One MP said: “It’s totally shit. We are asking people on low incomes to pay more tax so that privileged kids can inherit expensive houses.” https://on.ft.com/3BKMNBs
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
Mr. Mark, that's why going for a heavy reliance on renewables is foolish. I'm not against renewables but there are times when wind (particularly bad for this) just isn't blowing right and then there's a shortfall.
So you need energy you can summon on command, which is coal/gas. So you still need that capacity, in addition to all the wind farms and so forth. Solar is more predictable, likewise tidal.
🏭 UK fires up an old coal power plant to meet electricity needs
Warm, still autumn weather means wind farms have not generated as much power as normal, while soaring prices have made it too costly to rely on gas
The Government has drawn up plans for an October “firebreak” Covid lockdown should hospitalisations continue at their current level and threaten to overload the NHS, a senior Government scientist has told i.
The member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said the UK is about to enter “an extended peak” of infections and hospitalisations, which are in danger of pushing the NHS beyond breaking point and could force the Government to re-introduce restrictions over the school half term period at the end of next month.
A full lockdown is unlikely and would be a last resort, but there are a range of measures the government could introduce.
“This is essentially the precautionary break that Sage suggested last year,” said the Sage source. “It would be sensible to have contingency plans, and if a lockdown is required, to time it so that it has minimal economic and societal impact.
“We are going to be at a peak, albeit an extended peak, quite soon, so it’s not really the same situation as last year, when failure to reduce prevalence would have resulted in collapse of NHS and people dying in car parks,” he said.
“Hospitals might be overflowing before deaths reach the same level. Acting early will prevent this level.”
It is understood that the Government’s contingency plan for a “firebreak” lockdown could lead to an extension of the half-term, from one week for most schools to two weeks from late October into early November.
I do wish people wouldn't use the word lockdown when it doesn't mean lockdown.
I know the Independent want to sell papers but they should be responsible about their language too.
If there are a NHS crashing number of cases the government will introduce social distancing and masks, lockdown will be the last mitigation.
Indeed I would expect us to go back to Stage 3 first - eg mandatory table service and masks in pubs
Except pretty much everyone knows that this doesn't have any effect on covid at-all, other than to shaft the hospitality sector (again).
It's wrong that everyone should pay the price for something that's happening because of those who refuse to be vaccinated when they had the opportunity.
How about * vaccine passports * restarting the nightingales * clear down non essential NHS capacity to allow for more covid capacity * Tax those who aren't vaccinated to pay for the expected extra medical treatment they'll require * worst case, if capacity is totally shot, triage unvaccinated at a lower priority to everyone else
* othering is not a good path to go down * Fine although they are more maintenance * Part of the problem is the stuff that isn’t been done * Administratively a nightmare * Undermine the fundamental principles of the NHS
In a parallel universe, you are the Prime Minister. It is October this year, the number of Covid patients in hospital is now over 12,000, and your advisers are screaming (yet again) about the collapse of the healthcare system by Christmas.
80% of the Covid patients in hospital are vaccine refusers. Your advisers tell you that you can rescue the situation either by taking punitive measures against the refusers, or by putting the whole population into an Auckland-style lockdown until Easter.
What do you do?
Nightingales but with more treatment capacity. Dedicated non Covid hospitals to maintain a functional system
The Government has drawn up plans for an October “firebreak” Covid lockdown should hospitalisations continue at their current level and threaten to overload the NHS, a senior Government scientist has told i.
The member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said the UK is about to enter “an extended peak” of infections and hospitalisations, which are in danger of pushing the NHS beyond breaking point and could force the Government to re-introduce restrictions over the school half term period at the end of next month.
A full lockdown is unlikely and would be a last resort, but there are a range of measures the government could introduce.
“This is essentially the precautionary break that Sage suggested last year,” said the Sage source. “It would be sensible to have contingency plans, and if a lockdown is required, to time it so that it has minimal economic and societal impact.
“We are going to be at a peak, albeit an extended peak, quite soon, so it’s not really the same situation as last year, when failure to reduce prevalence would have resulted in collapse of NHS and people dying in car parks,” he said.
“Hospitals might be overflowing before deaths reach the same level. Acting early will prevent this level.”
It is understood that the Government’s contingency plan for a “firebreak” lockdown could lead to an extension of the half-term, from one week for most schools to two weeks from late October into early November.
I do wish people wouldn't use the word lockdown when it doesn't mean lockdown.
I know the Independent want to sell papers but they should be responsible about their language too.
If there are a NHS crashing number of cases the government will introduce social distancing and masks, lockdown will be the last mitigation.
Indeed I would expect us to go back to Stage 3 first - eg mandatory table service and masks in pubs
Except pretty much everyone knows that this doesn't have any effect on covid at-all, other than to shaft the hospitality sector (again).
It's wrong that everyone should pay the price for something that's happening because of those who refuse to be vaccinated when they had the opportunity.
How about * vaccine passports * restarting the nightingales * clear down non essential NHS capacity to allow for more covid capacity * Tax those who aren't vaccinated to pay for the expected extra medical treatment they'll require * worst case, if capacity is totally shot, triage unvaccinated at a lower priority to everyone else
* othering is not a good path to go down * Fine although they are more maintenance * Part of the problem is the stuff that isn’t been done * Administratively a nightmare * Undermine the fundamental principles of the NHS
In a parallel universe, you are the Prime Minister. It is October this year, the number of Covid patients in hospital is now over 12,000, and your advisers are screaming (yet again) about the collapse of the healthcare system by Christmas.
80% of the Covid patients in hospital are vaccine refusers. Your advisers tell you that you can rescue the situation either by taking punitive measures against the refusers, or by putting the whole population into an Auckland-style lockdown until Easter.
What do you do?
Nightingales but with more treatment capacity. Dedicated non Covid hospitals to maintain a functional system
Lib -1.3% BQ -4.4% Con +4.0% NDP +2.2% Green -1.5% PPC +0.5%
On those numbers Trudeau's Liberals could even pick up some seats from the BQ in Quebec as most marginal seats in the province are Liberal v BQ.
It is the Conservatives relative weakness in Quebec (remember under Mulroney the Progressive Conservatives actually won most seats in Quebec in the 1980s) and Trudeau's relative strength in French Canada which may well save him. If the election was only being held in British Canada then on current polling not only would O'Toole's Conservatives certainly win most seats it would even be close to a majority
One MP said: “It’s totally shit. We are asking people on low incomes to pay more tax so that privileged kids can inherit expensive houses.” https://on.ft.com/3BKMNBs
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
One MP said: “It’s totally shit. We are asking people on low incomes to pay more tax so that privileged kids can inherit expensive houses.” https://on.ft.com/3BKMNBs
He's right.
High earners pay NI too and those earning under £10,000 don't pay NI at all. As long as the rise is limited to 1% and mainly to provide extra funds for the NHS after Covid and some funds for social care most voters will accept it.
Under May's dementia tax all properties over £100,000 would have been liable for at home care ie even average properties in the North.
At the last general election like it or not Labour won voters aged under 45, without the vote of pensioners and those 45-65 waiting for an inheritance for the Tories Labour would have won most seats.
This is not the Tory Party of Cameron for instance who did win workers and voters over 35 in both 2010 and 2015, even if he won pensioners by less than May and Boris did due to Brexit as the UKIP vote and Labour Leave vote went Tory
One MP said: “It’s totally shit. We are asking people on low incomes to pay more tax so that privileged kids can inherit expensive houses.” https://on.ft.com/3BKMNBs
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
It may receive a reasonable reception from others, but I will cease to support the party if this insanity goes ahead.
If its 1.25% then that's 2.5% in reality (because employers NI is a direct tax on wages, don't kid yourselves that it isn't).
To do a simple calculation for a basic rate employee it would mean basic rate tax of 20%, employee NI of 13.25% and employers NI of 15.05%
That would mean if an employer could afford to add £100 to their labour bill for an employee then that would breakdown as: Employer's NI £13.08 Income Tax £17.38 Employee NI £11.52
Total Taxes £41.98 Net Wages £58.02 Gross Wage Cost £100.00
People think that the 'basic tax rate' is 20% but in reality its over double that. 🤦♂️
The Government has drawn up plans for an October “firebreak” Covid lockdown should hospitalisations continue at their current level and threaten to overload the NHS, a senior Government scientist has told i.
The member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said the UK is about to enter “an extended peak” of infections and hospitalisations, which are in danger of pushing the NHS beyond breaking point and could force the Government to re-introduce restrictions over the school half term period at the end of next month.
A full lockdown is unlikely and would be a last resort, but there are a range of measures the government could introduce.
“This is essentially the precautionary break that Sage suggested last year,” said the Sage source. “It would be sensible to have contingency plans, and if a lockdown is required, to time it so that it has minimal economic and societal impact.
“We are going to be at a peak, albeit an extended peak, quite soon, so it’s not really the same situation as last year, when failure to reduce prevalence would have resulted in collapse of NHS and people dying in car parks,” he said.
“Hospitals might be overflowing before deaths reach the same level. Acting early will prevent this level.”
It is understood that the Government’s contingency plan for a “firebreak” lockdown could lead to an extension of the half-term, from one week for most schools to two weeks from late October into early November.
I do wish people wouldn't use the word lockdown when it doesn't mean lockdown.
I know the Independent want to sell papers but they should be responsible about their language too.
If there are a NHS crashing number of cases the government will introduce social distancing and masks, lockdown will be the last mitigation.
Indeed I would expect us to go back to Stage 3 first - eg mandatory table service and masks in pubs
Except pretty much everyone knows that this doesn't have any effect on covid at-all, other than to shaft the hospitality sector (again).
It's wrong that everyone should pay the price for something that's happening because of those who refuse to be vaccinated when they had the opportunity.
How about * vaccine passports * restarting the nightingales * clear down non essential NHS capacity to allow for more covid capacity * Tax those who aren't vaccinated to pay for the expected extra medical treatment they'll require * worst case, if capacity is totally shot, triage unvaccinated at a lower priority to everyone else
* othering is not a good path to go down * Fine although they are more maintenance * Part of the problem is the stuff that isn’t been done * Administratively a nightmare * Undermine the fundamental principles of the NHS
On the last point anti-vaxxers want to be able to have their cake and eat it too: refusing the vaccine that will prevent them getting sick and ending up at the NHS, but still expecting treatment to be offered as a "fundamental principle of the NHS" despite having refused the vaccine.
Except that fundamental principle isn't so fundamental. The NHS is already today prepared to take an individuals behaviour into account for their treatment plans.
If more patients require liver transplants than available livers, then don't alcoholics who refuse to give up drinking get denied liver transplants - despite the fact they need a new liver to survive and despite the "fundamental principles of the NHS".
Alcoholism is at least a recognised illness and still people get denied treatment based upon it - I see no divine right antivaxxers should be granted special extra attention at the NHS having refused the earlier vaccine offered to them.
Is that right? Foxy would know, but I don't think treatment is denied because alcoholism makes you a less deserving case. They may refuse you a new liver if they think you will continue drinking with it, but that is because it's a waste of a liver. It's based on likely future conduct, not directly on past.
Yes, that is pretty much it.
In healthcare we do not ration on how someone became ill, just on their likely benefits from treatment.
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
We shall see. First, these measures have been suspiciously well-trailed. Too well-trailed? Along with the sudden clamour from Tories to hear Labour's plans, cynics might wonder if a trap is being laid. I'm still inclined to wait and see what is announced.
Meanwhile, Labour must surely be adding these to the list of broken pledges. That might not matter in 2024 when, if I am right, a new Prime Minister will face them.
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
I agree Big G - I too am expecting a reasonably good reception by the public.
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
It may receive a reasonable reception from others, but I will cease to support the party if this insanity goes ahead.
If its 1.25% then that's 2.5% in reality (because employers NI is a direct tax on wages, don't kid yourselves that it isn't).
To do a simple calculation for a basic rate employee it would mean basic rate tax of 20%, employee NI of 13.25% and employers NI of 15.05%
That would mean if an employer could afford to add £100 to their labour bill for an employee then that would breakdown as: Employer's NI £13.08 Income Tax £17.38 Employee NI £11.52
Total Taxes £41.98 Net Wages £58.02 Gross Wage Cost £100.00
People think that the 'basic tax rate' is 20% but in reality its over double that. 🤦♂️
Yes I am aware of all of that but ultimately covid and increasing NHS and care costs have to be resourced and there are no easy solutions
I did run my own company before I retired so these issues are not alien to me
I am sorry you are so angry, and many will share your view but in the end change is coming and covid has a lot to do with it
LUMO IS GO! FirstGroup's new lo-cost London-Edinburgh trains will take on easyJet & Ryanair at their own game starting 25 October, 6 times less CO2 than a flight with fares from £14.90 - 60% of fares will be £30 or less. I'm going to enjoy watching this - pass the popcorn...
LUMO IS GO! FirstGroup's new lo-cost London-Edinburgh trains will take on easyJet & Ryanair at their own game starting 25 October, 6 times less CO2 than a flight with fares from £14.90 - 60% of fares will be £30 or less. I'm going to enjoy watching this - pass the popcorn...
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
It may receive a reasonable reception from others, but I will cease to support the party if this insanity goes ahead.
If its 1.25% then that's 2.5% in reality (because employers NI is a direct tax on wages, don't kid yourselves that it isn't).
To do a simple calculation for a basic rate employee it would mean basic rate tax of 20%, employee NI of 13.25% and employers NI of 15.05%
That would mean if an employer could afford to add £100 to their labour bill for an employee then that would breakdown as: Employer's NI £13.08 Income Tax £17.38 Employee NI £11.52
Total Taxes £41.98 Net Wages £58.02 Gross Wage Cost £100.00
People think that the 'basic tax rate' is 20% but in reality its over double that. 🤦♂️
Yes I am aware of all of that but ultimately covid and increasing NHS and care costs have to be resourced and there are no easy solutions
I did run my own company before I retired so these issues are not alien to me
I am sorry you are so angry, and many will share your view but in the end change is coming and covid has a lot to do with it
Change to pay for costs that have to be paid is reasonable - but charge that equally for all. That means Income Tax applied to all sources of income equally whether that be wages, rent, investment income, pensions etc
Changes to pay for costs that do not have to be paid anyway - like new unpaid for, unsaved for welfare entitlements I do not support.
If people spend the value of their home on their own care then that's using their own rainy day money for themselves on a rainy day. That's nothing to be entitled over. If you want a solution to prevent that, then a private insurance model could be created (and regulated if need be) but there's no reason that needs to come from taxation, let alone taxation that isn't paid for by everyone.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
This is populism in action; a product of being led by polling and their dunderhead focus groups. This isn't about logic and fairness and principle. It is about what is sellable to the majority of people. And an increased NI, which Joe Public doesn't understand and which will be hypothecated for the national religion the NHS, trumps an income tax increase comfortably.
Seems to me that those railing against these populist proposals now were quite keen on populism when it brought us Brexit.
The funny thing about this government is that they want to be populist, but none of them have the populist instincts of, say, Thatcher. She didn't just know what successful Middle Britain wanted, she wanted what they wanted, because she was one of them. Boris needs polling to do this for him- he can't do it for himself. Hence scrapes like Rashford-school food parcels.
Plus, Boris is not as bright or diligent as is needed for the job. Otherwise, he'd have noticed that a package that hits everyone except richer pensioners in order to protect the estates of... richer pensioners... is a bad idea.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
This is populism in action; a product of being led by polling and their dunderhead focus groups. This isn't about logic and fairness and principle. It is about what is sellable to the majority of people. And an increased NI, which Joe Public doesn't understand and which will be hypothecated for the national religion the NHS, trumps an income tax increase comfortably.
Seems to me that those railing against these populist proposals now were quite keen on populism when it brought us Brexit.
The funny thing about this government is that they want to be populist, but none of them have the populist instincts of, say, Thatcher. She didn't just know what successful Middle Britain wanted, she wanted what they wanted, because she was one of them. Boris needs polling to do this for him- he can't do it for himself. Hence scrapes like Rashford-school food parcels.
Plus, Boris is not as bright or diligent as is needed for the job. Otherwise, he'd have noticed that a package that hits everyone except richer pensioners in order to protect the estates of... richer pensioners... is a bad idea.
Poor pensioners also don't pay NI.
It is the triple lock freeze I agree which will hit Tory voters more than the 1% rise in NI and if there is any significant leakage from the Tories that will mainly be the cause given the biggest percentage of the Tory vote in 2019 was made up of pensioners
Burnham on r4 wants 10% from all estates to cover costs. Points out that estates will be bigger because they won't have been whittled down by care costs.
Also reserving right to go for wealth tax, increase cgt.
I think this general approach, which is not a mile away from May's infamous dementia tax, is the way to go. If your parent is unfortunate enough to need extensive end of care life in a home the cost of that should be borne by their estate in so far as it is capable of doing so and the cost of that care has a better claim on the estate than the children.
Hopefully, such hardship will be capable of being offset by insurance products and the government should encourage these but I just don't see what else is going to produce the money required. 1p on NI isn't even a sticking plaster.
10% on all estates spreads the load across society but will create a tax avoidance industry the likes of which we have not seen since Lawson made our tax system fit for purpose. Insurance is a better option in my view.
The more pertinent point, since Labour are nowhere near to government, is that it presents an at least semi-coherent alternative to the government's incoherent proposals, and is likely to appeal to those most annoyed by them. The additional point he made was that (almost certainly) unlike the government's proposals, it opens the possibility for the integration of social care and the NHS.
Whether you like his idea or not, it does stand in sharp contrast to the radio silence of Starmer. And while the latter carries on displaying policy cowardice (something which Burnham also alluded to, though in a general context), it also ties the hands of members of the shadow cabinet to speak coherently on the issue.
He is definitely very interested in taking over the leadership[/
"Working people squander their wages on food, clothing and keeping a roof over their heads. Let's make sure that middle class sixty year olds get a big fat inheritance instead."
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
This is populism in action; a product of being led by polling and their dunderhead focus groups. This isn't about logic and fairness and principle. It is about what is sellable to the majority of people. And an increased NI, which Joe Public doesn't understand and which will be hypothecated for the national religion the NHS, trumps an income tax increase comfortably.
Seems to me that those railing against these populist proposals now were quite keen on populism when it brought us Brexit.
The funny thing about this government is that they want to be populist, but none of them have the populist instincts of, say, Thatcher. She didn't just know what successful Middle Britain wanted, she wanted what they wanted, because she was one of them. Boris needs polling to do this for him- he can't do it for himself. Hence scrapes like Rashford-school food parcels.
Plus, Boris is not as bright or diligent as is needed for the job. Otherwise, he'd have noticed that a package that hits everyone except richer pensioners in order to protect the estates of... richer pensioners... is a bad idea.
Not quite. Mrs Thatcher's popular instincts told here that as well as millions of people supporting every freebie (like food parcels) there were millions who didn't. The posh support giving out freebies to the poor but would never dream of engaging with it themselves. But in Boris/Thatcher land there are also millions of working people/white van man/WWC who think foodbanks and food parcels largely go to subsidise the fag/alcohol/other substances bill of the submerged tenth. They are not entirely wrong about this, and they tend to vote Tory.
BTW, in Thatcher land, when millions died of starvation in the north under her savage cuts and emaciated children searched shoeless in dustbins, how did we manage without foodbanks?
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Since Article 16 is a legitimate part of the Treaty to be exercised, the EU are actually quite limited in what responses they can have within the confines of the Treaty.
Unless they wish to break the Treaty, which A16 doesn't do.
Responses to what is considered an unreasonable invocation are also a legitimate part of the Treaty.
But its not unreasonable.
Nobody is even arguing with Frost that the conditions to invoke it have been met. Are you denying that they have?
The conditions to invoke it are quite explicit and they've quite clearly been met.
The unreasonableness, or not, will ultimately be decided by the dispute resolution process if the parties do not agree. Invoking Article 16 also covers a multitude of actions - from the relatively minor to the nuclear. Let's see what happens. As I say, the idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to undo the mess they have created is for the fairies.
Frost and Johnson didn't create the mess.
May and Barnier created the mess by going arse about tit and choosing to "sort out" the Northern Ireland issue before the future of UK/EU trading relationship was sorted. Which was an impossibility that got us bogged down in a horrendous mess.
Johnson and Frost sorted out 97% of the mess by sorting out the UK and EU's trading relationship first which is what should have happened all along.
Now they're going back to sort out the final 3% as the last part of the negotiations. As they should have always been, instead of the first.
No, Phil, Frost and Johnson signed up to a deal they did not understand or never meant to honour. They put a customs border in the Irish Sea. They told us it was a triumph. You are the only person in the world who still believes it was.
It was a triumph.
They got Brexit done dealing with GB which is 97% of the United Kingdom and 100% of the seats their MPs represent. They got done what May couldn't.
As for not honouring the deal, they are honouring it in full. The deal literally had a get-out clause within it saying it didn't need to be applied in full if it created problems, and the problems were foreseeable, so it was entirely foreseeable the get-out clause could be invoked. Invoking a get-out clause you and the other party agreed in the negotiations is not failing to honour the deal.
The Northern Irish tail should never have been allowed to wag the British dog. It isn't anymore, Johnson put paid to that nonsense and now proper negotiations can begin afresh as should have always happened in a logical order of events.
If you truly believe this everybody (including "Boris") is laughing their socks off at you. But if you don't believe it, ie you're taking the piss, you (and of course "Boris") are laughing at us. I wonder which it is?
I 100% hand on heart believe every word of it.
Unless you come from a perspective that NI should be treated as equally as England in the negotiations (which I don't), how is any of what I said laughable?
Ok, so if that's true it means the world is laughing at you. OTOH if it isn't true it means you're laughing at the world. I'm still wondering which it is. As all know I pride myself on being able to detect whether a PB poster is being sincere or is yanking the communal chain. Here, however, with you and this ridiculously rosy view of Johnson's Brexit shenanigans, I confess to some doubt. On balance I think you're telling the truth and do genuinely believe what you're saying, but it's a marginal assessment, wouldn't shock me one iota if I'm wrong. Intriguing situation we find ourselves in. Also slightly uncomfortable.
No laughter. Indeed others have (perfectly reasonably) pointed out that its only my willingness to put England first before Northern Ireland that means I can take my view. But having done that, my view is entirely reasonable and no laughing matter.
I don't see any shenanigans like you do. I see Britain having moved on from the quagmire of a mess that we'd found ourselves in under May's failed stewardship.
Sure matters are worse for Northern Ireland right now. Sucks to be them. But its better for England and England > Northern Ireland.
There is laughter but we don't know which way it's flowing, is where we are. You remember the PB Panel of Moderates which in order to ensure independence and objectivity neither you nor I are on? Well that is unanimous (10/0) that Johnson either (i) didn't understand the deal or (ii) did and always intended to renege on it. They are the only 2 possibilities within the boundaries of rational discussion, slapdash or bad faith, and the POM delivered a 5/5 split verdict. It would have been 5/6 in favour of bad faith, btw, if I'd have had a vote. I think old "Boris" legged the EU over.
Actually you're wrong. Boris invoking Article 16, a perfectly valid Article of the Protocol, is not "bad faith" it is the Protocol being implemented as written.
He didn’t understand the deal AND he intended to renage on it
A fourth possibility is that Boris makes no distinction between truth and falsehood. To quote Jim Hacker quoting someone famous, "He lies not because it is in his interest but because it is in his nature." Speaking for myself, I'm not sure lying is the right word; rather, Boris seems to live in a post-truth world; there is no intention to deceive but a complete disregard for the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9NifqJyDMI
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
Its nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Either turn it into an actual insurance and/or investment scheme or just wrap it into income tax. The money all just goes into the same damn pot.
It sounds like none of the extra money raised for social care is err, actually going to be spent on social care!
Telegraph flagging this up a lot this money with IDS saying there is a problem and this could be a "sham".
Another smoke and mirrors job from Johnson?
What we need to see is the cap passed into law, then the money will presumably have to start to flow once individuals hit the cap (which will take a year or two maybe).
LUMO IS GO! FirstGroup's new lo-cost London-Edinburgh trains will take on easyJet & Ryanair at their own game starting 25 October, 6 times less CO2 than a flight with fares from £14.90 - 60% of fares will be £30 or less. I'm going to enjoy watching this - pass the popcorn...
It's interesting to consider their business case on this. Might it be an attempt to fill every train at reduced price per seat (ala airline style)? Another question is whether there would be walk-on fares - I'm guessing not.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
This is populism in action; a product of being led by polling and their dunderhead focus groups. This isn't about logic and fairness and principle. It is about what is sellable to the majority of people. And an increased NI, which Joe Public doesn't understand and which will be hypothecated for the national religion the NHS, trumps an income tax increase comfortably.
Seems to me that those railing against these populist proposals now were quite keen on populism when it brought us Brexit.
The funny thing about this government is that they want to be populist, but none of them have the populist instincts of, say, Thatcher. She didn't just know what successful Middle Britain wanted, she wanted what they wanted, because she was one of them. Boris needs polling to do this for him- he can't do it for himself. Hence scrapes like Rashford-school food parcels.
Plus, Boris is not as bright or diligent as is needed for the job. Otherwise, he'd have noticed that a package that hits everyone except richer pensioners in order to protect the estates of... richer pensioners... is a bad idea.
Not quite. Mrs Thatcher's popular instincts told here that as well as millions of people supporting every freebie (like food parcels) there were millions who didn't. The posh support giving out freebies to the poor but would never dream of engaging with it themselves. But in Boris/Thatcher land there are also millions of working people/white van man/WWC who think foodbanks and food parcels largely go to subsidise the fag/alcohol/other substances bill of the submerged tenth. They are not entirely wrong about this, and they tend to vote Tory.
The biggest beneficiaries of govt interaction with the economy the last decade are homeowners, by far. Those who worry about govt support of foodbanks distorting the market dont seem quite so worried about that.
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
It's just a tax. Nobody in govts puts it in different pots.
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
It may receive a reasonable reception from others, but I will cease to support the party if this insanity goes ahead.
If its 1.25% then that's 2.5% in reality (because employers NI is a direct tax on wages, don't kid yourselves that it isn't).
To do a simple calculation for a basic rate employee it would mean basic rate tax of 20%, employee NI of 13.25% and employers NI of 15.05%
That would mean if an employer could afford to add £100 to their labour bill for an employee then that would breakdown as: Employer's NI £13.08 Income Tax £17.38 Employee NI £11.52
Total Taxes £41.98 Net Wages £58.02 Gross Wage Cost £100.00
People think that the 'basic tax rate' is 20% but in reality its over double that. 🤦♂️
Yes I am aware of all of that but ultimately covid and increasing NHS and care costs have to be resourced and there are no easy solutions
I did run my own company before I retired so these issues are not alien to me
I am sorry you are so angry, and many will share your view but in the end change is coming and covid has a lot to do with it
The fact remain that those increasing costs are very largely to pay for the elderly, who will almost entirely escape this increase in tax to fund them.
It sounds like none of the extra money raised for social care is err, actually going to be spent on social care!
Telegraph flagging this up a lot this money with IDS saying there is a problem and this could be a "sham".
Another smoke and mirrors job from Johnson?
What we need to see is the cap passed into law, then the money will presumably have to start to flow once individuals hit the cap (which will take a year or two maybe).
The funds going to social care is post the next election, where new manifesto commitments will be made anyway so the next government can say not us guv. It is hard to see the NHS being able to stop using the money it is given now either.
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
It's just a tax. Nobody in govts puts it in different pots.
It does appear that this new tax will be separately described on pay slips and ring fenced, but let's wait for the detail
Meanwhile, Labour must surely be adding these to the list of broken pledges. That might not matter in 2024 when, if I am right, a new Prime Minister will face them.
johnson will still be there in 2024. he and pnn (if hasn't binned her off by then) havent had a chance to slake themselves properly on the trappings of high office because of covid. there has not been any foreign junkets on any of the three vvip jets johnson bought with taxpayers money. they are going to want a long period of relatively conventional first family excess before johnson quits.
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
Its nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Either turn it into an actual insurance and/or investment scheme or just wrap it into income tax. The money all just goes into the same damn pot.
It's neither insurance nor a Ponzi scheme - it is simply a tax whose proceeds go into general government funds. it is an effective con, though, since a large proportion of those who pay it think it is a sort of insurance which pays for what it was originally intended to.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
This is populism in action; a product of being led by polling and their dunderhead focus groups. This isn't about logic and fairness and principle. It is about what is sellable to the majority of people. And an increased NI, which Joe Public doesn't understand and which will be hypothecated for the national religion the NHS, trumps an income tax increase comfortably.
Seems to me that those railing against these populist proposals now were quite keen on populism when it brought us Brexit.
The funny thing about this government is that they want to be populist, but none of them have the populist instincts of, say, Thatcher. She didn't just know what successful Middle Britain wanted, she wanted what they wanted, because she was one of them. Boris needs polling to do this for him- he can't do it for himself. Hence scrapes like Rashford-school food parcels.
Plus, Boris is not as bright or diligent as is needed for the job. Otherwise, he'd have noticed that a package that hits everyone except richer pensioners in order to protect the estates of... richer pensioners... is a bad idea.
Poor pensioners also don't pay NI.
It is the triple lock freeze I agree which will hit Tory voters more than the 1% rise in NI and if there is any significant leakage from the Tories that will mainly be the cause given the biggest percentage of the Tory vote in 2019 was made up of pensioners
Interesting observation. All the focus is on NI at the moment but you may well be right. Can't justify the 8% though because of a freak of event. With last year it will be 10.5%. If you combined the 2 years it should have been 2x2.5=5% and even that is above inflation and earnings.
Good observation though. Interesting to see if it happens.
With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.
As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.
1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.
2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.
3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.
In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.
People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.
In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
It's just a tax. Nobody in govts puts it in different pots.
You can't get JSA now without NI credits only UC, same with the state pension
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
Its nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Either turn it into an actual insurance and/or investment scheme or just wrap it into income tax. The money all just goes into the same damn pot.
Hopefully this will make it more of an insurance scheme again
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
It's just a tax. Nobody in govts puts it in different pots.
It does appear that this new tax will be separately described on pay slips and ring fenced, but let's wait for the detail
They may show it separately, but it won't be ring fenced even if they say it is. Real life kicks in.
It was the big Brexit lie. No, not the £350m a week to spend on the NHS or the “bonfire” of red tape. The lie was that the shambles now enveloping British trade with Europe was an unavoidable price worth paying to leave the EU. That was rubbish.
Brexit need never have so devastated the British economy. The damage has come from one decision, to depart the single market. The sensible path now would be for Johnson to eat humble pie and seek, as far and as fast as possible, readmission to that market. Britain would imitate the protocol it has agreed for Northern Ireland. This would not mean rejoining the EU, just rejoining Ireland – the most delicious of historical ironies.
Negotiating the single market in 1987 was Margaret Thatcher’s proudest free-trade achievement. It was in Britain’s and Europe’s interest and proved a success. Johnson reversed that achievement in an act of naked political ambition. He pretended it was necessary for Brexit. It was his biggest lie.
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
It's just a tax. Nobody in govts puts it in different pots.
You can't get JSA now without NI credits only UC, same with the state pension
So what ? The money isn't hypothecated.
You could make the same or similar rules in respect of income tax.
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
It's just a tax. Nobody in govts puts it in different pots.
You can't get JSA now without NI credits only UC, same with the state pension
Yes you are right, but it is still one pot of money.
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
It's just a tax. Nobody in govts puts it in different pots.
It does appear that this new tax will be separately described on pay slips and ring fenced, but let's wait for the detail
We should be abolishing national insurance not raising it ffs
Absolutely not.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
Its nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Either turn it into an actual insurance and/or investment scheme or just wrap it into income tax. The money all just goes into the same damn pot.
Hopefully this will make it more of an insurance scheme again
That would be great if it happens, but it won't. Maybe I'm more of a cynic than you.
It was the big Brexit lie. No, not the £350m a week to spend on the NHS or the “bonfire” of red tape. The lie was that the shambles now enveloping British trade with Europe was an unavoidable price worth paying to leave the EU. That was rubbish.
Brexit need never have so devastated the British economy. The damage has come from one decision, to depart the single market. The sensible path now would be for Johnson to eat humble pie and seek, as far and as fast as possible, readmission to that market. Britain would imitate the protocol it has agreed for Northern Ireland. This would not mean rejoining the EU, just rejoining Ireland – the most delicious of historical ironies.
Negotiating the single market in 1987 was Margaret Thatcher’s proudest free-trade achievement. It was in Britain’s and Europe’s interest and proved a success. Johnson reversed that achievement in an act of naked political ambition. He pretended it was necessary for Brexit. It was his biggest lie.
Comments
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George to fund state pensions, state medical benefits and unemployment insurance.
If it is returning more to its original principles to fund the extra cash needed for the NHS after Covid and to put some extra funds into social care all to the good
🏭 UK fires up an old coal power plant to meet electricity needs
Warm, still autumn weather means wind farms have not generated as much power as normal, while soaring prices have made it too costly to rely on gas
National Grid ESO - says coal now providing 3% of national power
https://twitter.com/DarrenGBNews/status/1435134749870276611
It is the Conservatives relative weakness in Quebec (remember under Mulroney the Progressive Conservatives actually won most seats in Quebec in the 1980s) and Trudeau's relative strength in French Canada which may well save him. If the election was only being held in British Canada then on current polling not only would O'Toole's Conservatives certainly win most seats it would even be close to a majority
Today is going to be a very interesting day of politics and controversy
Covid has dramatically changed the publics perception in some ways away from conservative mindsets, especially as the public support lockdowns and increasing taxes for the NHS and social care
Neither of these curry favour in some conservatives and the anger is apparent, indeed vocally expressed by @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB on here
I await the detail but it seems a 1.25% health and social care tax will be applied to everyone working including pensioners and expressed separately on pay slips, and to employers
The triple lock will be suspended reducing the pensioner 2022 increase from 8% to 2.5%
An immediate sum of 5.5 billion will go to the NHS, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland receiving increases as well, to help with covid but also start to address the backlog caused by covid
The cap on social care will rise to circa £80,000 which in care home costs equates to paying for two years care
This is a defining moment for the conservative party as it moves into a different political mindset and the outcome for the party will be very interesting to watch, but I would expect that the proposals will receive quite a reasonable reception because, as I said earlier, the public support increasing taxes for health and social care
Under May's dementia tax all properties over £100,000 would have been liable for at home care ie even average properties in the North.
At the last general election like it or not Labour won voters aged under 45, without the vote of pensioners and those 45-65 waiting for an inheritance for the Tories Labour would have won most seats.
This is not the Tory Party of Cameron for instance who did win workers and voters over 35 in both 2010 and 2015, even if he won pensioners by less than May and Boris did due to Brexit as the UKIP vote and Labour Leave vote went Tory
If its 1.25% then that's 2.5% in reality (because employers NI is a direct tax on wages, don't kid yourselves that it isn't).
To do a simple calculation for a basic rate employee it would mean basic rate tax of 20%, employee NI of 13.25% and employers NI of 15.05%
That would mean if an employer could afford to add £100 to their labour bill for an employee then that would breakdown as:
Employer's NI £13.08
Income Tax £17.38
Employee NI £11.52
Total Taxes £41.98
Net Wages £58.02
Gross Wage Cost £100.00
People think that the 'basic tax rate' is 20% but in reality its over double that. 🤦♂️
In healthcare we do not ration on how someone became ill, just on their likely benefits from treatment.
Not a huge shock, though Gasly's driving incredibly well and should be on someone's shopping list.
Meanwhile, Labour must surely be adding these to the list of broken pledges. That might not matter in 2024 when, if I am right, a new Prime Minister will face them.
Even though it's shit.
I did run my own company before I retired so these issues are not alien to me
I am sorry you are so angry, and many will share your view but in the end change is coming and covid has a lot to do with it
LUMO IS GO! FirstGroup's new lo-cost London-Edinburgh trains will take on easyJet & Ryanair at their own game starting 25 October, 6 times less CO2 than a flight with fares from £14.90 - 60% of fares will be £30 or less. I'm going to enjoy watching this - pass the popcorn...
https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1435136410525306880?s=20
https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1435141154404802562
Changes to pay for costs that do not have to be paid anyway - like new unpaid for, unsaved for welfare entitlements I do not support.
If people spend the value of their home on their own care then that's using their own rainy day money for themselves on a rainy day. That's nothing to be entitled over. If you want a solution to prevent that, then a private insurance model could be created (and regulated if need be) but there's no reason that needs to come from taxation, let alone taxation that isn't paid for by everyone.
Plus, Boris is not as bright or diligent as is needed for the job. Otherwise, he'd have noticed that a package that hits everyone except richer pensioners in order to protect the estates of... richer pensioners... is a bad idea.
Of course he is not going to reveal the contents on the statement
This is childish journalism
It is the triple lock freeze I agree which will hit Tory voters more than the 1% rise in NI and if there is any significant leakage from the Tories that will mainly be the cause given the biggest percentage of the Tory vote in 2019 was made up of pensioners
The additional point he made was that (almost certainly) unlike the government's proposals, it opens the possibility for the integration of social care and the NHS.
Whether you like his idea or not, it does stand in sharp contrast to the radio silence of Starmer. And while the latter carries on displaying policy cowardice (something which Burnham also alluded to, though in a general context), it also ties the hands of members of the shadow cabinet to speak coherently on the issue.
He is definitely very interested in taking over the leadership[/
Let's make sure that middle class sixty year olds get a big fat inheritance instead."
Does anyone have a bus I could borrow?
BTW, in Thatcher land, when millions died of starvation in the north under her savage cuts and emaciated children searched shoeless in dustbins, how did we manage without foodbanks?
Another smoke and mirrors job from Johnson?
What we need to see is the cap passed into law, then the money will presumably have to start to flow once individuals hit the cap (which will take a year or two maybe).
NEW THREAD
it is an effective con, though, since a large proportion of those who pay it think it is a sort of insurance which pays for what it was originally intended to.
Good observation though. Interesting to see if it happens.
As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.
1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.
2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.
3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.
In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.
People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.
In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.
You could make the same or similar rules in respect of income tax.
UK trade balance with EU -£895bn
UK trade balance with non-EU +309bn
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/l86i/pnbp
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/l86j/ukea