Skip to content

Why I’m quitting the Conservative Party – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,624
edited September 2021 in General
Why I’m quitting the Conservative Party – politicalbetting.com

A majority Conservative government will guarantee:? No rise to Income Tax? No rise to National Insurance? No rise to VATHelping you and family keep more of the money you earn. #VoteConservative pic.twitter.com/Ja0vm0JRrm

Read the full story here

«134567…10

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,285
    edited September 2021
    Social care fixed in one easy slogan: HMG to own the buildings. This would ease the costs of private sector care suppliers, equalise (more-or-less) costs between rich and poor parts of the country, and be cost-neutral for the government because it would have an asset worth whatever it paid for it, and probably appreciating with time.

    (OK I know it's not just residential care but...)

    (Copied from last thread so this thread is visible.)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,285
    edited September 2021
    The Telegraph reports Conservative whips telling backbenchers this will be a confidence vote.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/07/whipped-line-inside-cabinet-meeting-crushed-tory-tax-rise-rebellion/ (£££)

    This carries the implication their careers will be ended if they vote against, a trick Boris pulled to purge his critics in the last parliament.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    edited September 2021
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    That's a powerful piece.

    Yes, not only and perhaps not mainly yet another broken manifesto pledge, or the highest taxes since the war, but the difference between the treatment of earned and unearned income.
    This leads inexorably, it seems to me, to a raid on unearned income in the not too distant future.

    What Philip describes in the header, which he is essentially correct about, cannot last - those who are employed will eventually become aware of the fact that they are being ripped off.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,598
    Two years after Boris Johnson promised a plan for social care, it can hardly be said that today’s announcement was “worth the wait”. As one Tory backbencher put it, “If the ‘big reveal’ of a decade of thinking is this, then some people want sacking.”

    Johnson has managed to create a social care plan that essentially has no plan for social care.

    No government should simply be out to “fix” social care – they must transform it. Progressives have rightly long been championing the creation of a “national care service” or a “national independent living service”, along the lines of the NHS: free at the point of use, universal coverage, with well paid and trained care staff at its heart. We shouldn’t apologise for demands for universal care on the grounds that it’s “too radical”. This is exactly what the scale of the crisis calls for – and we should be as proud of the principle as for the NHS.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/07/boris-johnson-social-care-plan-prime-minister-disabled-people-care-workers
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,466
    Interesting read and one that may resonate in ways that I am still working out.... the 50% marginal argument is a strong one. I suppose Uni graduates entering jobs market arent strong Tory voters but it will make their parents think (perhaps)...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,502
    A rather thoughtful and wholly unexpected header.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,285
    Fishing said:

    A good and persuasive thread.

    I think the recent decision to raise taxes would be much more persuasive if there weren't so much unnecessary spending going on. But any government worthy of support would be axing that before increasing taxes.

    Also it is bizarre that gambling winnings, for example, aren't taxed while income from productive employment is.

    Historically, the argument for not taxing gambling winnings was the government would lose more if it had to allow gambling losses to be written off against income tax, so they taxed the stake instead (abolished 20 years or so back).
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,789
    edited September 2021
    On a point of pedantry, alcohol duty, fuel duty, etc. are INdirect taxes, not direct taxes, as the article says, though this may be a typo. In simple terms, the difference is that a direct tax, e.g. income tax, goes from the taxpayer/final consumer to the government, while an indirect tax goes taxpayer/final consumer to company to government. Thus, an increase in, say, fuel excise duty can be absorbed through a reduction in oil company profits, as well as by the taxpayer.

    In practice, of course, there may not be much difference in the long run.

    I think a better distinction is between "luxury" taxes that penalise largely voluntary activities, e.g. those on tobacco or alcohol, and those on things you basically have to do, like earning money. Of course there are many shades of grey (e.g. stamp duty - does one have to buy a house?) but I'd always prefer to whack up luxury taxes.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,285
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Fishing said:

    A good and persuasive thread.

    I think the recent decision to raise taxes would be much more persuasive if there weren't so much unnecessary spending going on. But any government worthy of support would be axing that before increasing taxes.

    Also it is bizarre that gambling winnings, for example, aren't taxed while income from productive employment is.

    Historically, the argument for not taxing gambling winnings was the government would lose more if it had to allow gambling losses to be written off against income tax, so they taxed the stake instead (abolished 20 years or so back).
    That said, I do think some people are sailing close to the wind in basically running businesses based on gambling. It would be interesting to see a test case but I doubt it would do us ordinary punters much good.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,789
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Fishing said:

    A good and persuasive thread.

    I think the recent decision to raise taxes would be much more persuasive if there weren't so much unnecessary spending going on. But any government worthy of support would be axing that before increasing taxes.

    Also it is bizarre that gambling winnings, for example, aren't taxed while income from productive employment is.

    Historically, the argument for not taxing gambling winnings was the government would lose more if it had to allow gambling losses to be written off against income tax, so they taxed the stake instead (abolished 20 years or so back).
    That is the American approach, but I don't think it necessarily follows that you need to do it. There is no reason why you can't tax people's winnings and let them eat losses themselves. Or, as you say, taxing the stake is a perfectly good alternative.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,479
    I said yesterday that the 'plan' was all froth. Thoughtful people here have, over the last few days, pointed up the iniquity of increasing the tax burden on the lowest paid while leaving the higher, and indeed highest paid alone.
    Which is of course, as those commentators said, is what an increase in NI or whatever the 'new' tax is going to do.
    Yes, there will be some effect on share incomes, but not to the same extent. And how does it help Care suppliers to balance their books?

    I suspect that, as a 'popular' measure, this will very soon unravel, and the fact that there is to be a vote of confidence on it as soon as tonight suggests that No 10 realises this.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,992
    Fishing said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Fishing said:

    A good and persuasive thread.

    I think the recent decision to raise taxes would be much more persuasive if there weren't so much unnecessary spending going on. But any government worthy of support would be axing that before increasing taxes.

    Also it is bizarre that gambling winnings, for example, aren't taxed while income from productive employment is.

    Historically, the argument for not taxing gambling winnings was the government would lose more if it had to allow gambling losses to be written off against income tax, so they taxed the stake instead (abolished 20 years or so back).
    That is the American approach, but I don't think it necessarily follows that you need to do it. There is no reason why you can't tax people's winnings and let them eat losses themselves. Or, as you say, taxing the stake is a perfectly good alternative.
    In America, you can say you're a professional gambler and then you get to offset losses. But they'll only let you do that if you actually (on average) make money from gambling.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,835
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    On a point of pedantry, alcohol duty, fuel duty, etc. are INdirect taxes, not direct taxes, as the article says, though this may be a typo. In simple terms, the difference is that a direct tax, e.g. income tax, goes from the taxpayer/final consumer to the government, while an indirect tax goes taxpayer/final consumer to company to government. Thus, an increase in, say, fuel excise duty can be absorbed through a reduction in oil company profits, as well as by the taxpayer.

    In practice, of course, there may not be much difference in the long run.

    I think a better distinction is between "luxury" taxes that penalise largely voluntary activities, e.g. those on tobacco or alcohol, and those on things you basically have to do, like earning money. Of course there are many shades of grey (e.g. stamp duty - does one have to buy a house?) but I'd always prefer to whack up luxury taxes.

    I've always felt that - in a perfect world - you'd want to tax activities that are economically suboptimal.

    Pollution is the obvious one.

    But alcohol (which I'm fond of) should also be taxed because it:

    (a) results in more road accidents than would otherwise be the case
    (b) probably lowers worker productivity on the day after a big night out
    (c) is associated with quite a lot of criminal behaviour
    and
    (d) results in injuries (from cirrhosis to beer wounds) that the NHS has to pay to clean up

    Likewise, a home sitting empty should be taxed, because the cost of insufficient accommodation is felt across the whole population. I'd rather tax someone who didn't rent out an apartment, than someone who did.

    Work, on the other hand, is generally good.

    Work gives people structure. People in work are less prone to depression or illness. They derive self worth from making an economic contribution to society.

    We want as many people to work as possible.

    Perhaps we should pay people more if they work. Some that say that this is a subsidy to employers. Maybe it is. But I reckon the benefits to society of more people working massively outweigh the costs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone* worked, and everyone felt they were doing something useful?

    And wouldn't the economic output of the country be greater if everyone (or almost everyone) was generating economic output. Wouldn't it be better if Fred Smith (who's not the brightest and can only manage £3.50 of economic output an hour) was actually in work? And you know what - if he's in work, it's possible his output will rise, while if he's sitting at home watching the Price is Right, that's never going to happen.

    Simply, isn't it time to start subsidising work, not taxing it?

    * Yeah, yeah, I know some people can't work. But... maybe they can...
    On the other hand, I can think of several people I would cheerfully pay to sit at home all day where they could do no damage.

    Spielman, Gibb, Williamson, Patel, Raab, Wormald…
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,077
    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,963
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Social care fixed in one easy slogan: HMG to own the buildings. This would ease the costs of private sector care suppliers, equalise (more-or-less) costs between rich and poor parts of the country, and be cost-neutral for the government because it would have an asset worth whatever it paid for it, and probably appreciating with time.

    (OK I know it's not just residential care but...)

    (Copied from last thread so this thread is visible.)

    Yes, this could work. One element of significant cost is bank's arrangement and interest fees for smaller owners to purchase the buildings ( Which of course are passed on and then some )
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    Flippin heck. Too busy wiping the sleepy dust from my eyes to take in that header. A re-read after a double espresso I think.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,611
    darkage said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    That's a powerful piece.

    Yes, not only and perhaps not mainly yet another broken manifesto pledge, or the highest taxes since the war, but the difference between the treatment of earned and unearned income.
    This leads inexorably, it seems to me, to a raid on unearned income in the not too distant future.
    I think yesterday will need to be read as a whole with the upcoming Budget, where all the "why hasn't he hit xyz instead?" will hit xyz as well.

    At some point, to recover the massive largesse of this government to keep people employed - which has very largely worked - we are ALL going to be hit. I am sufficiently sanguine to think that election pledges made before Covid come with small print that says "all subject to not being hit by a once in a century pandemic we have to pay for....".

    That said, I'm sorry to lose Philip. We'll work hard to win him back - I presume from the Can't Be Arsed Party, rather than some other domestic political offering which meets his concerns - and is currently not out there.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966

    I think the calculations are complete bollocks.

    You cannot include employers contributions in an employees real marginal tax rate.

    You can't deduct an employers contribution to arrive at net wages either.

    Credit to Phillip for being brave enough to write the thread but when you look at the calculations yesterday's announcement makes a tiny change.

    Using his own flawed methodology as gospel the rate before yesterday was still 47.3%
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,992
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    On a point of pedantry, alcohol duty, fuel duty, etc. are INdirect taxes, not direct taxes, as the article says, though this may be a typo. In simple terms, the difference is that a direct tax, e.g. income tax, goes from the taxpayer/final consumer to the government, while an indirect tax goes taxpayer/final consumer to company to government. Thus, an increase in, say, fuel excise duty can be absorbed through a reduction in oil company profits, as well as by the taxpayer.

    In practice, of course, there may not be much difference in the long run.

    I think a better distinction is between "luxury" taxes that penalise largely voluntary activities, e.g. those on tobacco or alcohol, and those on things you basically have to do, like earning money. Of course there are many shades of grey (e.g. stamp duty - does one have to buy a house?) but I'd always prefer to whack up luxury taxes.

    I've always felt that - in a perfect world - you'd want to tax activities that are economically suboptimal.

    Pollution is the obvious one.

    But alcohol (which I'm fond of) should also be taxed because it:

    (a) results in more road accidents than would otherwise be the case
    (b) probably lowers worker productivity on the day after a big night out
    (c) is associated with quite a lot of criminal behaviour
    and
    (d) results in injuries (from cirrhosis to beer wounds) that the NHS has to pay to clean up

    Likewise, a home sitting empty should be taxed, because the cost of insufficient accommodation is felt across the whole population. I'd rather tax someone who didn't rent out an apartment, than someone who did.

    Work, on the other hand, is generally good.

    Work gives people structure. People in work are less prone to depression or illness. They derive self worth from making an economic contribution to society.

    We want as many people to work as possible.

    Perhaps we should pay people more if they work. Some that say that this is a subsidy to employers. Maybe it is. But I reckon the benefits to society of more people working massively outweigh the costs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone* worked, and everyone felt they were doing something useful?

    And wouldn't the economic output of the country be greater if everyone (or almost everyone) was generating economic output. Wouldn't it be better if Fred Smith (who's not the brightest and can only manage £3.50 of economic output an hour) was actually in work? And you know what - if he's in work, it's possible his output will rise, while if he's sitting at home watching the Price is Right, that's never going to happen.

    Simply, isn't it time to start subsidising work, not taxing it?

    * Yeah, yeah, I know some people can't work. But... maybe they can...
    On the other hand, I can think of several people I would cheerfully pay to sit at home all day where they could do no damage.

    Spielman, Gibb, Williamson, Patel, Raab, Wormald…
    You know, under my proposal these people *would* be gainfully employed. Albeit probably not in their current jobs.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    rcs1000 said:

    bigjohnowls said:


    I think the calculations are complete bollocks.

    You cannot include employers contributions in an employees real marginal tax rate.

    You can't deduct an employers contribution to arrive at net wages either.

    Credit to Phillip for being brave enough to write the thread but when you look at the calculations yesterday's announcement makes a tiny change.

    Using his own flawed methodology as gospel the rate before yesterday was still 47.3%

    As an employer, of course you can.

    And it's trivially obvious that you must. Otherwise governments would simply never tax income at all, and simply charge employers.
    "Real Marginal Tax Rate" has a definition and it isn't the one used in the header.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    rcs1000 said:

    You know, under my proposal these people *would* be gainfully employed. Albeit probably not in their current jobs.

    The argument is that them sitting at home all day doing nothing is a net gain
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    MarqueeMark said:

    darkage said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    That's a powerful piece.

    Yes, not only and perhaps not mainly yet another broken manifesto pledge, or the highest taxes since the war, but the difference between the treatment of earned and unearned income.
    This leads inexorably, it seems to me, to a raid on unearned income in the not too distant future.
    I think yesterday will need to be read as a whole with the upcoming Budget, where all the "why hasn't he hit xyz instead?" will hit xyz as well.

    At some point, to recover the massive largesse of this government to keep people employed - which has very largely worked - we are ALL going to be hit. I am sufficiently sanguine to think that election pledges made before Covid come with small print that says "all subject to not being hit by a once in a century pandemic we have to pay for....".

    That said, I'm sorry to lose Philip. We'll work hard to win him back - I presume from the Can't Be Arsed Party, rather than some other domestic political offering which meets his concerns - and is currently not out there.
    Yes, one of the points I made yesterday. The low-information public is pulling the strings and the magic money tree remains arboriculturally popular.

    This is throwing yet more into NHS's maw yet not addressing the shocking state of the nation's finances due to the pandemic - so more to come.

    Perhaps concentrating on NI gives the Chancellor room to raise income tax at some point, but I would think after the next GE?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,963
    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Good I'd say - social care is electoral fixed and Labour has no answers
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,789
    Off topic, I am back in the country after a couple of months on the US west coast, mixing business with pleasure. Here are some random observations, some of which I've made on here before:

    - the scale of the homeless problem in the big cities I visited (in particular SF, LA, Portland and Seattle) is truly shocking. There are shantytowns of a few dozen or so camping tents set up in parks or along roads or freeways and the city governments take weeks or longer to clear them. And in Portland and Seattle in particular, the police seem to have given up enforcing the law around those areas, on the grounds that jailing the homeless "will just make the problem worse" - though if non-homeless jaywalk or something that will raise money for the city, they're onto you quickly enough. I was in Mexico before I headed north, and the homeless were far more numerous and visible in the US - the reverse of my last visit to both countries a couple of years back.
    - America is expensive to eat in - this is a trend that dates back a couple of decades at least. Limited competition in supermarkets and a government in hock to farmers even more than ours is, together with a strong dollar and general inflation has meant that even eating the crap that poor Americans have to consume is expensive, and eating even moderately well is eye-poppingly so compared to Europe.
    - the scale of pollution caused by wildfires in the west is literally eye-watering. It wasn't so bad in LA, but I have spent time in Beijing, Delhi and Kathamandu and never experienced worse air quality than in Reno (it was 300-400 while I was there - described as hazardous). Portland was bad too.
    - the debacle in Afghanistan has ended or at least greatly diminished the halo effect that Biden had in liberal America for disposing of Trump.
    - mask wearing is much more strictly enforced in the big cities than it ever was in the UK, while in the small towns and rural areas, it is pretty lax.
    - to judge by yard signs and bumper stickers in the big cities, BLM is still a live issue. And to judge by the same (and casual conversations) in small towns, the allegedly "stolen" Presidential election is too.
    - there is a stunning property boom, resulting in an incredibly tight market, especially in SF and LA. One of my friends offered more than 10% over asking on 8 properties in LA before he managed to buy one, and in seven of those he wasn't even in the top ten. Bizarrely, the used car market is similarly hot.

    (OK, they all come across as moans, but it was a great trip and I'm glad I went).
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,789
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Fishing said:

    A good and persuasive thread.

    I think the recent decision to raise taxes would be much more persuasive if there weren't so much unnecessary spending going on. But any government worthy of support would be axing that before increasing taxes.

    Also it is bizarre that gambling winnings, for example, aren't taxed while income from productive employment is.

    Historically, the argument for not taxing gambling winnings was the government would lose more if it had to allow gambling losses to be written off against income tax, so they taxed the stake instead (abolished 20 years or so back).
    That is the American approach, but I don't think it necessarily follows that you need to do it. There is no reason why you can't tax people's winnings and let them eat losses themselves. Or, as you say, taxing the stake is a perfectly good alternative.
    In America, you can say you're a professional gambler and then you get to offset losses. But they'll only let you do that if you actually (on average) make money from gambling.
    And also you have to keep a record of your winnings and losses.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    Pulpstar said:

    Good I'd say - social care is electoral fixed and Labour has no answers

    LOL

    Almost none of the money that they hope to raise is allocated for social care
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,835
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Good I'd say - social care is electoral fixed and Labour has no answers
    Will you make me an offer for this bridge?

    What this will do is transparently fail to fix social care just nicely in time for the next election.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,077
    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Conservative MPs will do as they're told and create their own @HYUFD logic to justify it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,077
    SouthamObserver said:

    Millions of people who have been subjected to this tax rise will also soon be losing Universal Credit income and paying higher energy bills. That's one hell of a triple whammy. The government will need to deliver the improvements it is promising. For Labour, this is an opportunity. The Tories have conceded that tax rises are necessary. The issue is now which ones and who pays; what is fair and what isn't.

    Yes, I think some Tories might be focussed on a tactical victory over social care (which is doubtful anyway) but they've conceded a huge strategic argument to Labour at the same time.

    The latter will be far more important in the long-term.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    MarqueeMark said:

    That said, I'm sorry to lose Philip. We'll work hard to win him back

    Interesting that you will "work hard to win back" Brexit voters but not Conservative and Unionist voters.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    SouthamObserver said:

    Millions of people who have been subjected to this tax rise will also soon be losing Universal Credit income and paying higher energy bills. That's one hell of a triple whammy. The government will need to deliver the improvements it is promising. For Labour, this is an opportunity. The Tories have conceded that tax rises are necessary. The issue is now which ones and who pays; what is fair and what isn't.

    Yesterday was a fantastic opportunity for Labour to outline a progressive alternative.

    An opportunity missed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,598
    Casino_Royale said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Conservative MPs will do as they're told and create their own @HYUFD logic to justify it.
    (though hopefully not to the extent of rounding it up to 1%)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    bigjohnowls said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Millions of people who have been subjected to this tax rise will also soon be losing Universal Credit income and paying higher energy bills. That's one hell of a triple whammy. The government will need to deliver the improvements it is promising. For Labour, this is an opportunity. The Tories have conceded that tax rises are necessary. The issue is now which ones and who pays; what is fair and what isn't.

    Yesterday was a fantastic opportunity for Labour to outline a progressive alternative.

    An opportunity missed.

    Yesterday was exactly not the time to outline an alternative. It would have been entirely swallowed up by the government's announcement. The time to announce an alternative is when the full implications of what the government has decided to do have sunk in.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,963
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Good I'd say - social care is electoral fixed and Labour has no answers
    Will you make me an offer for this bridge?

    What this will do is transparently fail to fix social care just nicely in time for the next election.
    ????????

    It's electorally fixed, of course its not sorted in reality.
    But it's a much smaller issue for the next election and ultimately what matters to politicians ??
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Many wealthy punters like you will of course avoid the rises by salary sacrificing more into their pension schemes and thus avoiding both employer and employee NI rises (and all income tax).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,592
    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Yes, the tax hike hits us high earners quite heavily, from April 2022.

    The devil is in the detail though. I note that there is no change in how Social Care is funded until October 2023, and in the meantime current arrangements prevail. The £86 000 cap is roughly 3 years of Social Care at current prices, so will only benefit people after October 2026 or thereabouts, so well after the next election.

    The campaign on waiting lists is needed, but cannot really start until operating staff and anaesthetists are freed from working in ICU. In the meantime waiting lists will continue to pile up.

    So pay more, get nothing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,992
    Fishing said:

    Off topic, I am back in the country after a couple of months on the US west coast, mixing business with pleasure. Here are some random observations, some of which I've made on here before:

    - the scale of the homeless problem in the big cities I visited (in particular SF, LA, Portland and Seattle) is truly shocking. There are shantytowns of a few dozen or so camping tents set up in parks or along roads or freeways and the city governments take weeks or longer to clear them. And in Portland and Seattle in particular, the police seem to have given up enforcing the law around those areas, on the grounds that jailing the homeless "will just make the problem worse" - though if non-homeless jaywalk or something that will raise money for the city, they're onto you quickly enough. I was in Mexico before I headed north, and the homeless were far more numerous and visible in the US - the reverse of my last visit to both countries a couple of years back.
    - America is expensive to eat in - this is a trend that dates back a couple of decades at least. Limited competition in supermarkets and a government in hock to farmers even more than ours is, together with a strong dollar and general inflation has meant that even eating the crap that poor Americans have to consume is expensive, and eating even moderately well is eye-poppingly so compared to Europe.
    - the scale of pollution caused by wildfires in the west is literally eye-watering. It wasn't so bad in LA, but I have spent time in Beijing, Delhi and Kathamandu and never experienced worse air quality than in Reno (it was 300-400 while I was there - described as hazardous). Portland was bad too.
    - the debacle in Afghanistan has ended or at least greatly diminished the halo effect that Biden had in liberal America for disposing of Trump.
    - mask wearing is much more strictly enforced in the big cities than it ever was in the UK, while in the small towns and rural areas, it is pretty lax.
    - to judge by yard signs and bumper stickers in the big cities, BLM is still a live issue. And to judge by the same (and casual conversations) in small towns, the allegedly "stolen" Presidential election is too.
    - there is a stunning property boom, resulting in an incredibly tight market, especially in SF and LA. One of my friends offered more than 10% over asking on 8 properties in LA before he managed to buy one, and in seven of those he wasn't even in the top ten. Bizarrely, the used car market is similarly hot.

    (OK, they all come across as moans, but it was a great trip and I'm glad I went).

    Good analysis: the one thing I'd take issue with is the forest fires.

    America is a wooded country. Forest fires happen. Forests grow until they burn. The longer you keep them from burning, the more organic material there is, and the greater the fires.

    Over tens of thousands of years before humankind, the forests grew, there was a spark, and they burnt, and new forests arose from the ashes.

    The big change has been that we now aggressively attempt to prevent forest fires spreading. This means that over decades massive quantities of dried organic material accumulates.

    There is no way to avoid this stuff, given the climate, ending up in flames. The issue is that public policy (no fires, ever) makes things worse, not better.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,704
    bigjohnowls said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Millions of people who have been subjected to this tax rise will also soon be losing Universal Credit income and paying higher energy bills. That's one hell of a triple whammy. The government will need to deliver the improvements it is promising. For Labour, this is an opportunity. The Tories have conceded that tax rises are necessary. The issue is now which ones and who pays; what is fair and what isn't.

    Yesterday was a fantastic opportunity for Labour to outline a progressive alternative.

    An opportunity missed.
    This continues to be Labour's problem. Lots of whinging but absolutely no alternative vision or ideas being set out.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,401
    Casino_Royale said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Conservative MPs will do as they're told and create their own @HYUFD logic to justify it.
    It's basically a Budget after all- it certainly walks, quacks and consumes bread like a Budget. And they've always been confidence votes.

    Talking of which, what's the likely impact on the economy of this? Even if it's necessary, isn't the general rule tax increases → less economic growth?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Social care fixed in one easy slogan: HMG to own the buildings. This would ease the costs of private sector care suppliers, equalise (more-or-less) costs between rich and poor parts of the country, and be cost-neutral for the government because it would have an asset worth whatever it paid for it, and probably appreciating with time.

    (OK I know it's not just residential care but...)

    (Copied from last thread so this thread is visible.)

    Would they invest sufficient caped per bed to maintain them appropriately?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is £2000 a year even mathematically possible given the start rate and the over £50k taper?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    SouthamObserver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Good I'd say - social care is electoral fixed and Labour has no answers
    Will you make me an offer for this bridge?

    What this will do is transparently fail to fix social care just nicely in time for the next election.

    Yep - the one thing you can absolutely guarantee is that social care will not be fixed by 2024. It will be in exactly the same state as it is now, if not worse, with millions paying more tax for the privilege. The Tories need to pray that interest rates do not go up.

    It won't be in the same state if, as planned, the £86k cap on care costs actually comes in Autumn 2023 as stated. You think it will get delayed?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,790
    Interesting post @Philip_Thompson
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,031
    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,835
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Good I'd say - social care is electoral fixed and Labour has no answers
    Will you make me an offer for this bridge?

    What this will do is transparently fail to fix social care just nicely in time for the next election.
    ????????

    It's electorally fixed, of course its not sorted in reality.
    But it's a much smaller issue for the next election and ultimately what matters to politicians ??
    Sigh.

    But it won’t be.

    This has been sold as a tax rise and reform to fix social care.

    So when it fails to do that, it will blow up in Johnson’s face.

    And it will have noticeably failed to just before the next election.

    Is that really the best moment to look like a stupid, short-sighted, dishonest complete prat?

    And moreover that’s the perfect time for Labour to unveil their own proposals.

    Social care reform destroyed Theresa May’s career. Would almost be poetic justice if it did the same to Johnson were the consequences not so serious.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    bigjohnowls said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is £2000 a year even mathematically possible given the start rate and the over £50k taper?
    There is no taper on the 1.25% levy.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,789
    rcs1000 said:



    Work, on the other hand, is generally good.

    Work gives people structure. People in work are less prone to depression or illness. They derive self worth from making an economic contribution to society.

    We want as many people to work as possible.

    Perhaps we should pay people more if they work. Some that say that this is a subsidy to employers. Maybe it is. But I reckon the benefits to society of more people working massively outweigh the costs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone* worked, and everyone felt they were doing something useful?

    No. Basic first year microeconomics - if the goal of government is to maximise welfare, you want to strike an optimal balance between work and non-work (leisure). So you draw an indifference curve and there is an optimal level for everyone, and everyone's will be different. Some will value leisure (or hate work) so much that it won't benefit them or society for them to do so. Others will want to work as much as they can. But government should not make those decisions for them - they know better what they want, a clear example of asymmetric information. So it should confine itself to raising revenue and let peopel make decisions for themselves.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    BoZo's entire philosophy of life in a single post
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,401
    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Yes, the tax hike hits us high earners quite heavily, from April 2022.

    The devil is in the detail though. I note that there is no change in how Social Care is funded until October 2023, and in the meantime current arrangements prevail. The £86 000 cap is roughly 3 years of Social Care at current prices, so will only benefit people after October 2026 or thereabouts, so well after the next election.

    The campaign on waiting lists is needed, but cannot really start until operating staff and anaesthetists are freed from working in ICU. In the meantime waiting lists will continue to pile up.

    So pay more, get nothing.
    How well can the NHS digest a three year (we've been promised it's three years only, after all!) spending boost?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,598
    edited September 2021
    Fishing said:

    Off topic, I am back in the country after a couple of months on the US west coast, mixing business with pleasure. Here are some random observations, some of which I've made on here before:

    - the scale of the homeless problem in the big cities I visited (in particular SF, LA, Portland and Seattle) is truly shocking. There are shantytowns of a few dozen or so camping tents set up in parks or along roads or freeways and the city governments take weeks or longer to clear them. And in Portland and Seattle in particular, the police seem to have given up enforcing the law around those areas, on the grounds that jailing the homeless "will just make the problem worse" - though if non-homeless jaywalk or something that will raise money for the city, they're onto you quickly enough. I was in Mexico before I headed north, and the homeless were far more numerous and visible in the US - the reverse of my last visit to both countries a couple of years back.
    - America is expensive to eat in - this is a trend that dates back a couple of decades at least. Limited competition in supermarkets and a government in hock to farmers even more than ours is, together with a strong dollar and general inflation has meant that even eating the crap that poor Americans have to consume is expensive, and eating even moderately well is eye-poppingly so compared to Europe.
    - the scale of pollution caused by wildfires in the west is literally eye-watering. It wasn't so bad in LA, but I have spent time in Beijing, Delhi and Kathamandu and never experienced worse air quality than in Reno (it was 300-400 while I was there - described as hazardous). Portland was bad too.
    - the debacle in Afghanistan has ended or at least greatly diminished the halo effect that Biden had in liberal America for disposing of Trump.
    - mask wearing is much more strictly enforced in the big cities than it ever was in the UK, while in the small towns and rural areas, it is pretty lax.
    - to judge by yard signs and bumper stickers in the big cities, BLM is still a live issue. And to judge by the same (and casual conversations) in small towns, the allegedly "stolen" Presidential election is too.
    - there is a stunning property boom, resulting in an incredibly tight market, especially in SF and LA. One of my friends offered more than 10% over asking on 8 properties in LA before he managed to buy one, and in seven of those he wasn't even in the top ten. Bizarrely, the used car market is similarly hot.

    (OK, they all come across as moans, but it was a great trip and I'm glad I went).

    Interesting observations. Glad you had a good trip.

    Tight markets are a by-product of the money that the working and generally better off have saved from a year of not spending.

    It would be pedantic to point out that a strong $ makes imported food cheaper, or to wonder whether anyone ever takes a bumper sticker off their car?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,285
    edited September 2021
    SouthamObserver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how Tissue Price feels about his vote today


    Good I'd say - social care is electoral fixed and Labour has no answers
    Will you make me an offer for this bridge?

    What this will do is transparently fail to fix social care just nicely in time for the next election.

    Yep - the one thing you can absolutely guarantee is that social care will not be fixed by 2024. It will be in exactly the same state as it is now, if not worse, with millions paying more tax for the privilege. The Tories need to pray that interest rates do not go up.

    Most of the money raised is not even intended to fix social care. The lion's share is designated for the NHS. The UKHCA blog someone linked to yesterday might contain a lot of special pleading but the numbers are interesting. They also fear the loss of airline-type pricing (where business class passengers subsidise the cheap seats, though here it is privately-paid residents being charged more than council-paid ones) in a little-noticed measure from the 2014 Act now being brought into force.
    https://ukhcablog.com/blog/health-and-social-care-levy-ukhca-view-on-government-announcement-about-funding-for-health-and-social-care/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,592
    bigjohnowls said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is £2000 a year even mathematically possible given the start rate and the over £50k taper?
    The 1.25% rise applies to all levels of earned income doesn't it? Incidentally to dividend income too it seems, which is not under normal NI.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,737
    this feverish devotion to tax and spend can't be a surprise to any tories. johnsonism was always going to be corbynism with an inhuman face.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,992
    edited September 2021
    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Work, on the other hand, is generally good.

    Work gives people structure. People in work are less prone to depression or illness. They derive self worth from making an economic contribution to society.

    We want as many people to work as possible.

    Perhaps we should pay people more if they work. Some that say that this is a subsidy to employers. Maybe it is. But I reckon the benefits to society of more people working massively outweigh the costs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone* worked, and everyone felt they were doing something useful?

    No. Basic first year microeconomics - if the goal of government is to maximise welfare, you want to strike an optimal balance between work and non-work (leisure). So you draw an indifference curve and there is an optimal level for everyone, and everyone's will be different. Some will value leisure (or hate work) so much that it won't benefit them or society for them to do so. Others will want to work as much as they can. But government should not make those decisions for them - they know better what they want, a clear example of asymmetric information. So it should confine itself to raising revenue and let peopel make decisions for themselves.
    That's true at an individual level: what's the right balance of work and leisure for you?

    But is that true of someone who isn't producing any economic output at all?

    I'm not trying to make workers work 100% of the time, I'm trying to make 100% of people workers, even if only for five hours a week.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,000
    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    You know, under my proposal these people *would* be gainfully employed. Albeit probably not in their current jobs.

    The argument is that them sitting at home all day doing nothing is a net gain
    It’s government by back of the fag packet stuff this isn’t it. Must be depressing if you’re intelligent and went into the commmons for the right reasons. Just wish that that sort of mp would vote more with their conscience.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,598
    edited September 2021
    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Work, on the other hand, is generally good.

    Work gives people structure. People in work are less prone to depression or illness. They derive self worth from making an economic contribution to society.

    We want as many people to work as possible.

    Perhaps we should pay people more if they work. Some that say that this is a subsidy to employers. Maybe it is. But I reckon the benefits to society of more people working massively outweigh the costs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone* worked, and everyone felt they were doing something useful?

    No. Basic first year microeconomics - if the goal of government is to maximise welfare, you want to strike an optimal balance between work and non-work (leisure). So you draw an indifference curve and there is an optimal level for everyone, and everyone's will be different. Some will value leisure (or hate work) so much that it won't benefit them or society for them to do so. Others will want to work as much as they can. But government should not make those decisions for them - they know better what they want, a clear example of asymmetric information. So it should confine itself to raising revenue and let peopel make decisions for themselves.
    Views like that went out in the 19th century Shirley? Or at least by the 1930s
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm not trying to make workers work 100% of the time, I'm trying to make 100% of people workers, even if only for five hours a week.

    Define "work'

    If someone paints in their spare time, that's not work. If they sell the painting, were they working?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,479
    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    When you've got as many children as our PM.........
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,031
    Scott_xP said:

    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    BoZo's entire philosophy of life in a single post
    Well thank you.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    bigjohnowls said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Millions of people who have been subjected to this tax rise will also soon be losing Universal Credit income and paying higher energy bills. That's one hell of a triple whammy. The government will need to deliver the improvements it is promising. For Labour, this is an opportunity. The Tories have conceded that tax rises are necessary. The issue is now which ones and who pays; what is fair and what isn't.

    Yesterday was a fantastic opportunity for Labour to outline a progressive alternative.

    An opportunity missed.
    It really wasn’t. Yesterday was all about the government.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    Yes, but this particular consumption is not a choice. The fact that some incur massive care cost needs and others don't is a form of unfairness. If you disagree then why is expensive cancer care, for example, and also a lottery, not charged to the wealthy? The NHS isn't means-tested and why should care costs which typically are for dementia be any different to other health issues.

    I think this is why the issue is so tricky.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    bigjohnowls said:


    I think the calculations are complete bollocks.

    You cannot include employers contributions in an employees real marginal tax rate.

    You can't deduct an employers contribution to arrive at net wages either.

    Credit to Phillip for being brave enough to write the thread but when you look at the calculations yesterday's announcement makes a tiny change.

    Using his own flawed methodology as gospel the rate before yesterday was still 47.3%

    As an employer, of course you can.

    And it's trivially obvious that you must. Otherwise governments would simply never tax income at all, and simply charge employers.
    But as an employer I am not going to pass on a tax cut to my NIC in wage increases. And I am not going to reduce wages if employer’s NIC goes up.

    Of course I look at fully loaded costs (including cars, desk space, utilities etc) in making decisions on hiring. But that’s not the same as saying employer NIC is a tax on wages
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,835
    Dura_Ace said:

    this feverish devotion to tax and spend can't be a surprise to any tories. johnsonism was always going to be corbynism with an inhuman face.

    I’ve been telling Labour and Tory tribalists for years that Johnson and Corbyn were two cheeks of the same arse.

    Now Johnson is taxing the hell out of workers to bung his client groups and BJO is backing him perhaps they’ll finally believe me.

    Have a good day.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    Foxy said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is £2000 a year even mathematically possible given the start rate and the over £50k taper?
    The 1.25% rise applies to all levels of earned income doesn't it? Incidentally to dividend income too it seems, which is not under normal NI.
    Oh yes a couple earning 90k each will be about £2k worse off pa.

    It does seem a fairly progressive change.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,789
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Work, on the other hand, is generally good.

    Work gives people structure. People in work are less prone to depression or illness. They derive self worth from making an economic contribution to society.

    We want as many people to work as possible.

    Perhaps we should pay people more if they work. Some that say that this is a subsidy to employers. Maybe it is. But I reckon the benefits to society of more people working massively outweigh the costs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone* worked, and everyone felt they were doing something useful?

    No. Basic first year microeconomics - if the goal of government is to maximise welfare, you want to strike an optimal balance between work and non-work (leisure). So you draw an indifference curve and there is an optimal level for everyone, and everyone's will be different. Some will value leisure (or hate work) so much that it won't benefit them or society for them to do so. Others will want to work as much as they can. But government should not make those decisions for them - they know better what they want, a clear example of asymmetric information. So it should confine itself to raising revenue and let peopel make decisions for themselves.
    That's true at an individual level: what's the right balance of work and leisure for you?

    But is that true of someone who isn't producing any economic output at all?

    I'm not trying to make workers work 100% of the time, I'm trying to make 100% of people workers, even if only for five hours a week.
    But why if they don't want to? Who are you to nudge them to do so? You reduce individual welfare, and therefore social welfare overall. And what insight do you have into the marginal value of their output which neither they nor the market has?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is £2000 a year even mathematically possible given the start rate and the over £50k taper?
    The 1.25% rise applies to all levels of earned income doesn't it? Incidentally to dividend income too it seems, which is not under normal NI.
    Yes it does. 2% rising to 3.25% with no taper.

    Someone earning £1m pa will pay £12,500 more tax every year.

    Regarding dividend income, I'm not clear how this will be transferred into the social care levy fund and what checks and balances will exist to ensure this happens.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,043
    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    Well it is for the benefit of the only generation ever that has worked hard all their lives. They deserve to have their cake and to eat it, and to have a big slice of their grandkids cakes too!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    Pulpstar said:

    It's electorally fixed, of course its not sorted in reality.
    But it's a much smaller issue for the next election and ultimately what matters to politicians ??

    It's "fixed" in the same way that Brexit is "done"...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,537
    The danger for the govt is its 'NHS and social care levy' could end up failing to do enough for either the NHS *or* social care. While jacking up taxes.

    The danger for Labour is if any Tory PM can get away with tax rises, it's @BorisJohnson.

    #WaughZone

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/will-boris-johnson-defy-the-odds-again-with-his-tax-hike-gamble_uk_6137d1fbe4b0eab0ad9e8ced?8ap
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    this feverish devotion to tax and spend can't be a surprise to any tories. johnsonism was always going to be corbynism with an inhuman face.

    I’ve been telling Labour and Tory tribalists for years that Johnson and Corbyn were two cheeks of the same arse.

    Now Johnson is taxing the hell out of workers to bung his client groups and BJO is backing him perhaps they’ll finally believe me.

    Have a good day.
    I may be wrong and/or naive but I honestly don't think that "Johnson is taxing the hell out of workers to bung his client groups". I think he's basing policy on what polls and focus-groups say that the majority of the public want.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,043
    If these proposals had been put through by Labour, there would be a big pb discussion around the laffer curve by now! How sure are people that the proposals will raise 1) around what the treasury predict or even 2) more than we do now?

    Or does the laffer curve only apply to Labour policies?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    Scott_xP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's electorally fixed, of course its not sorted in reality.
    But it's a much smaller issue for the next election and ultimately what matters to politicians ??

    It's "fixed" in the same way that Brexit is "done"...
    Ha. I was thinking the same thing last night and it was odds-on that you would say it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,118
    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is the objective not that the "rather well paid" should pick up a bigger chunk of the costs, not that that will make you happy?

    I think a variety of sources will continue to be tapped as we saw yesterday- eg the amount on Council Tax per annum raised from "Adult Social Care Precept" is heading towards a billion a year, even though it is voluntary.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,031
    Stocky said:

    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    Yes, but this particular consumption is not a choice. The fact that some incur massive care cost needs and others don't is a form of unfairness. If you disagree then why is expensive cancer care, for example, and also a lottery, not charged to the wealthy? The NHS isn't means-tested and why should care costs which typically are for dementia be any different to other health issues.

    I think this is why the issue is so tricky.
    Good point. I am rather reacting the selfishness of those who think they have a right to inherit.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Yes, I get you but but fixing social care was always going to cost money and if people like you don't cough up then who else is?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Yes, the tax hike hits us high earners quite heavily, from April 2022.

    The devil is in the detail though. I note that there is no change in how Social Care is funded until October 2023, and in the meantime current arrangements prevail. The £86 000 cap is roughly 3 years of Social Care at current prices, so will only benefit people after October 2026 or thereabouts, so well after the next election.

    The campaign on waiting lists is needed, but cannot really start until operating staff and anaesthetists are freed from working in ICU. In the meantime waiting lists will continue to pile up.

    So pay more, get nothing.
    Some Care Home owner on the radio just said the Care element was less than 50% of the care home cost.

    So the £86k cap is in reality going to cost at least £172k. I think that is a long way away from Dilnot
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,789
    IanB2 said:

    Fishing said:

    Off topic, I am back in the country after a couple of months on the US west coast, mixing business with pleasure. Here are some random observations, some of which I've made on here before:

    - the scale of the homeless problem in the big cities I visited (in particular SF, LA, Portland and Seattle) is truly shocking. There are shantytowns of a few dozen or so camping tents set up in parks or along roads or freeways and the city governments take weeks or longer to clear them. And in Portland and Seattle in particular, the police seem to have given up enforcing the law around those areas, on the grounds that jailing the homeless "will just make the problem worse" - though if non-homeless jaywalk or something that will raise money for the city, they're onto you quickly enough. I was in Mexico before I headed north, and the homeless were far more numerous and visible in the US - the reverse of my last visit to both countries a couple of years back.
    - America is expensive to eat in - this is a trend that dates back a couple of decades at least. Limited competition in supermarkets and a government in hock to farmers even more than ours is, together with a strong dollar and general inflation has meant that even eating the crap that poor Americans have to consume is expensive, and eating even moderately well is eye-poppingly so compared to Europe.
    - the scale of pollution caused by wildfires in the west is literally eye-watering. It wasn't so bad in LA, but I have spent time in Beijing, Delhi and Kathamandu and never experienced worse air quality than in Reno (it was 300-400 while I was there - described as hazardous). Portland was bad too.
    - the debacle in Afghanistan has ended or at least greatly diminished the halo effect that Biden had in liberal America for disposing of Trump.
    - mask wearing is much more strictly enforced in the big cities than it ever was in the UK, while in the small towns and rural areas, it is pretty lax.
    - to judge by yard signs and bumper stickers in the big cities, BLM is still a live issue. And to judge by the same (and casual conversations) in small towns, the allegedly "stolen" Presidential election is too.
    - there is a stunning property boom, resulting in an incredibly tight market, especially in SF and LA. One of my friends offered more than 10% over asking on 8 properties in LA before he managed to buy one, and in seven of those he wasn't even in the top ten. Bizarrely, the used car market is similarly hot.

    (OK, they all come across as moans, but it was a great trip and I'm glad I went).

    Interesting observations. Glad you had a good trip.

    Tight markets are a by-product of the money that the working and generally better off have saved from a year of not spending.

    It would be pedantic to point out that a strong $ makes imported food cheaper, or to wonder whether anyone ever takes a bumper sticker off their car?
    Of course the stimulus has helped to some extent, but the tight real estate market in the big cities is I think far more a product of absurdly tight planning laws, or "zoning" as Americans call it, like it is over here. A friend in Sacramento works in a lobby group on the subject. The market in LA was very tight before the pandemic.

    On the imported food point - America is much more self-sufficient in food than we are. So a stronger $ will indeed lower imported food prices, but less so than here. In addition, of course, you have to allow for protectionism, and the fact that the final price of food is often a relatively small component of the price one pay in a supermarket.

    The bumper stickers point is a good one.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,790
    So I’ve done the maths and I will be circa £10 a month worse off, which is a bit sad because that’s two coffee or pub trips out with friends a month on an already tight budget.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    It really is taxi for the PB tories time. Or possibly taxi for the pb Tory. Who is left?

    And if its happening here but not showing up in the polls distrust the polls.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    bigjohnowls said:

    Foxy said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is £2000 a year even mathematically possible given the start rate and the over £50k taper?
    The 1.25% rise applies to all levels of earned income doesn't it? Incidentally to dividend income too it seems, which is not under normal NI.
    Oh yes a couple earning 90k each will be about £2k worse off pa.

    It does seem a fairly progressive change.
    So one couple with one earner, renting, also caring for a long term sick partner pays more, Other couple with property and twice the rental income pays not a penny. Progressive?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,000
    noneoftheabove said:

    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    Well it is for the benefit of the only generation ever that has worked hard all their lives. They deserve to have their cake and to eat it, and to have a big slice of their grandkids cakes too!
    The generation that bequeathed us student debts, crumbling Victorian infrastructure and a crippling housing shortfall, a hollowed out military, the climate crisis, that pissed away the North Sea windfall etc…
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,598
    edited September 2021
    Stocky said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Yes, I get you but but fixing social care was always going to cost money and if people like you don't cough up then who else is?
    Landlords? Wealthy pensioners? People living off mega investment portfolios? Second home owners?

    Tories, in short.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,345
    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    kjh said:

    What irritates me more than the actual increases is the fact that it is designed to allow me to pass on my wealth to my children by allowing me to get my consumption paid for by others who have less than me.

    How anyone thinks this is right is beyond me.

    Yes, but this particular consumption is not a choice. The fact that some incur massive care cost needs and others don't is a form of unfairness. If you disagree then why is expensive cancer care, for example, and also a lottery, not charged to the wealthy? The NHS isn't means-tested and why should care costs which typically are for dementia be any different to other health issues.

    I think this is why the issue is so tricky.
    Good point. I am rather reacting the selfishness of those who think they have a right to inherit.
    This is also tricky. I wouldn't express inheritance of parental assets as a right but the emotional attachment to the family home is different to cash and should not be underestimated.

    For many, many people the only asset they amass is the family home, prudently brought and paid for with their hard-earned over their lifetimes. The financial achievement of their lives. That this should be taken away in a care-home lottery whereas others who have no such asset gets their costs paid by other taxpayers (so the home-owner is in effect paying twice) is the source of much indignation and genuine upset.

    I can see both sides of this. The proposals yesterday (which are basically Dilnot's) try to steer a middle path.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Is £2000 a year even mathematically possible given the start rate and the over £50k taper?
    The 1.25% rise applies to all levels of earned income doesn't it? Incidentally to dividend income too it seems, which is not under normal NI.
    Yes it does. 2% rising to 3.25% with no taper.

    Someone earning £1m pa will pay £12,500 more tax every year.

    Regarding dividend income, I'm not clear how this will be transferred into the social care levy fund and what checks and balances will exist to ensure this happens.
    Not quite correct as you don't start paying at zero £ but I take your point the taper is not there for this increase
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    bigjohnowls said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    My wife and I are rather well paid but we calculated the impact of this last night and our household will be over £2,000 worse off a year under these new proposals.

    As you can imagine neither of us are happy about it.

    Yes, the tax hike hits us high earners quite heavily, from April 2022.

    The devil is in the detail though. I note that there is no change in how Social Care is funded until October 2023, and in the meantime current arrangements prevail. The £86 000 cap is roughly 3 years of Social Care at current prices, so will only benefit people after October 2026 or thereabouts, so well after the next election.

    The campaign on waiting lists is needed, but cannot really start until operating staff and anaesthetists are freed from working in ICU. In the meantime waiting lists will continue to pile up.

    So pay more, get nothing.
    Some Care Home owner on the radio just said the Care element was less than 50% of the care home cost.

    So the £86k cap is in reality going to cost at least £172k. I think that is a long way away from Dilnot
    The support is thin gruel. The tax coming in a year before any benefit is dodgy.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025