politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New ComRes poll for the Daily Mirror shows 82% of voters, acro

SystemSystem Posts: 12,562
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New ComRes poll for the Daily Mirror shows 82% of voters, across all the main parties, would support a 1p rise in National Insurance contributions to fund NHS

New @ComRes poll for the @DailyMirror on the NHS is very interesting. 81% of Conservative voters and 86% of Labour voters in support a 1% increase in National Insurance contributions to fund the NHS. pic.twitter.com/Zr2wIabzjL

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,861
    Evening all :)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    Wow. I’m clearly way to the libertarian right of the bulk of the population.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Casino_Royale said:

    Wow. I’m clearly way to the libertarian right of the bulk of the population.

    You sound surprised!?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    ComRes haven't mentioned any VI figures in their email so I'm guessing that either they didn't do a full suite VI question or they are holding the VI figures for another day.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    I was first. Now I am not first.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    Sod this. Let's abolish the HoL first And use the savings from that before we raise any taxes
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,924
    "This is the 'Ealth Preservation Society!"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Anyone know how much a 1p NI rise would raise? And how much it would raise if extended to pensioners and investment income?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,924
    Pulpstar said:

    Sod this. Let's abolish the HoL first And use the savings from that before we raise any taxes

    House of Unelected Has-Beens, I think you mean :lol:
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Quite surprised by the Conservative figures myself...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,065

    The answer to your question is Yes.

    Other people paying is popular. Oneself paying, not so much.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    Benpointer said:

    Anyone know how much a 1p NI rise would raise? And how much it would raise if extended to pensioners and investment income?

    Well quite. Work is astonishingly taxed already compared to dividend and investment income.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,091
    surby said:

    I was first. Now I am not first.

    We’ve all been there.

    Wouldn’t a 1% rise in NI raise about £5bn ?
    Less than a fifth of what the ‘long term settlement’ requires.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    The Mirror said it would raise around £11 billion a year
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    I take it the employees NIC 1% increase will be matched by a similar employers 1% NIC increase. Then we get 2%. It should apply to all classes of NIC.

    Why not 1% on dividend incomes too !
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    edited June 2018
    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    £4-5bn per year sounds like more than gesture politics tbf. If not that, then what?

    EDIT: I presume this will be on top of the £18bn (£350m per week) promised by the Leave camp?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    Let's make the self employed pay as much total NI as the employed persons total first too
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Maybe the Tories should take heart from the fact that Labour voters are much more willing to change their vote to a party that pledged additional funding to the NHS - they should outbid Labour's NHS pedges.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,295
    Introduce NI for retired people first.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,555
    According to the Hmrc document on tax changes:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700494/SS18_Direct_effects_of_illustrative_tax_changes_bulletinFinal.pdf

    A 1% rise in employees main rate of NIC would raise £4bn. To get to £11bn you need to raise all rates including the employers rate, thus increasing the effective tax and NIC rate of employment by around 2%.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Pulpstar said:

    Let's make the self employed pay as much total NI as the employed persons total first too


    +1 for that
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,057
    edited June 2018
    TheJezziah said:

    Quite surprised by the Conservative figures myself...

    older people are quite keen on the NHS, and especially if working people will be paying.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1004098209285836801
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,924
    Foxy said:

    TheJezziah said:

    Quite surprised by the Conservative figures myself...

    older eople are quite keen on the NHS, and especially if working people will be paying.
    Didn't the older people pay while they were working?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Foxy said:

    TheJezziah said:

    Quite surprised by the Conservative figures myself...

    older eople are quite keen on the NHS, and especially if working people will be paying.
    They are also more likely to experience the sharp-end of NHS funding pressures.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    "1p in National Insurance" is such dishonest spin when it really means a 2% rise in employment tax.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,348
    edited June 2018
    I remember when spreadsheet Phil tried to put a similar amount on NI for self employed...the wailing was deafening.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    The Mirror said it would raise around £11 billion a year
    Well they’re lying. No way it would raise that much.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,147
    edited June 2018
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    The Mirror said it would raise around £11 billion a year
    Does a paper with a relatively sane and competent staff and no past history (or indeed present tendency) of supporting dangerous Fascists confirm this figure, or do we assume that it's an Abbott-style placing of the decimal point in the wrong place?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,057
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Foxy said:

    TheJezziah said:

    Quite surprised by the Conservative figures myself...

    older eople are quite keen on the NHS, and especially if working people will be paying.
    Didn't the older people pay while they were working?
    Not as much as their children and grandchildren will.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    edited June 2018
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Foxy said:

    TheJezziah said:

    Quite surprised by the Conservative figures myself...

    older eople are quite keen on the NHS, and especially if working people will be paying.
    Didn't the older people pay while they were working?
    There are plenty of retired people whose income is above the UK average and yet pay no NI; I am one myself. I paid tax and NI all my working life (but not on my pension contributions) and now I am exempt from NI. Make no sense.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,129
    I hope the #Hunt4PM rampers have read this thread header.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    FPT

    A mixture of nationalisation and concession is the future of the railways.

    Franchising has failed. Bin it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    I remember when spreadsheet Phil tried to put a similar amount on NI for self employed...the wailing was deafening.

    The Tories should have gone ahead with that lot tbh. First up let's just roll up tax and NI. Employers have to pay so much tax on Labour compared to other investments
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    is possible toor mor


    £4-5bn per year sounds like more than gesture politics tbf. If not that, then what? generation l


    EDIT: I presume this will be on top of the £18bn (£350m per week) promised by the Leave camp?
    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,348
    edited June 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    I remember when spreadsheet Phil tried to put a similar amount on NI for self employed...the wailing was deafening.

    The Tories should have gone ahead with that lot tbh. First up let's just roll up tax and NI. Employers have to pay so much tax on Labour compared to other investments
    Squeaky Osborne had the chance to do this and he bottled it and kicked it into the long grass. Then spreadsheet Phil bottled it because so much of the media take advantage of the ability to be self employed and screamed and screamed and screamed. I said at the time I would have had to pay extra but didn’t think it was unfair.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Can someone ask Boris why the bus isn't going to cover what the NHS needs?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    Verulamius said:

    According to the Hmrc document on tax changes:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700494/SS18_Direct_effects_of_illustrative_tax_changes_bulletinFinal.pdf

    A 1% rise in employees main rate of NIC would raise £4bn. To get to £11bn you need to raise all rates including the employers rate, thus increasing the effective tax and NIC rate of employment by around 2%.

    Not a bad guess on my part then.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,209
    Sean_F said:


    The answer to your question is Yes.

    Other people paying is popular. Oneself paying, not so much.

    As a pensioner, I am very much in favour of pensioners paying NI. I can't see the case against (except the political one).
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    I remember when spreadsheet Phil tried to put a similar amount on NI for self employed...the wailing was deafening.

    The Tories should have gone ahead with that lot tbh. First up let's just roll up tax and NI. Employers have to pay so much tax on Labour compared to other investments
    Squeaky Osborne had the chance to do this and he bottled it and kicked it into the long grass. Then spreadsheet Phil bottled it because so much of the media take advantage of the ability to be self employed and screamed and screamed and screamed. I said at the time I would have had to pay extra but didn’t think it was unfair.
    That screaming in the media was very annoying to listen to. Phil should have ignored it tbh
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    DavidL said:

    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    £4-5bn per year sounds like more than gesture politics tbf. If not that, then what?

    EDIT: I presume this will be on top of the £18bn (£350m per week) promised by the Leave camp?
    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.
    Agreed (even if you did rather butcher my post :smile:)
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,861
    What would people support paying extra tax for - anything, care for the elderly, Police, defence perhaps ?

    Would you vote for a party that says "2p extra on tax to fund the armed forces to keep Putin at bay" ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,095
    This was a LD manifesto policy wasn't it?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Casino_Royale said:

    Wow. I’m clearly way to the libertarian right of the bulk of the population.

    Is this news?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    DavidL said:

    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    is possible toor mor


    £4-5bn per year sounds like more than gesture politics tbf. If not that, then what? generation l


    EDIT: I presume this will be on top of the £18bn (£350m per week) promised by the Leave camp?
    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.
    +1
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    £4-5bn per year sounds like more than gesture politics tbf. If not that, then what?

    EDIT: I presume this will be on top of the £18bn (£350m per week) promised by the Leave camp?
    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.
    Agreed (even if you did rather butcher my post :smile:)
    Apologies. Trying to do this on a phone.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,581
    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    And you've all ignored by AV reference.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    DavidL said:

    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    £4-5bn per year sounds like more than gesture politics tbf. If not that, then what?

    EDIT: I presume this will be on top of the £18bn (£350m per week) promised by the Leave camp?
    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.
    Agreed (even if you did rather butcher my post :smile:)
    Apologies. Trying to do this on a phone.
    Nae worries!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,095
    DavidL said:

    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    is possible toor mor


    £4-5bn per year sounds like more than gesture politics tbf. If not that, then what? generation l


    EDIT: I presume this will be on top of the £18bn (£350m per week) promised by the Leave camp?
    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.
    That seems very doubtful, given how anyone in opposition would portray it. I assumed the only reason it every got raised in the first place was because of the assumption the Tories were looking at a big win, and thus could a) make such a suggestion which would upset he base (though it did so even more than they predicted) and still win, and b) get it through parliament later thanks to a big majority.

    Lacking a big majority, I should think other solutions, short term probably, will always be more popular.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Anazina said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Wow. I’m clearly way to the libertarian right of the bulk of the population.

    Is this news?

    To no one but Casino, it seems.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Foxy said:

    TheJezziah said:

    Quite surprised by the Conservative figures myself...

    older people are quite keen on the NHS, and especially if working people will be paying.
    Presumably, for a portion though, that money would be freed up from other sources instead, like say leaving the EU, or instead of giving money to those who don't deserve it (for various reasons)

    Or I guess that is what I thought. I suppose it may not exactly be clear cut, you could possibly sell many of those conservatives in favour on the idea of increasing NHS spending by freeing up money from other things instead, I could be wrong on that as well though...

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,295
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    Presentational, income tax goes up to 27% or something like that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,348
    edited June 2018
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    How to deal with oldies and there will be a band of pay that could easily get walloped with a big tax rise...also politically it can be spun that you have just raised someone’s tax from 20 to 30% etc and people are generally so financially ill informed they will believe it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    I think it largely turns on whether you want to win general elections or not.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

    Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.

    Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,861
    DavidL said:


    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.

    It also challenges us on a cultural level. Most people, when young, don't want to think about growing old or dying as we are encouraged to "live". Having a plan for when you are old is as important as having one when you are young.

    Spending will always look more attractive than saving and we've been conditioned to believe happiness comes with the latest gadget, the most faraway place visited, the latest "thing". The notion all that is subsidiary to nursing care in your 80s and 90s isn't one that's going to be easy to embed.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

    Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.

    Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
    Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
  • AllyPally_RobAllyPally_Rob Posts: 605
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,540
    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    The Mirror said it would raise around £11 billion a year
    Well they’re lying. No way it would raise that much.
    Actually, sad man that I am, I downloaded the latest available National Statistics Income & Deductions spreadsheet (Table 3.5 2015-16) and looked at the tax take implications of adding %ges to different income ranges (a colleague at work talks about solving our tax problem if we add 10% to the top 5% of taxpayers - guess what, it only raises about £28bn from the 900k taxpayers who have mean earnings over £82k)

    Anyway, from that spreadsheet - adding 1p (1%) to everyone would raise about £10.3bn from c31m taxpayers.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    Presentational, income tax goes up to 27% or something like that.
    32% for most I think.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,415
    NHS spending has to rise.
    It needs to rise because we are getting older (and therefore sicker) and because we’ve invented new and expensive ways of treating people.

    The only question is how to pay for it.

    The “one penny on NI” is a bit of a fraud because it sounds like very little, and there is a suggestion it solves the problem.

    We need much more than that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Anazina said:

    FPT

    A mixture of nationalisation and concession is the future of the railways.

    Franchising has failed. Bin it.

    How can you say that when its the nationalised bit that is the root of the problems. Privatise Network Rail.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
    I want opulence.

    I want somewhere where there's no chavs or hen parties.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    Sod that. 1p on income tax I could just about support - the NHS does need more cash and it's fairest that it goes on the widest taxbase.

    I don't see why those who work should have to pay even more, compared to someone on an identical income, particularly to support a service used mainly by those not in work.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.

    It also challenges us on a cultural level. Most people, when young, don't want to think about growing old or dying as we are encouraged to "live". Having a plan for when you are old is as important as having one when you are young.

    Spending will always look more attractive than saving and we've been conditioned to believe happiness comes with the latest gadget, the most faraway place visited, the latest "thing". The notion all that is subsidiary to nursing care in your 80s and 90s isn't one that's going to be easy to embed.

    I actually have less problem with the spend, spend, spend mindset (which has a number of economic advantages) than the hoard and save mindset which thinks the most important thing is passing some house intact to the next generation, even if it means poorer people picking up the tab for having your bum wiped.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,442
    What we need is a complete reform of the tax system. Obviously I am in favour of a low flat rate tax because of my political views but putting that to one side, whether one agrees with a low tax system or a high tax system I think everyone can agree that the current system for tax and NI is just ridiculous.

    We should look at merging Income tax, NI and any other sorts of personal taxes on unearned income and say that everyone whose earnings are in the same band should pay the same amount of overall tax whether they are employed, self employed or retired. To end the horrible idea of double taxation in inheritance, we should stop taxing the estate and tax the recipient on the same basis as any other income. So if your estate is left to one person they might end up paying quite a large amount of tax but if you have 5 kids and the estate is split amongst them then tax paid is based on their individual circumstances.

    As I say personally I would like to see such a system tied to a much smaller state but that is immaterial in this particular argument. What we really need at the moment is transparency and a much simplified tax system.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

    Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.

    Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
    Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
    Bit of a fallacy.

    Tax credit is related to how many children you have not what job you do. Why should employers either ask how many children you have or pay you differently based upon your chosen number of children?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
    I want opulence.

    I want somewhere where there's no chavs or hen parties.
    Avoid Edinburgh?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    Tbh just freeze the tax thresholds for a couple of years and get a bit through fiscal drag.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,057
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
    I want opulence.

    I want somewhere where there's no chavs or hen parties.
    The Balmoral then, albeit stuffed with Septics.
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,540
    ExiledInScotland said:

    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    DavidL said:

    1p increase in NI? So not paid at all by those using the NHS most? Achieving what? Maybe £4-5bn a year? Like what is that going to solve?

    This is really gesture politics. It would be interesting to ascertain what those voting for this think we spend on the NHS already. My guess is that they would think less than half of what we actually spend.

    The Mirror said it would raise around £11 billion a year
    Well they’re lying. No way it would raise that much.
    Actually, sad man that I am, I downloaded the latest available National Statistics Income & Deductions spreadsheet (Table 3.5 2015-16) and looked at the tax take implications of adding %ges to different income ranges (a colleague at work talks about solving our tax problem if we add 10% to the top 5% of taxpayers - guess what, it only raises about £28bn from the 900k taxpayers who have mean earnings over £82k)

    Anyway, from that spreadsheet - adding 1p (1%) to everyone would raise about £10.3bn from c31m taxpayers.
    ... the 2015 base info is also interesting. For 31m Income Tax payers with mean income of £33.4k, the mean Income Tax paid is £5.7k - a rate of 17.2%
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
    I want opulence.

    I want somewhere where there's no chavs or hen parties.
    Edinburgh Residence and 24 Royal Terrace are my current favourites.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,295
    edited June 2018
    Benpointer said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    Presentational, income tax goes up to 27% or something like that.
    32% for most I think.
    Income tax rises are worth a lot more than NI rises, I think the new bands would be 27% and 45% or something along those lines to be revenue neutral.

    Either way, it won't happen because politicians like getting votes.

    This tax should either be applied to income tax or be funded by putting NI back onto retired people's income.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,209
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.

    It also challenges us on a cultural level. Most people, when young, don't want to think about growing old or dying as we are encouraged to "live". Having a plan for when you are old is as important as having one when you are young.

    Spending will always look more attractive than saving and we've been conditioned to believe happiness comes with the latest gadget, the most faraway place visited, the latest "thing". The notion all that is subsidiary to nursing care in your 80s and 90s isn't one that's going to be easy to embed.

    How sad it would be if young people gave up enjoying themselves and focused on providing nursing care for themselves in their 80s and 90s! What a dull and dismal life.

    They should have an exit strategy (high speed powerboat racing is a good one, or a heavy morphine habit) but they don't need to think about that until much later.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Anazina said:

    FPT

    A mixture of nationalisation and concession is the future of the railways.

    Franchising has failed. Bin it.

    How can you say that when its the nationalised bit that is the root of the problems. Privatise Network Rail.
    Good idea. You'd have to come up with a catchy new name for the private company - how about Railtrack? Oh...
  • AllyPally_RobAllyPally_Rob Posts: 605
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
    I want opulence.

    I want somewhere where there's no chavs or hen parties.
    Either the Balmoral or the Waldorf (Caledonian) will fit the bill. The Sheraton is lovely aswell and has a cracking Spa with a rooftop pool overlooking the castle.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    The NHS should be funded by taxes on stuff that causes a burden for the NHS.

    Tobacco already pays more than its fair share.

    Junk food needs taxing heavily.

    Booze should be taxed more (and I say this as a beer, wine, whisky and cocktail enthusiast)

    Legalise cannabis and tax the shit out of it.

    Heavy car taxes for short journeys - particularly where children are being ferried when they could walk. Congestion charges around schools.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MaxPB said:

    Benpointer said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    Presentational, income tax goes up to 27% or something like that.
    32% for most I think.
    Income tax rises are worth a lot more than NI rises
    Are they?

    The tax threshold is much higher for income taxes meaning many eg part time workers may be caught by NI but not Income Tax. Secondly "a penny in National Insurance" really means 2% of tax (1% for Employees and 1% for Employers" whereas income tax is simply income tax.

    I'd have thought the fact NI was a 2% rise not a 1% rise would more than make up for the exemptions that NI has. Which is why Gordon Brown was so keen on it.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

    Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.

    Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
    Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
    Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    MaxPB said:

    Benpointer said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    Presentational, income tax goes up to 27% or something like that.
    32% for most I think.
    Income tax rises are worth a lot more than NI rises, I think the new bands would be 27% and 45% or something along those lines to be revenue neutral.

    Either way, it won't happen because politicians like getting votes.

    This tax should either be applied to income tax or be funded by putting NI back onto retired people's income.
    The dishonest media would focus on Edna and Eric Brown who'll lose out on their pension though rather than John and Jane Two-kids who would see a take home pay increase.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Benpointer said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Anazina said:

    FPT

    A mixture of nationalisation and concession is the future of the railways.

    Franchising has failed. Bin it.

    How can you say that when its the nationalised bit that is the root of the problems. Privatise Network Rail.
    Good idea. You'd have to come up with a catchy new name for the private company - how about Railtrack? Oh...
    Railtrack were getting a lot less subsidies from the taxpayer than Network Rail is.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    edited June 2018
    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
    I want opulence.

    I want somewhere where there's no chavs or hen parties.
    Either the Balmoral or the Waldorf (Caledonian) will fit the bill. The Sheraton is lovely aswell and has a cracking Spa with a rooftop pool overlooking the castle.
    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
    Thanks.

    Am planning next year's Valentine's Day weekend break.

    (Thanks also to everyone that replied)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,614
    MaxPB said:

    Benpointer said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    Presentational, income tax goes up to 27% or something like that.
    32% for most I think.
    Income tax rises are worth a lot more than NI rises, I think the new bands would be 27% and 45% or something along those lines to be revenue neutral.

    Either way, it won't happen because politicians like getting votes.

    This tax should either be applied to income tax or be funded by putting NI back onto retired people's income.
    Good point about income tax raising more than NI per p. What it does mean is that for most working people their marginal rate of tax (inc NI) would actually come down from 32% to circa 27%, which ought to be a good sell.

    This also shows how much could be raised if NI was applied equally to self-employed, investment and retirement income. Someone with better maths than me might like to have a stab at the figure.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    I think it largely turns on whether you want to win general elections or not.
    I struggle with this concept - are the electorate really so dumb that they haven’t clicked that NI is just another form of income tax?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,737
    Anazina said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Introduce NI for retired people first.

    What's the argument against abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax?
    I think it largely turns on whether you want to win general elections or not.
    I struggle with this concept - are the electorate really so dumb that they haven’t clicked that NI is just another form of income tax?
    Yes.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,129
    Barnesian said:

    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.

    It also challenges us on a cultural level. Most people, when young, don't want to think about growing old or dying as we are encouraged to "live". Having a plan for when you are old is as important as having one when you are young.

    Spending will always look more attractive than saving and we've been conditioned to believe happiness comes with the latest gadget, the most faraway place visited, the latest "thing". The notion all that is subsidiary to nursing care in your 80s and 90s isn't one that's going to be easy to embed.

    How sad it would be if young people gave up enjoying themselves and focused on providing nursing care for themselves in their 80s and 90s! What a dull and dismal life.

    They should have an exit strategy (high speed powerboat racing is a good one, or a heavy morphine habit) but they don't need to think about that until much later.
    The government could give people the choice: either put money aside for social care in your 80s and 90s or hose it against the wall in your 20s and 30s but be euthanased on your 80th birthday.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
    Is the G&V the old Missoni on George IV bridge? If so, that is lovely. Top cocktails too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited June 2018
    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

    Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.

    Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
    Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
    Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
    How are employers remotely responsible for how many children an employee has?

    Or the fact that an employee will only work 16 hours so they can maximise their benefits?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,442
    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

    Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.

    Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
    Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
    Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
    One could increase the minimum wage whilst at the same time proportionally reducing Tax credits. It would have to be done very slowly because otherwise there are bound to be all sorts of horrible anomalies that need to be worked through the system but the basic principle that the employer should not be subsidised by the state into paying lower wages seems a sound one to me.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AllyPally_Rob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    Depends what you are looking for. The Balmoral for traditional grandeur I'd guess. The glasshouse for contemporary style would be my choice though.
    I want opulence.

    I want somewhere where there's no chavs or hen parties.
    Either the Balmoral or the Waldorf (Caledonian) will fit the bill. The Sheraton is lovely aswell and has a cracking Spa with a rooftop pool overlooking the castle.
    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @DavidL (or anyone else)

    What's the best hotel in Edinburgh?

    Is it the Caley/Waldorf Astoria?

    I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
    Thanks.

    Am planning next year's Valentine's Day weekend break.

    (Thanks also to everyone that replied)
    Actually for romance the Prestonfield is pretty hard to beat. Foods good too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.

    Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.

    Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.

    Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.

    Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
    Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
    Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
    One could increase the minimum wage whilst at the same time proportionally reducing Tax credits. It would have to be done very slowly because otherwise there are bound to be all sorts of horrible anomalies that need to be worked through the system but the basic principle that the employer should not be subsidised by the state into paying lower wages seems a sound one to me.
    How is the employer subsidised?

    Tax credits are maximised by people who have lots of children and refuse to work more than 16 hours - how does the employer benefit from that?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,209
    SandyRentool said:

    Barnesian said:

    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral
    to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.

    It also challenges us on a cultural level. Most people, when young, don't want to think about growing old or dying as we are encouraged to "live". Having a plan for when you are old is as important as having one when you are young.

    Spending will always look more attractive than saving and we've been conditioned to believe happiness comes with the latest gadget, the most faraway place visited, the latest "thing". The notion all that is subsidiary to nursing care in your 80s and 90s isn't one that's going to be easy to embed.

    How sad it would be if young people gave up enjoying themselves and focused on providing nursing care for themselves in their 80s and 90s! What a dull and dismal life.

    They should have an exit strategy (high speed powerboat racing is a good one, or a heavy morphine habit) but they don't need to think about that until much later.
    The government could give people the choice: either put money aside for social care in your 80s and 90s or hose it against the wall in your 20s and 30s but be euthanased on your 80th birthday.
    It doesn't need to be as brutal as that. Free hard drugs for the over eighties.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    AlastairMeeks said:

    I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.

    Also lovely. Edinburgh does have some smashing hotels. Out of season they’re also incredibly cheap. January-March and September-December a 5 star room rarely costs me more than £100 a night.
This discussion has been closed.