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.
And HMRC cane you in the process! I moved myself from mainly dividend income to PAYE for a number of reasons (not least that it was no longer worth working that way), and it was very painful for first year of transition.
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.
I wonder if Boris is playing 5D chess here. Most people will instinctively blame tax rises on the Chancellor. Although Boris may take a hit, this probably won't be enough to destroy him; however, it might mean Rishi's reputation is shredded to such an extent that he's in no position to threaten Boris any time soon.
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.
No government can bind its successor. How long until the next one makes a technical change in a future budget that removes the spending tie.
Indeed, but it was interesting to hear the PM use the word hypothecate. Other than the BBC tax, we don't really do that in this country.
When it doesn't fund anywhere near the entirety of the NHS, or social care, it's not really hypothecated anyway, since the rest of the spending necessary is entirely at the discretion of the chancellor, from year to year. And the limits of the 'hypothecation' are also well demonstrated by the fact that for the first 18 months it will make no contributions towards social care at all.
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.
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?
Tony Blair? Blair knew prior to 97 that if they presented too detailed plans the Tories would steal their clothes I seem to recall he once said.
A tax on wages (which is not income tax) to raise money for social care (that mostly won’t go to social care). The merits of the policy of will be fleshed out in the next weeks, but the messaging comes already with quite a few sleights of hand.
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.
Truly embarrassing SKS is no more use than a paper bag to carry your Scuba diving sweeties in
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.
Agreed. NI is the most dishonest form of taxation.
I wonder if Boris is playing 5D chess here. Most people will instinctively blame tax rises on the Chancellor. Although Boris may take a hit, this probably won't be enough to destroy him; however, it might mean Rishi's reputation is shredded to such an extent that he's in no position to threaten Boris any time soon.
You can't play chess, of any kind, on the bag of a fag packet.
I wonder if Boris is playing 5D chess here. Most people will instinctively blame tax rises on the Chancellor. Although Boris may take a hit, this probably won't be enough to destroy him; however, it might mean Rishi's reputation is shredded to such and extent that he's in no position to threaten Boris any time soon.
Boris is teflon. He'll get away with it.
There will be a hit for the Tories, people will grumble, but as no else has much of an idea what to do about social care crisis the public will wear it.
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.
Agreed. NI is the most dishonest form of taxation.
This is where Labour should be hammering, that this isn't progressive at all.
Pensioners don't pay any more, so we aren't in this together. Rich pensioners don't pay more so we aren't in this together.
But who pays a lot more? Young people in work, who we have locked down to protect the elderly.
I am genuinely very angry that Labour is not winning this argument.
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?
Tony Blair? Blair knew prior to 97 that if they presented too detailed plans the Tories would steal their clothes I seem to recall he once said.
He didn't present too detailed a plan, but he presented catchphrases that people thought meant something - which they could project their wishes and hopes for on. Even now people can remember them: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", "Education, Education, Education", "Abolishing boom and bust" 😂😂😂🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ etc
Its a tactic that's been followed by other successful leaders. "Sharing the proceeds of growth", "Long term economic plan", "Get Brexit Done" etc
Whether you like them or not, those catchphrases meant something to the listener. Starmer has nothing. He's completely vacuous and utterly devoid of ideas - even vague, meaningless catchphrase ideas that people can project onto.
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.
That is absolutely disgraceful. In my view there should be legislation brought in to punish late payment of legitimate invoices.
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?
Tony Blair? Blair knew prior to 97 that if they presented too detailed plans the Tories would steal their clothes I seem to recall he once said.
He didn't present too detailed a plan, but he presented catchphrases that people thought meant something - which they could project their wishes and hopes for on. Even now people can remember them: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", "Education, Education, Education", "Abolishing boom and bust" 😂😂😂🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ etc
Its a tactic that's been followed by other successful leaders. "Sharing the proceeds of growth", "Long term economic plan", "Get Brexit Done" etc
Whether you like them or not, those catchphrases meant something to the listener. Starmer has nothing. He's completely vacuous and utterly devoid of ideas - even vague, meaningless catchphrase ideas that people can project onto.
"Tax wealth not workers" - easy.
But surely with Blair's approach you would still be attacking him now for not proposing an alternative to Johnson's "plan" - no?
By the sound of it, lousy government but excellent politics.
Like a lot of Johnsonism.
Apparently local authorities are going to cover "demographic and unit cost pressures" through council tax. Right. This is what we called a "chinny reckon" at school....
ETA: Another thought. The rule with Budgets (and this looks a lot like an emergency mini-Budget, what with how it has spending and tax changes in it) is that the better they look on Day One, the more completely they fall apart once the details come out.
Green gets to the point - putting money into the NHS now is unlikely to ever see it returned in the future, so what will go into Social Care now when it needs it...?
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.
That is absolutely disgraceful. In my view there should be legislation brought in to punish late payment of legitimate invoices.
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?
Tony Blair? Blair knew prior to 97 that if they presented too detailed plans the Tories would steal their clothes I seem to recall he once said.
He didn't present too detailed a plan, but he presented catchphrases that people thought meant something - which they could project their wishes and hopes for on. Even now people can remember them: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", "Education, Education, Education", "Abolishing boom and bust" 😂😂😂🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ etc
Its a tactic that's been followed by other successful leaders. "Sharing the proceeds of growth", "Long term economic plan", "Get Brexit Done" etc
Whether you like them or not, those catchphrases meant something to the listener. Starmer has nothing. He's completely vacuous and utterly devoid of ideas - even vague, meaningless catchphrase ideas that people can project onto.
"Tax wealth not workers" - easy.
But surely with Blair's approach you would still be attacking him now for not proposing an alternative to Johnson's "plan" - no?
Perhaps yes. But it'd be harder to attack him for that, if there was a vague thought of a plan that people listen to and think "I like that idea". You keep it vague but interesting enough that even attacking it sounds bad - 'why would you be against being tough on the causes of crime'?
By the sound of it, lousy government but excellent politics.
Like a lot of Johnsonism.
Apparently local authorities are going to cover "demographic and unit cost pressures" through council tax. Right. This is what we called a "chinny reckon" at school....
ETA: Another thought. The rule with Budgets (and this looks a lot like an emergency mini-Budget, what with how it has spending and tax changes in it) is that the better they look on Day One, the more completely they fall apart once the details come out.
That was my thought too. The devil will be buried in the detail. Disinterred long after it has been voted through.
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?
Tony Blair? Blair knew prior to 97 that if they presented too detailed plans the Tories would steal their clothes I seem to recall he once said.
He didn't present too detailed a plan, but he presented catchphrases that people thought meant something - which they could project their wishes and hopes for on. Even now people can remember them: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", "Education, Education, Education", "Abolishing boom and bust" 😂😂😂🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ etc
Its a tactic that's been followed by other successful leaders. "Sharing the proceeds of growth", "Long term economic plan", "Get Brexit Done" etc
Whether you like them or not, those catchphrases meant something to the listener. Starmer has nothing. He's completely vacuous and utterly devoid of ideas - even vague, meaningless catchphrase ideas that people can project onto.
"Tax wealth not workers" - easy.
But surely with Blair's approach you would still be attacking him now for not proposing an alternative to Johnson's "plan" - no?
Perhaps yes. But it'd be harder to attack him for that, if there was a vague thought of a plan that people listen to and think "I like that idea". You keep it vague but interesting enough that even attacking it sounds bad - 'why would you be against being tough on the causes of crime'?
Then I think we mostly agree. But you should accept that unless Starmer proposes a full plan he is going to get attacked for not having one.
As I said above, Reeves pretty much did what you are asking, just without a decent slogan - that is what they need to work on. I do not think it is about proposing a detailed plan at this stage.
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.
That is absolutely disgraceful. In my view there should be legislation brought in to punish late payment of legitimate invoices.
You can charge them 8% plus base rates interest - thats more than you will get in the bank - but it makes them sulk so its not great for repeat business. It can unstick things though and the great thing about LAs is they do pay in the end in our experience https://www.gov.uk/late-commercial-payments-interest-debt-recovery
By the sound of it, lousy government but excellent politics.
Like a lot of Johnsonism.
Apparently local authorities are going to cover "demographic and unit cost pressures" through council tax. Right. This is what we called a "chinny reckon" at school....
ETA: Another thought. The rule with Budgets (and this looks a lot like an emergency mini-Budget, what with how it has spending and tax changes in it) is that the better they look on Day One, the more completely they fall apart once the details come out.
That was my thought too. The devil will be buried in the detail. Disinterred long after it has been voted through.
Really? These things (Brown and Osborne budgets, dementia tax) quite often unravel in 24 hours.
Being grumpy about this new health & social care levy. BUT world is a better place after today: - more money for NHS & care was needed - big issues in social care means test addressed - tax rises were inevitable - this is a progressive and broad based increase
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.
That is absolutely disgraceful. In my view there should be legislation brought in to punish late payment of legitimate invoices.
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...?
I agree that a wealth tax would be the best option from a Labour point of view. Don't know why they're not supporting the idea.
Apparently it would not raise sufficient and it is said Starmer knows this and is not promoting it
However, Boris has won this debate simply by Labour having no credible alternatives
And every time Labour appear on the media the question is going to be asked
'And what would you do'
I think the simple answer to that would be either through general taxation (risky) or through Corp tax or both. Corp tax (which I would hate) might appeal to the divisive nature of politics, and whilst not really sustainable wouldn't matter from a political perspective.
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 Starmer is a fool. I've been saying this since he became leader, I think you're starting to see it too.
I don't share your viewpoint quite yet Max - although as I mentioned by March next year I may well do.
But I do think people are wrong to say he should lay out a detailed plan, I think that would be a big mistake. But no plan/slogan at all is also wrong.
Being grumpy about this new health & social care levy. BUT world is a better place after today: - more money for NHS & care was needed - big issues in social care means test addressed - tax rises were inevitable - this is a progressive and broad based increase
Someone struggling to pay rent is seeing their take home pay go down with a combined 2.5% increase in jobs taxes.
A buy to let landlord who is charging that individual rent is not seeing a penny more in tax on their income.
I don't deny anyone a right to an income however they seek to make it, even landlords, but why the heck should a tenant worker's pay be getting reduced by 2.5% while their landlord's pay is untouched? How is that progressive or broad based?
People who work after the state pension age will also be told to pay 1.25 per cent.
Telegraph blog
Good for both fairness and revenue, but what will @HYUFD make of it as he was nigh on convinced that this shouldn't be the case
All pensioners should pay, including and especially rich ones who pulled the rug up and screwed the young with housing
You cannot blame an entire generation for things. You can otoh blame a political party for pandering to that generation, but you know whose fault it is that that works? If you lot just got out and fucking voted, things would change in your favour.
Being grumpy about this new health & social care levy. BUT world is a better place after today: - more money for NHS & care was needed - big issues in social care means test addressed - tax rises were inevitable - this is a progressive and broad based increase
Someone struggling to pay rent is seeing their take home pay go down with a combined 2.5% increase in jobs taxes.
A buy to let landlord who is charging that individual rent is not seeing a penny more in tax on their income.
I don't deny anyone a right to an income however they seek to make it, even landlords, but why the heck should a tenant worker's pay be getting reduced by 2.5% while their landlord's pay is untouched? How is that progressive or broad based?
The fundamental issue is that the people actually needing the care aren't paying any more for it.
And if we replaced care with tuition fees, we know what the answer would be.
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...?
I agree that a wealth tax would be the best option from a Labour point of view. Don't know why they're not supporting the idea.
Apparently it would not raise sufficient and it is said Starmer knows this and is not promoting it
However, Boris has won this debate simply by Labour having no credible alternatives
And every time Labour appear on the media the question is going to be asked
'And what would you do'
I think the simple answer to that would be either through general taxation (risky) or through Corp tax or both. Corp tax (which I would hate) might appeal to the divisive nature of politics, and whilst not really sustainable wouldn't matter from a political perspective.
I think corporation tax will be increased as well at some point
People who work after the state pension age will also be told to pay 1.25 per cent.
Telegraph blog
Good for both fairness and revenue, but what will @HYUFD make of it as he was nigh on convinced that this shouldn't be the case
All pensioners should pay, including and especially rich ones who pulled the rug up and screwed the young with housing
You cannot blame an entire generation for things. You can otoh blame a political party for pandering to that generation, but you know whose fault it is that that works? If you lot just got out and fucking voted, things would change in your favour.
I've been saying for years that the young should vote. I have always voted, I cannot get people into polling booths anymore than I do when I go out and canvass them.
It's potentially superb politics but I just don't think you can be a progressive/left-wing person and agree with a policy that makes workers pay for the care of rich people
Being grumpy about this new health & social care levy. BUT world is a better place after today: - more money for NHS & care was needed - big issues in social care means test addressed - tax rises were inevitable - this is a progressive and broad based increase
Someone struggling to pay rent is seeing their take home pay go down with a combined 2.5% increase in jobs taxes.
A buy to let landlord who is charging that individual rent is not seeing a penny more in tax on their income.
I don't deny anyone a right to an income however they seek to make it, even landlords, but why the heck should a tenant worker's pay be getting reduced by 2.5% while their landlord's pay is untouched? How is that progressive or broad based?
The fundamental issue is that the people actually needing the care aren't paying any more for it.
And if we replaced care with tuition fees, we know what the answer would be.
Yep, you made a choice to take on tuition fees, they didnt make a choice to need care
Being grumpy about this new health & social care levy. BUT world is a better place after today: - more money for NHS & care was needed - big issues in social care means test addressed - tax rises were inevitable - this is a progressive and broad based increase
Someone struggling to pay rent is seeing their take home pay go down with a combined 2.5% increase in jobs taxes.
A buy to let landlord who is charging that individual rent is not seeing a penny more in tax on their income.
I don't deny anyone a right to an income however they seek to make it, even landlords, but why the heck should a tenant worker's pay be getting reduced by 2.5% while their landlord's pay is untouched? How is that progressive or broad based?
The fundamental issue is that the people actually needing the care aren't paying any more for it.
And if we replaced care with tuition fees, we know what the answer would be.
Yep, you made a choice to take on tuition fees, they didnt make a choice to need care
The SNP @theSNP · 46m Police cars revolving light Boris Johnson’s new poll tax will see a regressive tax hike unfairly penalising young people, low paid workers and families.
Banknote with pound sign Tories want to tax Scottish workers twice, forcing them to pay the bill for social care in England, as well as Scotland.
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.
I don't think I could have ever done that.
The decision itself wasn’t too difficult, business dried up during the pandemic and the mortgage doesn’t pay itself!
The new company is slow-paced and low-stress, and they invest in education and professional development so I’m enrolling in an MBA next month.
Very different to self-employment, where you spend a third of your time working, a third looking for work and the final third chasing people who owe you money!
People who work after the state pension age will also be told to pay 1.25 per cent.
Telegraph blog
Good for both fairness and revenue, but what will @HYUFD make of it as he was nigh on convinced that this shouldn't be the case
All pensioners should pay, including and especially rich ones who pulled the rug up and screwed the young with housing
You cannot blame an entire generation for things. You can otoh blame a political party for pandering to that generation, but you know whose fault it is that that works? If you lot just got out and fucking voted, things would change in your favour.
I've been saying for years that the young should vote. I have always voted, I cannot get people into polling booths anymore than I do when I go out and canvass them.
It's potentially superb politics but I just don't think you can be a progressive/left-wing person and agree with a policy that makes workers pay for the care of rich people
No. You can't be a person who believes in social justice, and think that.
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...?
I agree that a wealth tax would be the best option from a Labour point of view. Don't know why they're not supporting the idea.
Apparently it would not raise sufficient and it is said Starmer knows this and is not promoting it
However, Boris has won this debate simply by Labour having no credible alternatives
And every time Labour appear on the media the question is going to be asked
'And what would you do'
I think the simple answer to that would be either through general taxation (risky) or through Corp tax or both. Corp tax (which I would hate) might appeal to the divisive nature of politics, and whilst not really sustainable wouldn't matter from a political perspective.
I think corporation tax will be increased as well at some point
It already is increasing to 25% - how much higher do you think it's going to be.
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
People who work after the state pension age will also be told to pay 1.25 per cent.
Telegraph blog
Good for both fairness and revenue, but what will @HYUFD make of it as he was nigh on convinced that this shouldn't be the case
All pensioners should pay, including and especially rich ones who pulled the rug up and screwed the young with housing
You cannot blame an entire generation for things. You can otoh blame a political party for pandering to that generation, but you know whose fault it is that that works? If you lot just got out and fucking voted, things would change in your favour.
I've been saying for years that the young should vote. I have always voted, I cannot get people into polling booths anymore than I do when I go out and canvass them.
It's potentially superb politics but I just don't think you can be a progressive/left-wing person and agree with a policy that makes workers pay for the care of rich people
No. You can't be a person who believes in social justice, and think that.
I believe in social justice funded in a way that is fair and progressive. Rich pensioners may no more money for this yet I do and that is not what I believe.
I believe in good strong public services funded from taxation that is progressive. End of story.
The SNP @theSNP · 46m Police cars revolving light Boris Johnson’s new poll tax will see a regressive tax hike unfairly penalising young people, low paid workers and families.
Banknote with pound sign Tories want to tax Scottish workers twice, forcing them to pay the bill for social care in England, as well as Scotland.
How would the SNP pay for social care in Scotland then once the Treasury's subsidy went?
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Being grumpy about this new health & social care levy. BUT world is a better place after today: - more money for NHS & care was needed - big issues in social care means test addressed - tax rises were inevitable - this is a progressive and broad based increase
Someone struggling to pay rent is seeing their take home pay go down with a combined 2.5% increase in jobs taxes.
A buy to let landlord who is charging that individual rent is not seeing a penny more in tax on their income.
I don't deny anyone a right to an income however they seek to make it, even landlords, but why the heck should a tenant worker's pay be getting reduced by 2.5% while their landlord's pay is untouched? How is that progressive or broad based?
The fundamental issue is that the people actually needing the care aren't paying any more for it.
And if we replaced care with tuition fees, we know what the answer would be.
Yep, you made a choice to take on tuition fees, they didnt make a choice to need care
Yes they did?
All those hours going through prospectuses trying to decide whether to get dementia, incontinence, need peg feeding etc?
I should say, if the system pays for rich people but they equally pay more towards it then of course I am in favour, it sounds like I was just attacking people for being rich which I didn't intend to.
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...?
I agree that a wealth tax would be the best option from a Labour point of view. Don't know why they're not supporting the idea.
Apparently it would not raise sufficient and it is said Starmer knows this and is not promoting it
However, Boris has won this debate simply by Labour having no credible alternatives
And every time Labour appear on the media the question is going to be asked
'And what would you do'
I think the simple answer to that would be either through general taxation (risky) or through Corp tax or both. Corp tax (which I would hate) might appeal to the divisive nature of politics, and whilst not really sustainable wouldn't matter from a political perspective.
I think corporation tax will be increased as well at some point
It already is increasing to 25% - how much higher do you think it's going to be.
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...?
I agree that a wealth tax would be the best option from a Labour point of view. Don't know why they're not supporting the idea.
Apparently it would not raise sufficient and it is said Starmer knows this and is not promoting it
However, Boris has won this debate simply by Labour having no credible alternatives
And every time Labour appear on the media the question is going to be asked
'And what would you do'
I think the simple answer to that would be either through general taxation (risky) or through Corp tax or both. Corp tax (which I would hate) might appeal to the divisive nature of politics, and whilst not really sustainable wouldn't matter from a political perspective.
I think corporation tax will be increased as well at some point
Corporation tax is already going up in April 2023, from 19% to 25%;
So Corp Tax is already in the "found it, raised it, planned to spend it" category.
With the NI rise in April 2022, the extension to working pensioners (as a HSC levy) in 2023 and no increases in personal allowances in 2023 or 2024, I'm really beginning to wonder where they fit an election in.
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Time for the Tories to go into Opposition.
Fundamentally Philip, you have your ideology and I have mine. But these are ideologies which you can agree with and criticise - because there is something to criticise.
My issue with BoJo from day one has been that this lot don't have an ideology and I find that very troubling for politics in general. I think you might have now understood what I mean by that (without wishing to put words into your mouth).
I think in the general sense though, we do agree on the principle that taxes should be applied consistently and fairly.
Minor point… but this new tax levy is to be paid on dividends… will dividends on shares held in an ISA be affected?
Good point. I don’t know.
Anyone?
It won't be charged on ISA dividends.
70.In addition, many everyday investors will be unaffected. Shares held in ISAs are not subject to dividend tax and, due to the £2,000 tax-free dividend allowance and the personal allowance, around 60 per cent of individuals with dividend income outside of ISAs are not expected to pay any dividend tax or be affected by this change in 2022-23. 71.This change will apply UK-wide. It will be scored at the Budget and legislated for in the next Finance Bill.
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Time for the Tories to go into Opposition.
Time for you to go to the LDs
At least Philip has some principles, a lot more than you it seems - and I have a great deal of respect for your posts.
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
So. Tory backbenches unhappy with raising NI, as it is unfair and they weren't elected to put taxes up. So they put up loads of other taxes as well to placate them. And now they are delighted. Have I got this right?
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 Starmer is a fool. I've been saying this since he became leader, I think you're starting to see it too.
I don't share your viewpoint quite yet Max - although as I mentioned by March next year I may well do.
But I do think people are wrong to say he should lay out a detailed plan, I think that would be a big mistake. But no plan/slogan at all is also wrong.
Doesn't need a plan, just needs a hook. Blair would be battering the government day in day out. He'd be all over the news, writing editorials in the Telegraph and the Times bashing the government over a tax rise on workers to pay for very wealthy pensioners.
BTW March is not just an arbitrary month for me with Starmer, he will have been in the job then for two years, which is more than enough time to prove he's any good. Corbyn should have resigned at just about that point and we'd probably have a Labour Government now
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 Starmer is a fool. I've been saying this since he became leader, I think you're starting to see it too.
I don't share your viewpoint quite yet Max - although as I mentioned by March next year I may well do.
But I do think people are wrong to say he should lay out a detailed plan, I think that would be a big mistake. But no plan/slogan at all is also wrong.
Doesn't need a plan, just needs a hook. Blair would be battering the government day in day out. He'd be all over the news, writing editorials in the Telegraph and the Times bashing the government over a tax rise on workers to pay for very wealthy pensioners.
"Tax wealth not workers", is what I would have gone with myself.
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Time for the Tories to go into Opposition.
Time for you to go to the LDs
Ta-ra.
Will ensure we become a purer, more traditional Conservative party as a result and will reduce Liberal dilution of Toryism and Social Democratic dilution of the LDs. Win, win
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Time for the Tories to go into Opposition.
Time for you to go to the LDs
Ta-ra.
Will ensure we become a purer, more traditional Conservative party as a result and will reduce Liberal dilution of Toryism and Social Democratic dilution of the LDs. Win, win
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Time for the Tories to go into Opposition.
Time for you to go to the LDs
Ta-ra.
Will ensure we become a purer, more traditional Conservative party as a result and will reduce Liberal dilution of Toryism and Social Democratic dilution of the LDs. Win, win
Keep losing votes and you can have pure Conservativism from the Opposition benches like you did under IDS instead of compromising your principles then but getting some of what you want from being in government.
Time to return to my day job working in tech for social care and skulking on here --- but as always this site is a fabulous resource to get at the meat and detail of an issue while its hot, way more informative than the news media, so thanks for the illumination
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 Starmer is a fool. I've been saying this since he became leader, I think you're starting to see it too.
I wondered if Burnham would be any better as leader of the opposition. After today, it's very clear indeed that he would.
I remain unconvinced, he has the "not Starmer" bounce right now. But I am headed in your direction, I will say that.
Di you listen to his interview on R4 this morning ? He had his own plan for social care funding, expressed well the [principles on which is was based, and echoed the critiques of the NI rise that have made you and others on here so angry.
Whether one agrees with him or not, it was a coherent performance worthy of a leader of the opposition, something that Starmer has failed to display since he became leader.
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?
Tony Blair? Blair knew prior to 97 that if they presented too detailed plans the Tories would steal their clothes I seem to recall he once said.
If your opponents implement your policies you could say it is mission accomplished.
Just saw Jon Ashworth on TV. Absolutely no policies whatsoever other than saying the Tories have broken their manifesto commitment despite Boris tackling that head on in his statement.
It was almost as if the whole pandemic had past Jon Ashworth by. He seemed unable to comprehend why a social care plan in 2019 didn't need tax rises but one in 2021 after the global pandemic which has cost vast amounts of money would do.
The Tories are lucky that the opposition are even worse than them.
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.
It was far better IMO when most things were done by phone, because the person on the other end of the phone had to deal with it there and then and couldn't try to fob you off. With email and other similar systems, people can accidentally-on-purpose not bother to attend to the matter in hand for a long time.
Sounds to me like this might unravel; I don't think it's anywhere near enough to solve all the social care funding issues (not just the elderly). I suspect what's happened is:
Sajid: Rishi, the NHS is going to be fucked within a year, bankrupt. Covid, waiting lists etc. We need to pump more money in. Rishi: Can't do that - watch my lips, no tax rises. We promised. Boris: I've got an idea! Let's pretend to solve the social care problem by raising NI, but we'll actually use most of the money raised to pump into the NHS. Nobody will ever notice. Sajid and Rishi: Genius, Boris. Let's do it. You always said you had a plan for social care, though you never shared it before.
If we want good public services there for public need as I believe in very fundamentally, they should be paid for with a tax system which is progressive and increases contribution based on wealth and income. That is irrelevant to age.
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
That's a left-wing view.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Time for the Tories to go into Opposition.
Time for you to go to the LDs
Ta-ra.
Will ensure we become a purer, more traditional Conservative party as a result and will reduce Liberal dilution of Toryism and Social Democratic dilution of the LDs. Win, win
Keep losing votes and you can have pure Conservativism from the Opposition benches like you did under IDS instead of compromising your principles then but getting some of what you want from being in government.
You really are a blue Corbynite.
I have always said I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal
When you start taking more money out of people's pockets they need to see the difference it is making. That is the basic challenge for the Tories now. They have to deliver.
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.
That is absolutely disgraceful. In my view there should be legislation brought in to punish late payment of legitimate invoices.
I wonder what other services that LAs provide are also suffering, WFH does not work in the public sector.
Comments
And the limits of the 'hypothecation' are also well demonstrated by the fact that for the first 18 months it will make no contributions towards social care at all.
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1435216543986720770?s=20
Telegraph blog
There will be a hit for the Tories, people will grumble, but as no else has much of an idea what to do about social care crisis the public will wear it.
Pensioners don't pay any more, so we aren't in this together. Rich pensioners don't pay more so we aren't in this together.
But who pays a lot more? Young people in work, who we have locked down to protect the elderly.
I am genuinely very angry that Labour is not winning this argument.
Its a tactic that's been followed by other successful leaders. "Sharing the proceeds of growth", "Long term economic plan", "Get Brexit Done" etc
Whether you like them or not, those catchphrases meant something to the listener. Starmer has nothing. He's completely vacuous and utterly devoid of ideas - even vague, meaningless catchphrase ideas that people can project onto.
But surely with Blair's approach you would still be attacking him now for not proposing an alternative to Johnson's "plan" - no?
Like a lot of Johnsonism.
Apparently local authorities are going to cover "demographic and unit cost pressures" through council tax. Right. This is what we called a "chinny reckon" at school....
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1435217372017745922?s=20
ETA: Another thought. The rule with Budgets (and this looks a lot like an emergency mini-Budget, what with how it has spending and tax changes in it) is that the better they look on Day One, the more completely they fall apart once the details come out.
However, Boris has won this debate simply by Labour having no credible alternatives
And every time Labour appear on the media the question is going to be asked
'And what would you do'
Disinterred long after it has been voted through.
There was almost a plan in there - but she stopped at the end? She must be told to do that, I cannot believe they're stopping there.
As I said above, Reeves pretty much did what you are asking, just without a decent slogan - that is what they need to work on. I do not think it is about proposing a detailed plan at this stage.
"This is a tax on workers not wealth". Done.
BUT world is a better place after today:
- more money for NHS & care was needed
- big issues in social care means test addressed
- tax rises were inevitable
- this is a progressive and broad based increase
https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1435213616022753285?s=20
But I do think people are wrong to say he should lay out a detailed plan, I think that would be a big mistake. But no plan/slogan at all is also wrong.
Someone struggling to pay rent is seeing their take home pay go down with a combined 2.5% increase in jobs taxes.
A buy to let landlord who is charging that individual rent is not seeing a penny more in tax on their income.
I don't deny anyone a right to an income however they seek to make it, even landlords, but why the heck should a tenant worker's pay be getting reduced by 2.5% while their landlord's pay is untouched? How is that progressive or broad based?
Not a low tax Party, but the Party of the NHS.
Poor government. Superb politics.
And if we replaced care with tuition fees, we know what the answer would be.
It's potentially superb politics but I just don't think you can be a progressive/left-wing person and agree with a policy that makes workers pay for the care of rich people
taxlevy is to be paid on dividends… will dividends on shares held in an ISA be affected?https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1435209648429322241
The SNP
@theSNP
·
46m
Police cars revolving light Boris Johnson’s new poll tax will see a regressive tax hike unfairly penalising young people, low paid workers and families.
Banknote with pound sign Tories want to tax Scottish workers twice, forcing them to pay the bill for social care in England, as well as Scotland.
The new company is slow-paced and low-stress, and they invest in education and professional development so I’m enrolling in an MBA next month.
Very different to self-employment, where you spend a third of your time working, a third looking for work and the final third chasing people who owe you money!
That is at the very core of my belief. I fundamentally believe that health, social care, education, transport should be paid for in this way.
Anyone?
I believe in good strong public services funded from taxation that is progressive. End of story.
I take the right-wing view. We need a tax system with low but consistent and equally applied tax rates, which allow economic growth and higher wages, leading to higher tax receipts and lower welfare expenditure.
But this government isn't following either left or right. Its following the Sir Humphrey view: what taxes can we get away with raising? There are no principles behind it.
Time for the Tories to go into Opposition.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1015737/Build_Back_Better-_Our_Plan_for_Health_and_Social_Care_web_accessible.pdf
https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1435218127235731467?s=20
I did not know that and I agree no more
Thank you for correcting me
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/corporation-tax-charge-and-rates-from-1-april-2022-and-small-profits-rate-and-marginal-relief-from-1-april-2023/corporation-tax-charge-and-rates-from-1-april-2022-and-small-profits-rate-and-marginal-relief-from-1-april-2023
So Corp Tax is already in the "found it, raised it, planned to spend it" category.
With the NI rise in April 2022, the extension to working pensioners (as a HSC levy) in 2023 and no increases in personal allowances in 2023 or 2024, I'm really beginning to wonder where they fit an election in.
My issue with BoJo from day one has been that this lot don't have an ideology and I find that very troubling for politics in general. I think you might have now understood what I mean by that (without wishing to put words into your mouth).
I think in the general sense though, we do agree on the principle that taxes should be applied consistently and fairly.
70.In addition, many everyday investors will be unaffected. Shares held in ISAs are not
subject to dividend tax and, due to the £2,000 tax-free dividend allowance and the
personal allowance, around 60 per cent of individuals with dividend income outside of
ISAs are not expected to pay any dividend tax or be affected by this change in
2022-23.
71.This change will apply UK-wide. It will be scored at the Budget and legislated for in the
next Finance Bill.
I posted the link to the government plans just upthread. ISAs are (for now at least) still completely exempt.
“Shares held in ISAs are not subject to dividend tax”
So they put up loads of other taxes as well to placate them.
And now they are delighted.
Have I got this right?
@BorisJohnson
,
@RishiSunak
,
@sajidjavid
for taking a tough and politically difficult decision to give the NHS and social care desperately needed funding.'
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1435215122004389888?s=20
'If you live in US, Ger or Switz your health insurance premiums will go up just as surely as taxes will go up in taxpayer-funded systems. And for all its challenges, our system delivers not equity & value for money, including the lowest medicine prices paid anywhere in the world.'
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1435216032109666304?s=20
An issue that I would like to be solved - and I am sure it might be if our lot could be bothered to vote.
Honestly if they don't vote in 2024, I might move to Switzerland
You really are a blue Corbynite.
He had his own plan for social care funding, expressed well the [principles on which is was based, and echoed the critiques of the NI rise that have made you and others on here so angry.
Whether one agrees with him or not, it was a coherent performance worthy of a leader of the opposition, something that Starmer has failed to display since he became leader.
It was almost as if the whole pandemic had past Jon Ashworth by. He seemed unable to comprehend why a social care plan in 2019 didn't need tax rises but one in 2021 after the global pandemic which has cost vast amounts of money would do.
The Tories are lucky that the opposition are even worse than them.
I hope Labour burn his arse with it.
Sajid: Rishi, the NHS is going to be fucked within a year, bankrupt. Covid, waiting lists etc. We need to pump more money in.
Rishi: Can't do that - watch my lips, no tax rises. We promised.
Boris: I've got an idea! Let's pretend to solve the social care problem by raising NI, but we'll actually use most of the money raised to pump into the NHS. Nobody will ever notice.
Sajid and Rishi: Genius, Boris. Let's do it. You always said you had a plan for social care, though you never shared it before.
And I suspect that will give them a chance.