictory positions. So try this:

    SNP get 80% vote share, Indy polls show 80%. UK Govt ignores, and people take to the streets, people die in riots, car and buildings burn down, bombs go off, army sent in. Sounds familiar. The difference being in NI the nationalist were in a minority, if they are in a big majority that defence is no longer there.

    I appreciate this is hypothetical and unlikely, but you can't say at the same time 'Never' and then allow a reason for a change because 'Unforeseen Circumstances'.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,314
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
    You're an outrider though, HYUFD. There always has to be an exception to prove the rule. I believe you're alone in contemplating invading Scotland under certain circumstances as well, and on other matters. You often kick against the consensus, good on you.
  • The Guardian..... yes, all right ...... there is a piece about Mark Drakeford, which includes
    'While Drakeford’s detail-oriented, carefully considered approach to policy may not excite, it turns out that, when the going got tough, this was exactly what most of the Welsh electorate wanted from their political leader. '

    I wonder whether after a few years of the bumptious, joke-telling but substance-lacking PM Johnson the English public will turn with relief to the calmer, thoughtful Starmer, rather as Churchill was replaced by the charisma-lacking Attlee.

    The Starmer Paradox-

    A more charismatic Labour leader (a lefty Boris for shorthand) might well be doing a better job of persuading the public that they want an alternative to BoJo, but once persuaded, someone like Starmer is likely to be what the necessary alternative looks like.

    (And remember, fact fans, that even when Churchill beat Attlee in 1951, the Conservatives got a lower share of the vote than Labour.)
  • HYUFD said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
    You're a party loyalist and will spin on a sixpence if you think the line has changed. If the Tories came out in favour of a Scottish Independence referendum you'd be its biggest cheerleader.

    When was the last time on here you opposed a Tory government policy?
    When it mandated that Tory Councillors and Tory Association Chairs implore people to vote Tory. HYUFD is the only "I'm the only gay Tory in the village" loyalist who thinks Tory members and voters should vote against the Tory candidate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.

    You should pay, pay your own way

    I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so

    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
    Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.

    If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
    Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.

    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.

    You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦‍♂️

    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.
    Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!

    So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
    No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.

    But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.

    Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.

    As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
    You looked at Barking and Dagenham which is the cheapest borough in London and indeed cheaper than most parts of the Home Counties. Indeed Barking and Dagenham is listed in the top 10 worst places to live in England, there is a reason it is so cheap (apologies to any Barking and Dagenham residents).
    https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-and-dagenham-listed-in-britain-s-top-10-chav-3295626

    According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.


    So the average couple on an average London wage could not afford even to buy the average London flat let alone a semi-detached property there
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html
    Why the hell do you think that a First Time Buyer buys an average property?

    Are you too thick to understand that most people pay for a less than average one?

    Who do you think is paying for the less than average ones, if FTBs are going for average ones?

    Can you answer that point please instead of harping on about averages that are absolutely meaningless to the individual?
    Average price for a property for first time buyers in London over £489,000 in 2020.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/557882/first-time-buyer-average-house-price-by-region-uk/#:~:text=It can be seen that,house price in the UK.
    So even most first time buyer properties are too expensive for those on an average London wage in the capital

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Its often said that politicians read PB.

    I'll be glad if they do, or I'll be getting my pitchfork out. 🔱
    I'm sure funnier things have happened on PB than your change of heart about how cool it is for governments to renege on their promises. Just can't think of one off hand, though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264

    HYUFD said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
    You're a party loyalist and will spin on a sixpence if you think the line has changed. If the Tories came out in favour of a Scottish Independence referendum you'd be its biggest cheerleader.

    When was the last time on here you opposed a Tory government policy?
    When it mandated that Tory Councillors and Tory Association Chairs implore people to vote Tory. HYUFD is the only "I'm the only gay Tory in the village" loyalist who thinks Tory members and voters should vote against the Tory candidate.
    No in Scotland they vote against the SNP on the Holyrood constituency vote and for the Tories on the list vote as Ross even agreed with as Scottish party leader. At Westminster they vote Tory always
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.

    You should pay, pay your own way

    I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so

    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
    Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.

    If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
    Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.

    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.

    You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦‍♂️

    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.
    Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!

    So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
    No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.

    But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.

    Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.

    As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
    You looked at Barking and Dagenham which is the cheapest borough in London and indeed cheaper than most parts of the Home Counties. Indeed Barking and Dagenham is listed in the top 10 worst places to live in England, there is a reason it is so cheap (apologies to any Barking and Dagenham residents).
    https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-and-dagenham-listed-in-britain-s-top-10-chav-3295626

    According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.


    So the average couple on an average London wage could not afford even to buy the average London flat let alone a semi-detached property there
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html
    Why the hell do you think that a First Time Buyer buys an average property?

    Are you too thick to understand that most people pay for a less than average one?

    Who do you think is paying for the less than average ones, if FTBs are going for average ones?

    Can you answer that point please instead of harping on about averages that are absolutely meaningless to the individual?
    Average price for a property for first time buyers in London over £489,000 in 2020.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/557882/first-time-buyer-average-house-price-by-region-uk/#:~:text=It can be seen that,house price in the UK.
    So even most first time buyer properties are too expensive for those on an average London wage in the capital

    Again stupidly banging on about averages?

    The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.

    Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.

  • Ian Birrell
    @ianbirrell
    ·
    2h
    Now David Willetts, a supposed expert and former minister, saying the beneficiaries of increased social care funding will be exclusively elderly. Pitiful. Almost half spending goes on working age adults. So bored of people pontificating about the system when so ignorant about it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,264
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD you forcefully point out that Boris won't allow an Indy referendum because it was a promise. How does that differ from a promise not to increase NI?

    As Covid necessitated extra funds for the NHS, it did not necessitate indyref2, in fact the reverse
    Ah ok. So when you say never what you really mean is that if Boris can find a good reason to break that promise it is ok then.

    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?
    He won't, he had made clear he will not allow an indyref2 while he is PM as he knows if he lost it he would have to resign and become the 21st century Lord North.

    A 1% NI rise for the NHS with negligible electoral risk is entirely different
    You are missing the point. You say never, but also agree if circumstances change for something else he will. They are contradictory positions. So try this:

    SNP get 80% vote share, Indy polls show 80%. UK Govt ignores, and people take to the streets, people die in riots, car and buildings burn down, bombs go off, army sent in. Sounds familiar. The difference being in NI the nationalist were in a minority, if they are in a big majority that defence is no longer there.

    I appreciate this is hypothetical and unlikely, but you can't say at the same time 'Never' and then allow a reason for a change because 'Unforeseen Circumstances'.
    Legally there would be nothing to stop the UK government refusing an indyref2 even then.

    However anyway that is entirely hyopthetical, most Scottish polls have No still narrowly ahead and most Scots not wanting indyref2 for 5 years at least
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360

    The state of this discussion.

    No wonder social care reforms are 20 years overdue.

    People don't want to pay for other people's care. And don't want to pay for their parent's care from their forthcoming inheritance. There is no solution without a complete remap of how we live our lives and none of the politicians want to talk beyond the immediate.
    Rochdale - genuine question - have LDs set out how they would fund this?
    Nope - because there is no solution to pay for the current mess - only to completely replace the whole system and start again. 2019 manifesto was 1p on income tax (fairer than the NI proposal) to provide interim funds to help, with a cross-party working group to try and create something better that is sustainable. Labour had a similar step-change proposal in 2010.
    A 1% point rise in IT raises about £5.5 bn. We are currently borrowing £300 bn a year. All this discussion is about sums of money that are footnotes to the accounts. When does this chicken come home to roost?

  • We could always have an 85% special tax to football shirt sales.

    As we know, football fans complain but will always pay through the nose.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.

    You should pay, pay your own way

    I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so

    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
    Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.

    If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
    Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.

    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.

    You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦‍♂️

    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.
    Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!

    So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
    No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.

    But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.

    Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.

    As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
    You looked at Barking and Dagenham which is the cheapest borough in London and indeed cheaper than most parts of the Home Counties. Indeed Barking and Dagenham is listed in the top 10 worst places to live in England, there is a reason it is so cheap (apologies to any Barking and Dagenham residents).
    https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-and-dagenham-listed-in-britain-s-top-10-chav-3295626

    According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.


    So the average couple on an average London wage could not afford even to buy the average London flat let alone a semi-detached property there
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html
    Why the hell do you think that a First Time Buyer buys an average property?

    Are you too thick to understand that most people pay for a less than average one?

    Who do you think is paying for the less than average ones, if FTBs are going for average ones?

    Can you answer that point please instead of harping on about averages that are absolutely meaningless to the individual?
    We are back into HYUFD publishing a 'fact' and not understanding he is misusing it and his incorrect assumption is therefore no longer a 'fact'. He will continue publishing stats not realising his use of them renders them meaningless and he just doesn't understand why.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
    You're a party loyalist and will spin on a sixpence if you think the line has changed. If the Tories came out in favour of a Scottish Independence referendum you'd be its biggest cheerleader.

    When was the last time on here you opposed a Tory government policy?
    When it mandated that Tory Councillors and Tory Association Chairs implore people to vote Tory. HYUFD is the only "I'm the only gay Tory in the village" loyalist who thinks Tory members and voters should vote against the Tory candidate.
    No in Scotland they vote against the SNP on the Holyrood constituency vote and for the Tories on the list vote as Ross even agreed with as Scottish party leader. At Westminster they vote Tory always
    Yes. "Voting against the SNP" is voting against the Tory where your party isn't competitive. It is the very worst kind of political hypocrisy sitting there screeching that nobody else is a proper Tory because they voted against the Tory candidate when you support the exact same thing.

    It is ludicrous, laughable, stupid. But you are so pompous that you claim not to notice how isolated you are in your position.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    edited September 2021

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.


    Social care is never going to be popular.

    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.
    That's rather a misanthropic answer imo. Shades of "sod the oldies".

    "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.
    The money spent on the last months and years of a sick oldie would have been far more advantageous for them if they'd had that money when younger.

    That's the reality, you may think its misanthropic but its undeniable.
    Social care is not just for "sick oldies".

    That claim is just untrue.

    It seems to me that your comment is dehumanising human beings - not acceptable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    HYUFD said:

    I don't think the NI proposal will see the light of day.

    PB is not representative of anything. But it's the first time ever I've seen right, centre, left and all shades between united in thinking that an NI increase is a Bad Idea. There may be little agreement between us on what the alternative should be, but the PB tribe seems pretty united in rejecting an NI increase.

    The government should listen to us.

    Speak for yourself, I find myself in rare agreement with BJO amongst others in backing a 1% NI rise over less palatable alternatives
    Apols if I've missed it but what's your rationale for NI being a better option than IT?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,354
    edited September 2021
    An exquisite day down here in Devon today. You can check it out on ITV4 as the Tour of Britain is going between Totnes and Dartmouth this morning - my backyard.

    (Well, not ALL of it is my backyard - I'm not Charles....)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    The problem that opponents of this approach have is the sound bite version, I think.

    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.

    They already have - the NI rise is initially intended for more cash to the NHS, and then at some unspecified time, in some unspecified manner will do something (or not) for social care.

    And unless you are a pensioner, why would anyone think a rise in NI preferable to a rise in income tax ?
This discussion has been closed.