The people actually needing the care won't pay for it.
So the next time I am told to pay my way and pay back my student loan, I am going to say no, somebody else's problem
They paid in for NI all their working lives, if they need residential care they already have to sell their homes to pay for it
When are you going to get it into your thick skull. NI is a tax like any other. It isn't hypothecated to anything, the "NI fund" is a myth and you're a complete idiot if you think this new tax will ever remain at this level or hypothecated.
It is not, it was brought in as an insurance to pay for state pensions, unemployment insurance and healthcare by Lloyd George. Indeed you can only get JSA and state pensions now with NI credits, this is a return to what it was intended for.
If we lose a few classical liberals like you and PT to Ed Davey so what, it seems we will get a few Old Labour types who dislike Starmer like BJO too and keep our core vote now of over 45s
If you want better elderly care, then the elderly should be paying more NI to pay for it.
We seem to understand this with tuition fees, whereby you pay more in a graduate contribution but the elderly are exempt from this line of thinking because reasons.
They screwed us on housing, they screwed us on tuition and now they're screwing us on this too.
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
This is just wrong. A social cap was recommended by the Dilnot Report as a key plank - indeed *the* key plank of social care reform, and with good reason.
If you are capping costs to allow the children of elderly parents in Surrey to keep their inheritance it's possible to attack the NI tax rise.
If the only thing announced is an NI rise to pay for NHS and social care - there is little that can be attacked.
Now personally the fix is a wealth tax targeting property (for anything else is difficult to attack) but I can see why it doesn't get very far.
It was a key finding of Dilnot that the capping of care costs benefitted the system as a whole by allowing a greater number of people to plan around that funding.
If you want better elderly care, then the elderly should be paying more NI to pay for it.
We seem to understand this with tuition fees, whereby you pay more in a graduate contribution but the elderly are exempt from this line of thinking because reasons.
They screwed us on housing, they screwed us on tuition and now they're screwing us on this too.
I am genuinely angry.
Pity you support a leader that offers no alternative then.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
One big problem with that is that your favourite category is the least efficient in both energy efficiency as buildings, and in the people who are able to be housed per amount of house - and are therefore much worse in social benefit.
Sorry but did the Tories say that this can't be undone by future Governments.
Erhhh, that's not how it works...
I heard the PM say some of the tax increase would be hypothecated in law.
I think at least some of this increase for the NHS has already been budgeted for. As the NHS will always take up a big chunk of revenue, it's easy to hypothecate spending you would be doing anyway.
This is a general tax increase dressed up to look like a levy for the NHS.
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
Yesterday I tore into Liz K after her pathetic R4 interview in which it was clear that Labour has no plan for social care. I warned that not having anything serious to say about this massive issue this week other than vacuous nonsense about "there needs to be a plan" would play badly for Labour.
Here we are - Johnson tearing it the open goal that is Labour's total failure to have any alternative.
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
PM claiming that NICs shared between business and employees. In most cases employer NICs will be borne by employees.
Note this is not a 1.25% rise in taxes on earnings, it's 2.5% - 1.25 from employees, 1.25 from employers
and
Remains the case pensioners will pay next to nothing for this social care package - overwhelmingly to be paid by working age employees
As things stand I will vote for him in 2024 unless Labour steps up with proper alternatives.
Wow. You serious?
Quite the political journey you’ve been on!
It is a profound moment for Johnson. He has done the right thing in bringing, finally, Dilnot after a decade of dither. He has overriden all the endless wingeing and moaning and dither and delay and can kicking and done something.
Action this day.
The complete opposite to SKS who couldn't pick his favourite colour crayon
When you think the £86k is only care costs and doesn't cover the "hotel fees" element of a care home then the cap in practice will probably be a bit over £150k.
As things stand I will vote for him in 2024 unless Labour steps up with proper alternatives.
Wow. You serious?
Quite the political journey you’ve been on!
It is a profound moment for Johnson. He has done the right thing in bringing, finally, Dilnot after a decade of dither. He has overriden all the endless wingeing and moaning and dither and delay and can kicking and done something.
Action this day.
The complete opposite to SKS who couldn't pick his favourite colour crayon
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
PM claiming that NICs shared between business and employees. In most cases employer NICs will be borne by employees.
Note this is not a 1.25% rise in taxes on earnings, it's 2.5% - 1.25 from employees, 1.25 from employers
and
Remains the case pensioners will pay next to nothing for this social care package - overwhelmingly to be paid by working age employees
You miss the point. Raising both employer's and employee's NICs could, I assume, be done with the swish of a pen.
So what's the "new tax" - presumably the Gov't is not actually doing something as simple as that and has proposed something slightly different?
Is it morally right for some people to own more than one property when so many others can't afford even one?
Why stop at property? What about cars, TVs, watches etc ?
Is it morally right for some people to own and live in a 500sqm property, when others can only afford something ten times smaller?
Well, that depends on many things. If the former have inherited it, perhaps not. If the former have worked hard from school onwards, saved, and lived somewhat frugally, whilst the latter have not worked as hard and enjoyed life rather than saving... it might well be.
These are only examples, and the stories can be changed depending on the point you want to make. IMV morality on these issues can be very fraught.
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
PM claiming that NICs shared between business and employees. In most cases employer NICs will be borne by employees.
Note this is not a 1.25% rise in taxes on earnings, it's 2.5% - 1.25 from employees, 1.25 from employers
and
Remains the case pensioners will pay next to nothing for this social care package - overwhelmingly to be paid by working age employees
You miss the point. Raising both employer's and employee's NICs could, I assume, be done with the swish of a pen.
So what's the "new tax" - presumably the Gov't is not actually doing something as simple as that and has proposed something slightly different?
Working pensioners will soon be eligible to pay NI:
I'm very disappointed that Starmer did not do the obvious thing and say he would fund this through a wealth tax.
At some point he's going to have to come up with plans - and I am getting quite worried that he's not got any.
As I've said before, I think he's really running out of time, by March next year he's really got to decide if he wants this job, or it is time to resign
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
Fair enough. It might be an idea, longer term, for the Tories to stop giving the impression they don't like Quebec, feckless Quebeckers draining the productive parts of the country, nor the French language. Not real Canadians in essence. The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
Indeed and under Brian Mulroney in 1984 and 1988 the Progressive Conservatives even won most seats in Quebec
The BQ did not exist then.
The BQ took Tory seats in conservative, rural, Francophone Quebec. This makes it more difficult for the Canadian Tories to win a majority.
In essence, it is the converse of what happened here, where the SNP took primarily Labour seats, making it more difficult for Labour to win a majority.
But, surely, Justin is in trouble as there appears no sensible reason why anyone should hold an unnecessary election in the middle of a feckin pandemic.
Neither did Reform. The rise of Reform, as an openly Western Party, which later united with the PC, has made the Tories less attractive out East. O'Toole is running as PC, not Reform. Which is why they are making some inroads.
Yet still not enough and a long way from Mulroney when the Tories won most seats in Quebec, O'Toole's Quebec vote is up a bit but the Tories are still 3rd there behind he Liberals and BQ
They are. But they are going forwards in marginal, and seat rich Ontario. And gaining in the Maritimes, where Trudeau had a lock. Crucially, seats won here will be from the Liberals, not third parties. Meaning they are worth double. And improving their poor voter efficiency. They can afford to lose a fair percent in the Prairies for very few seat losses.
Interesting debate on NI/care. From a personal point of view it is probably in my family's interest. My kids will benefit at the cost of the working taxpayer while we sit on substantial assets. In the meantime we all pay a bit more NI on our earnings and employees.
In summary it seems very unfair on those that haven't got parents who will leave them lots of assets. Populist back of a fag packet pork barrel politics.
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
Johnson wants to label it as a "social care and NHS levy" - so maybe IFS mean that?
Two of the oddest features of all this are firstly that it takes so long to make progress over the social care issue when the money involved is fairly tiny in the context of public expenditure as a whole.
Secondly, why such a confected fuss over a small tax rise yielding only about £12 bn a year, when we are currently borrowing £300 bn a year.
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
PM claiming that NICs shared between business and employees. In most cases employer NICs will be borne by employees.
Note this is not a 1.25% rise in taxes on earnings, it's 2.5% - 1.25 from employees, 1.25 from employers
and
Remains the case pensioners will pay next to nothing for this social care package - overwhelmingly to be paid by working age employees
You miss the point. Raising both employer's and employee's NICs could, I assume, be done with the swish of a pen.
So what's the "new tax" - presumably the Gov't is not actually doing something as simple as that and has proposed something slightly different?
If I understand correctly the increase in NI is to be put in law as a social levy and that money will be hypothecated (again in law).
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
One big problem with that is that your favourite category is the least efficient in both energy efficiency as buildings, and in the people who are able to be housed per amount of house - and are therefore much worse in social benefit.
How do you deal with this?
I'm with @HYUFD on this, on owner occupied house is a massive source of both emotional and once the mortgage is paid financial security. Also pets. You can keep whatever pet you like in an OO house, landlords tend to be very anti-pets.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
No, that would be 1.66%
I have a wall available if anyone would like to use it to bang their head against.
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
This is just wrong. A social cap was recommended by the Dilnot Report as a key plank - indeed *the* key plank of social care reform, and with good reason.
If you are capping costs to allow the children of elderly parents in Surrey to keep their inheritance it's possible to attack the NI tax rise.
If the only thing announced is an NI rise to pay for NHS and social care - there is little that can be attacked.
Now personally the fix is a wealth tax targeting property (for anything else is difficult to attack) but I can see why it doesn't get very far.
It was a key finding of Dilnot that the capping of care costs benefitted the system as a whole by allowing a greater number of people to plan around that funding.
We should see a private insurance market now for the £80K I would have thought?
Anyhoo my work and I have decided that most of will not returning to the office until next year, a decision will be made in January, so it is likely we will have worked from home for nearly two years.
Given hypothecation is a nonsense, and the actual size of the levy and different spending areas, it would be considerably more honest and less popular call this the International Aid levy.
I'm very disappointed that Starmer did not do the obvious thing and say he would fund this through a wealth tax.
At some point he's going to have to come up with plans - and I am getting quite worried that he's not got any.
As I've said before, I think he's really running out of time, by March next year he's really got to decide if he wants this job, or it is time to resign
Hurrah get a new leader like Burnham and the Tories will be out of power. Keep SKS and Boris is PM as long as he wants
I'm very disappointed that Starmer did not do the obvious thing and say he would fund this through a wealth tax.
At some point he's going to have to come up with plans - and I am getting quite worried that he's not got any.
As I've said before, I think he's really running out of time, by March next year he's really got to decide if he wants this job, or it is time to resign
Wealth taxes result in tax flight and deflationary pressure on assets resulting in lower tax returns. Starmer probably knows this. The only purpose of "wealth tax" is envy.
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
That he hasn't looked into the complexities that make increasing NI or Income Taxes very difficult since Scotland started setting their own income tax rates
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
No, that would be 1.66%
I have a wall available if anyone would like to use it to bang their head against.
Where were you yesterday when I asked for one?
I didn't like to offer it then - given the amount of head banging required I was worried you'd do yourself some permanent damage! Not to mention wear and tear on the wall...
I've now implemented safety rules: strictly one use per user per day.
The people actually needing the care won't pay for it.
So the next time I am told to pay my way and pay back my student loan, I am going to say no, somebody else's problem
There has to be some sort of collective solution, because it's a total lottery as to who will need to spend many years in a care home and who won't.
I dont get why pretty much no-one questions taxation for health free at the point of need but so many think long term care for the elderly infirm is different. I guess everyone is scared they might wake up ill, but not so much that they will wake up infirm. The principles should be the same, we all pay in for to cover those of us who find out we need the system to pay out. This change is at least a step in the right direction, shouldnt have taken 10 years to dust it off
Interesting debate on NI/care. From a personal point of view it is probably in my family's interest. My kids will benefit at the cost of the working taxpayer while we sit on substantial assets. In the meantime we all pay a bit more NI on our earnings and employees.
In summary it seems very unfair on those that haven't got parents who will leave them lots of assets. Populist back of a fag packet pork barrel politics.
Being free for all comers, things like the NHS and schools are similarly 'unfair' on non asset rich families. Everything that comes on the state bill saves money for billionaires. That is why decent tax systems are properly progressive. (Which, by the way, NI isn't).
I've picked the wrong time to return to PAYE based employment haven't I.....
Yup.
My father and I thank you for contribution to improving my inheritance even more.
I will have to keep telling myself this is a really interesting exciting project I have decided to join, even as I am shafting myself with a big take home pay cut to do it....keep chanting for the greater good, for the greater good...
"Creating an entirely new tax to fund health and social care. A massive and unncessary increase in complexity. Achieivng nothing that could not have been done within exitsitng income tax and NI systems"
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
That he hasn't looked into the complexities that make increasing NI or Income Taxes very difficult since Scotland started setting their own income tax rates
And Wales, too, presumably (there is a Welsh income tax: not sure of the details though).
“This is bollocks”, fumed one backbench Conservative MP. “It’s awful, it’s terrible, it’s shocking. What the government is doing is extraordinarily bad policy.
“We are taking money away from those accruing capital to give to those with it. It’s a totem for a government without ideology, without consistency and without interest in the right governance. They will regret this in time.”
I will commend @Philip_Thompson for having principles and sticking to them.
I hope he will accept my apologies for doubting him in the past and all the times I have accused him of being a troll. I now see I was greatly mistaken.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
I've picked the wrong time to return to PAYE based employment haven't I.....
Yup.
My father and I thank you for contribution to improving my inheritance even more.
I will have to keep telling myself this is a really interesting exciting project I have decided to join, even as I am shafting myself with a big take home pay cut to do it....keep chanting for the greater good, for the greater good...
For the greater good.
I was once offered a pay cut to work for LOCOG, I said no because I was planning on getting married/having kids in the future but in hindsight I do regret not taking up that offer to be a part of London 2012.
The CDU part of the union must be in danger of coming fourth.
I certainly think that it is closer to being an equal alliance than it has every been.
Vote in Bavaria currently polling at CSU 29% (-9) SPD 15% (n/c) - i.e. holding up much better than the vote nationally.
Given each vote is split for local and national support, it is not unreasonable to suggest that if Söder had been candidate there would have been no decline in Bavaria at all.
Both John Trickett (Hemsworth) and Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) opposing this policy.
Ed Davey could yet win my vote then.
Sunak/Boris won't.
I wonder, had he not lost his seat in 2015, could he have beaten the odious Tim Farron? Perhaps he wouldn't have attacked Theresa May in the 2017 election and she might have won a majority.
“This is bollocks”, fumed one backbench Conservative MP. “It’s awful, it’s terrible, it’s shocking. What the government is doing is extraordinarily bad policy.
“We are taking money away from those accruing capital to give to those with it. It’s a totem for a government without ideology, without consistency and without interest in the right governance. They will regret this in time.”
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
No, that would be 1.66%
I have a wall available if anyone would like to use it to bang their head against.
Where were you yesterday when I asked for one?
I didn't like to offer it then - given the amount of head banging required I was worried you'd do yourself some permanent damage! Not to mention wear and tear on the wall...
I've now implemented safety rules: strictly one use per user per day.
Interesting debate on NI/care. From a personal point of view it is probably in my family's interest. My kids will benefit at the cost of the working taxpayer while we sit on substantial assets. In the meantime we all pay a bit more NI on our earnings and employees.
In summary it seems very unfair on those that haven't got parents who will leave them lots of assets. Populist back of a fag packet pork barrel politics.
Being free for all comers, things like the NHS and schools are similarly 'unfair' on non asset rich families. Everything that comes on the state bill saves money for billionaires. That is why decent tax systems are properly progressive. (Which, by the way, NI isn't).
The best tax systems are those that result in the most efficient tax revenue to pay for public services. So-called "progressive" taxation doesn't always achieve this if it becomes punitive for the sake of politics. Getting the balance right in a global economy is essential.
I've picked the wrong time to return to PAYE based employment haven't I.....
Yup.
My father and I thank you for contribution to improving my inheritance even more.
I will have to keep telling myself this is a really interesting exciting project I have decided to join, even as I am shafting myself with a big take home pay cut to do it....keep chanting for the greater good, for the greater good...
It felt very weird when I went from self-employed back to a payroll job. Took a few months to get used to it.
The people actually needing the care won't pay for it.
So the next time I am told to pay my way and pay back my student loan, I am going to say no, somebody else's problem
They paid in for NI all their working lives, if they need residential care they already have to sell their homes to pay for it
When are you going to get it into your thick skull. NI is a tax like any other. It isn't hypothecated to anything, the "NI fund" is a myth and you're a complete idiot if you think this new tax will ever remain at this level or hypothecated.
I think the point is that a large number of people share that delusion, which makes it a politically attractive means of raising revenue. All the more so for a fundamentally dishonest PM.
Note that it will be displayed as a separate item on payslips, as a "Health & Social Care levy", to reinforce the delusion.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
One big problem with that is that your favourite category is the least efficient in both energy efficiency as buildings, and in the people who are able to be housed per amount of house - and are therefore much worse in social benefit.
How do you deal with this?
I'm with @HYUFD on this, on owner occupied house is a massive source of both emotional and once the mortgage is paid financial security. Also pets. You can keep whatever pet you like in an OO house, landlords tend to be very anti-pets.
I'll have to introduce to my tenant with 9 dogs .
And the one I didn't take as I have no field, who wanted a house with a paddock to exercise her racing huskies.
His line "I thank the Prime Minister for advanced sight of his speech - I think I got as much notice of this plan as his Cabinet" was funny.
Already forgotten the rest of what Starmer had to say, besides referencing his sister who works in care. There was no politics or proposal to any of what he had to say.
Anyhoo my work and I have decided that most of will not returning to the office until next year, a decision will be made in January, so it is likely we will have worked from home for nearly two years.
WFH is turning into a nightmare for us in our dealings with Local Authorities. God knows what is happening, but average invoice payment times have increased from 30 days to over 100 days. You can never speak to anyone and nothing ever gets resolved. LAs used to be our best customers, now they are the worst.
I've picked the wrong time to return to PAYE based employment haven't I.....
Yup.
My father and I thank you for contribution to improving my inheritance even more.
I will have to keep telling myself this is a really interesting exciting project I have decided to join, even as I am shafting myself with a big take home pay cut to do it....keep chanting for the greater good, for the greater good...
It felt very weird when I went from self-employed back to a payroll job. Took a few months to get used to it.
His line "I thank the Prime Minister for advanced sight of his speech - I think I got as much notice of this plan as his Cabinet" was funny.
Already forgotten the rest of what Starmer had to say, besides referencing his sister who works in care. There was no politics or proposal to any of what he had to say.
People will accuse me of being a fanboy here but Starmer doesn't present any plans, I can't believe he can't see the reaction to that so is it that he's not wanting to, who advised him to do that?
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
One big problem with that is that your favourite category is the least efficient in both energy efficiency as buildings, and in the people who are able to be housed per amount of house - and are therefore much worse in social benefit.
How do you deal with this?
I'm with @HYUFD on this, on owner occupied house is a massive source of both emotional and once the mortgage is paid financial security. Also pets. You can keep whatever pet you like in an OO house, landlords tend to be very anti-pets.
I'll have to introduce to my tenant with 9 dogs .
Glad to hear you accept them - they're part of people's families. The truth is though many landlords (For understandable business reasons) don't though.
Interesting debate on NI/care. From a personal point of view it is probably in my family's interest. My kids will benefit at the cost of the working taxpayer while we sit on substantial assets. In the meantime we all pay a bit more NI on our earnings and employees.
In summary it seems very unfair on those that haven't got parents who will leave them lots of assets. Populist back of a fag packet pork barrel politics.
Being free for all comers, things like the NHS and schools are similarly 'unfair' on non asset rich families. Everything that comes on the state bill saves money for billionaires. That is why decent tax systems are properly progressive. (Which, by the way, NI isn't).
The best tax systems are those that result in the most efficient tax revenue to pay for public services. So-called "progressive" taxation doesn't always achieve this if it becomes punitive for the sake of politics. Getting the balance right in a global economy is essential.
I completely agree with you but they also need to be fair and consistent.
NI is the worst possible tax because it is completely unfair and inconsistent. Two people, "earning" the same income, will face completely different tax rates depending upon whether their wages are paid by an employer or not.
It is unfair, inconsistent and unreasonable. Today the government is making that worse not better.
Labour should be going on with a wealth tax (Burnham's idea), or a progressive tax that increases with income. But they are not, because...?
Because Labour MPs earn a lot of money, and many are relatively wealthy, and because Labour now appeals to the middle classes more than the poorer segments of society?
Labour should be going on with a wealth tax (Burnham's idea), or a progressive tax that increases with income. But they are not, because...?
Thatcher made raising headline Income Tax rates and a real progressive set of Income tax rates politically and electorally toxic for both parties 50 years? Her greatest achievement or crime depending on your hill
Comments
If we lose a few classical liberals like you and PT to Ed Davey so what, it seems we will get a few Old Labour types who dislike Starmer like BJO too and keep our core vote now of over 45s
We seem to understand this with tuition fees, whereby you pay more in a graduate contribution but the elderly are exempt from this line of thinking because reasons.
They screwed us on housing, they screwed us on tuition and now they're screwing us on this too.
I am genuinely angry.
How did that turn out?
How do you deal with this?
"is that it?" shouted a tory MP after Sir K's talk.
https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1435207833566466048?s=20
This is a general tax increase dressed up to look like a levy for the NHS.
What does Paul at the IFS mean?
Here we are - Johnson tearing it the open goal that is Labour's total failure to have any alternative.
Note this is not a 1.25% rise in taxes on earnings, it's 2.5% - 1.25 from employees, 1.25 from employers
and
Remains the case pensioners will pay next to nothing for this social care package - overwhelmingly to be paid by working age employees
We shall see how this plays out but I suspect the line that Labour has no plan or alternative will be coming thru the focus groups by end of the week.
So what's the "new tax" - presumably the Gov't is not actually doing something as simple as that and has proposed something slightly different?
These are only examples, and the stories can be changed depending on the point you want to make. IMV morality on these issues can be very fraught.
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i377/gers_2021_a_deep_dive.aspx
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-pensioners-set-to-pay-national-insurance-in-social-care-reforms-mq9sw9pzd
At some point he's going to have to come up with plans - and I am getting quite worried that he's not got any.
As I've said before, I think he's really running out of time, by March next year he's really got to decide if he wants this job, or it is time to resign
And improving their poor voter efficiency. They can afford to lose a fair percent in the Prairies for very few seat losses.
In summary it seems very unfair on those that haven't got parents who will leave them lots of assets. Populist back of a fag packet pork barrel politics.
Secondly, why such a confected fuss over a small tax rise yielding only about £12 bn a year, when we are currently borrowing £300 bn a year.
It's all small beer.
Also pets. You can keep whatever pet you like in an OO house, landlords tend to be very anti-pets.
SPD 25%
CDU/CSU 19%
Greens 17%
FDP 13%
AfD 11%
Left 6%
Others 9%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Remember that's on top of £25 bn of tax rises announced in the Budget.
This is a huge year for tax rises: a permanent increase of 1.5% of national income to highest in peacetime
https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1435209276956553225?s=20
I've picked the wrong time to return to PAYE based employment haven't I.....
My father and I thank you for contribution to improving my inheritance even more.
I've now implemented safety rules: strictly one use per user per day.
Sunak/Boris won't.
“We are taking money away from those accruing capital to give to those with it. It’s a totem for a government without ideology, without consistency and without interest in the right governance. They will regret this in time.”
https://amp.ft.com/content/eceaf8fa-6ac2-4a48-8450-69bb0720117e
I hope he will accept my apologies for doubting him in the past and all the times I have accused him of being a troll. I now see I was greatly mistaken.
I was once offered a pay cut to work for LOCOG, I said no because I was planning on getting married/having kids in the future but in hindsight I do regret not taking up that offer to be a part of London 2012.
Vote in Bavaria currently polling at CSU 29% (-9) SPD 15% (n/c) - i.e. holding up much better than the vote nationally.
Given each vote is split for local and national support, it is not unreasonable to suggest that if Söder had been candidate there would have been no decline in Bavaria at all.
Fuck Knows
All the more so for a fundamentally dishonest PM.
Note that it will be displayed as a separate item on payslips, as a "Health & Social Care levy", to reinforce the delusion.
And the one I didn't take as I have no field, who wanted a house with a paddock to exercise her racing huskies.
Already forgotten the rest of what Starmer had to say, besides referencing his sister who works in care. There was no politics or proposal to any of what he had to say.
NI is the worst possible tax because it is completely unfair and inconsistent. Two people, "earning" the same income, will face completely different tax rates depending upon whether their wages are paid by an employer or not.
It is unfair, inconsistent and unreasonable. Today the government is making that worse not better.