Funding Social Care

[whelk]

Thoughts on the new tax?

Edited 7 September, 2021 by whelk

[whelk]

Sorry thought I was in Lounge. For all those who will ask how this is Saints related

[Sheaf Saint]

20 minutes ago, whelk said:

Sorry thought I was in Lounge. For all those who will ask how this is Saints related

I thought you were going to propose that Gao pay for it 😆

[Hatch]

We should sell Long and donate the fifty quid to the social care fund.

 

Now it's saints related

 

[Jeremy Corbyn]

12 minutes ago, Hatch said:

We should sell Long and donate the fifty quid to the social care fund.

 

Now it's saints related

 

Where would the other £25 come from?

[East Kent Saint]

Yes lounge material, we are getting a full on smokescreen at the moment. The cash will keep NHS ticking over for now until the real deal is revealed which is to let rich people keep their houses etc while we pay for their care . Poor people will be still strapped as they won’t be able to afford a top up to the council contribution that continues to the cut off point ie £100k or whatever is decided.while richer people can afford to contribute so will still whinge but won’t have to sell their £1M pound empty houses so the family can inherit the wealth, subsidised by us tax / NI payers.

[Whitey Grandad]

27 minutes ago, East Kent Saint said:

Yes lounge material, we are getting a full on smokescreen at the moment. The cash will keep NHS ticking over for now until the real deal is revealed which is to let rich people keep their houses etc while we pay for their care . Poor people will be still strapped as they won’t be able to afford a top up to the council contribution that continues to the cut off point ie £100k or whatever is decided.while richer people can afford to contribute so will still whinge but won’t have to sell their £1M pound empty houses so the family can inherit the wealth, subsidised by us tax / NI payers.

You nasty little man. So those people who scrimped and saved all their lives should have to lose all that they have built up in order  to pay for the feckless who smoked, drank and gambled all their money away.

There's nothing rich about owning your own house.

[badgerx16]

29 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You nasty little man. So those people who scrimped and saved all their lives should have to lose all that they have built up in order  to pay for the feckless who smoked, drank and gambled all their money away.

There's nothing rich about owning your own house.

Now who's being nasty ? Just because somebody doesn't own their own home, or their house is worth less than £150k, doesn't mean that they acted in that 'feckless' manner.

[Manuel]

The government have been under pressure to spend more on Health and Social Care for some time now.  You can't blame them for doing just that.  I can't see any other way of funding it other than by increasing taxes unless you want to redistribute budgets from elsewhere.  So it's just a matter of how it is taxed. 

Personally I don't really see the point of having a separate National Insurance scheme these days.  Increasing NI just means poorer paid people will have to pay it sooner than if it was taken via Income Tax, due to the 12,500 threshold.  

[Fan The Flames]

The rich will be able to afford to do their own thing, the poor will be covered by the government and the big lump in the middle will take the hit. Same as every government proposal.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, East Kent Saint said:

Yes lounge material, we are getting a full on smokescreen at the moment. The cash will keep NHS ticking over for now until the real deal is revealed which is to let rich people keep their houses etc while we pay for their care . Poor people will be still strapped as they won’t be able to afford a top up to the council contribution that continues to the cut off point ie £100k or whatever is decided.while richer people can afford to contribute so will still whinge but won’t have to sell their £1M pound empty houses so the family can inherit the wealth, subsidised by us tax / NI payers.

You haven’t put it as I would, but you’re exactly right in your analysis of what this is. It’s not extra money to pay for something people aren’t getting, it’s not extra money to make social care better, it’s basically a policy to make sure  middle class & rich people can keep more of their own money, which they can pass onto their beneficiaries. 
 

Whether it’s right or wrong is a different debate, but people need to acknowledge what this is. 

[Manuel]

36 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You haven’t put it as I would, but you’re exactly right in your analysis of what this is. It’s not extra money to pay for something people aren’t getting, it’s not extra money to make social care better, it’s basically a policy to make sure  middle class & rich people can keep more of their own money, which they can pass onto their beneficiaries. 
 

Whether it’s right or wrong is a different debate, but people need to acknowledge what this is. 

I can't see this being the case.  I doubt the increase will be enough to make a huge difference to the overall Health budget and the differences it will make.  Labour certainly don't think so and are labelling it a sticking plaster.  I don't think the government would get away with changing the system in favour of property owners any time soon.  

[Lord Duckhunter]

19 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I can't see this being the case.  I doubt the increase will be enough to make a huge difference to the overall Health budget and the differences it will make.  Labour certainly don't think so and are labelling it a sticking plaster.  I don't think the government would get away with changing the system in favour of property owners any time soon.  

They’ll set a cap, which will protect middle class inheritance. 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So those people who scrimped and saved all their lives should have to lose all that they have built up in order  to pay for the feckless who smoked, drank and gambled all their money away

The thing is, much the baby boomer generation have smoked, drunk and gambled as much as anyone and are still sat on millions in property.

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, Manuel said:

The government have been under pressure to spend more on Health and Social Care for some time now.  You can't blame them for doing just that.  I can't see any other way of funding it other than by increasing taxes unless you want to redistribute budgets from elsewhere.  So it's just a matter of how it is taxed. 

Personally I don't really see the point of having a separate National Insurance scheme these days.  Increasing NI just means poorer paid people will have to pay it sooner than if it was taken via Income Tax, due to the 12,500 threshold.  

Well, there isn't a separate National Insurance scheme really. It's just a tax with a name people like slightly more than Income Tax and VAT.

Lord D is right - the main beneficiaries are wealthy middle class older/retired homeowners who will get to hold to and pass on the benefits of rising house prices for the last two decades to their kids. All paid by hardworking younger people now, who by the time they hit 70 will find the rules have turned against them again.

It's a masterful sleight of hand by the Conservatives. They know people below 40 don't vote Tory so, you know: fuck them. But the news will all be about Boris saving social care.

Edited 7 September, 2021 by CB Fry

[Manuel]

6 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Well, there isn't a separate National Insurance scheme really. It's just a tax with a name people like slightly more than Income Tax and VAT.

The thresholds are slightly different and favour the wealthy compared to Income Tax.  

https://ibb.co/G01vRJF

[LGTL]

Cleverly going to appear as a new tax on our payslips too. 1.25% now - I wonder what it’ll be in 10 years time? 

[whelk]

So only 15% going to social care. 85% to NHS. Don’t trust these pricks although nice to hear that highest ever tax burden considering we have loads of shit public services

[CB Fry]

Worth making the point that while the tax percentage point increase is 1.25 points, the actual tax rise is in many cases 10% or more. News going very big on just saying 1 25% but it ain't.

If you're on 80k a year its £880 on top of your current £5749 NI bill, so 16% hike. Genuinely huge.

50k = £505 on top of current £4800 so more than 10% hike. £250 a year for someone on £30k is pretty noticeable too, 10% increase as well.

Those who have the broadest shoulders etc but jeez. 

The press will let it slide but would be a different story if it was a Labour chancellor putting that through.

But as long as people in Guildford get to keep their £850k houses for their kids that is definitely the main thing.

[whelk]

I don’t have an issue with tax increase but to support any ncreases you have got to believe it will make a difference and improve quality of life for yourself or society. I have little faith that NHS wont swallow it up without making substantial difference to anything. I know a few people in NHS and they say morale is dreadful and not just a overworked lack of money issue. Poor managers employee poor people who make poor decisions etc.

[whelk]

14 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You nasty little man. So those people who scrimped and saved all their lives should have to lose all that they have built up in order  to pay for the feckless who smoked, drank and gambled all their money away.

There's nothing rich about owning your own house.

What a very odd post. 

[whelk]

7 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Worth making the point that while the tax percentage point increase is 1.25 points, the actual tax rise is in many cases 10% or more. News going very big on just saying 1 25% but it ain't.

If you're on 80k a year its £880 on top of your current £5749 NI bill, so 16% hike. Genuinely huge.

50k = £505 on top of current £4800 so more than 10% hike. £250 a year for someone on £30k is pretty noticeable too, 10% increase as well.

Those who have the broadest shoulders etc but jeez. 

The press will let it slide but would be a different story if it was a Labour chancellor putting that through.

But as long as people in Guildford get to keep their £850k houses for their kids that is definitely the main thing.

Indeed. Be a lot of gnashing of teeth when people see their April 2022 pay slips

[egg]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Indeed. Be a lot of gnashing of teeth when people see their April 2022 pay slips

Yep, and employers too. An additional 1.25% employers NI will hit many struggling businesses. 

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Worth making the point that while the tax percentage point increase is 1.25 points, the actual tax rise is in many cases 10% or more. News going very big on just saying 1 25% but it ain't.

If you're on 80k a year its £880 on top of your current £5749 NI bill, so 16% hike. Genuinely huge.

50k = £505 on top of current £4800 so more than 10% hike. £250 a year for someone on £30k is pretty noticeable too, 10% increase as well.

Those who have the broadest shoulders etc but jeez. 

The press will let it slide but would be a different story if it was a Labour chancellor putting that through.

But as long as people in Guildford get to keep their £850k houses for their kids that is definitely the main thing.

Aren't the people who live in Guildford and own their £850k houses the same ones that are likely to be earning £80k+ and therefore paying more for the 'priviledge' of keeping their properties?

Although if there is anyone earning £100k a year that can't afford to pay an additional £94 per month in tax, then there is something seriously wrong with their lives!

Even at £20k earnings the bill is just under £11 per month (which is less than the TV licence fee which is allegedly 'excellent value for money') - that equates to sacrificing a couple of Starbucks a month which would technically be a double win given how little tax they get away with paying  

[Weston Super Saint]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, and employers too. An additional 1.25% employers NI will hit many struggling businesses. 

Also nice to see it is payable on dividends so those company directors that already manage to avoid significant taxes will still have to pay this one.

[CB Fry]

23 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Aren't the people who live in Guildford and own their £850k houses the same ones that are likely to be earning £80k+ and therefore paying more for the 'priviledge' of keeping their properties?

Although if there is anyone earning £100k a year that can't afford to pay an additional £94 per month in tax, then there is something seriously wrong with their lives!

Even at £20k earnings the bill is just under £11 per month (which is less than the TV licence fee which is allegedly 'excellent value for money') - that equates to sacrificing a couple of Starbucks a month which would technically be a double win given how little tax they get away with paying  

Try and be less scattergun next time. 4/10.

[aintforever]

54 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, and employers too. An additional 1.25% employers NI will hit many struggling businesses. 

Thing is people will moan whoever you tax. Personally I don't think it goes far enough, I would do the NI thing and probably tax high-earners more (or the already wealth somehow) and bring the cap down, 86K is still a bit of a bombshell for people with average houses.

[East Kent Saint]

15 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You nasty little man. So those people who scrimped and saved all their lives should have to lose all that they have built up in order  to pay for the feckless who smoked, drank and gambled all their money away.

There's nothing rich about owning your own house.

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick , my very point is that those people who are not well off but own their own home will still lose out under this scheme . There is a proposed £85k limit , loose change for some but unaffordable for others plus the scheme is only offering to pay for CARE not accomodation or meals etc . So a good scheme for the well off !

[Warriorsaint]

Yet the majority of voters will still vote for these charlatans.

Edited 8 September, 2021 by Warriorsaint
Fixed it.

[badgerx16]

29 minutes ago, Warriorsaint said:

Yet the majority will still vote for these charlatans.

"The majority" didn't vote for them, as percentage of votes cast overall, and also in nearly all constituencies. Very few MPs win with over 50% of their local votes cast, none win with over 50% of the local electorate, and no Government for over a century, AFAIK, has won 50% of the votes cast.

Edited 8 September, 2021 by badgerx16

[saint1977]

30 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"The majority" didn't vote for them, as percentage of votes cast overall, and also in nearly all constituencies. Very few MPs win with over 50% of their local votes cast, none win with over 50% of the local electorate, and no Government for over a century, AFAIK, has won 50% of the votes cast.

This analysis backs that up. Although the notion that working class people suddenly became Tories overnight is somewhat misplaced although easy to see how people would assume that from the 2019 result.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/has-labour-really-lost-working-class/

The main reasons for last GE result were

1 One party had a clear position on Brexit and one fudged, the other (LD) was just not tenable really even for Remainers

2 Corbyn and his circle had become increasingly toxic since 2017 eg anti semitism allegations and was more open to attack by the largely right wing newspapers 

3 Labour and the Liberals competed rather than collaborated as they did in say GE 2017. The example I would give for this was Kensington and Chelsea where a near 10% LD swing amongst white collar voters took the seat from Labour on a semi-marginal majority to a narrow Tory one. Astonishing in a seat where Grenfell happened 4 years ago and where a Conservative Council is in disgrace but shows you the power of tactical voting websites and social media when collaboration isn’t there. I can’t ever see the LDs going into another coalition but voting with a Labour minority government issue by issue might be the only way to change number 10 occupants.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Thing is people will moan whoever you tax. Personally I don't think it goes far enough, I would do the NI thing and probably tax high-earners more (or the already wealth somehow) and bring the cap down, 86K is still a bit of a bombshell for people with average houses.

I believe the £86k cap is per person, so a couple living together could be billed for £172k, not a million miles away from the 'average' UK house price (which is a skewed measure anyway, given all those people living in Guildford in their £850k houses driving the average upwards).

[egg]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Thing is people will moan whoever you tax. Personally I don't think it goes far enough, I would do the NI thing and probably tax high-earners more (or the already wealth somehow) and bring the cap down, 86K is still a bit of a bombshell for people with average houses.

High earners are paying more via this as there's no upper threshold. People earning via dividends will have a tax rate of 39.35% on dividends over essentially the higher rate - that's after the company pays its 19% corporation tax. 

We're being taxed hard for pretty shit public services, and it's a fallacy that higher earners and dividend recipients get off lightly. 

I'm surprised you'd say hit employers harder though. I'd have left them well alone. People will expect their employers to give pay rises to cover cost of living increases and they'll look to them to cover the extra NI they're paying. Many businesses are struggling, and an extra 1.25% going out will hit hard. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

High earners are paying more via this as there's no upper threshold. People earning via dividends will have a tax rate of 39.35% on dividends over essentially the higher rate - that's after the company pays its 19% corporation tax. 

We're being taxed hard for pretty shit public services, and it's a fallacy that higher earners and dividend recipients get off lightly. 

I'm surprised you'd say hit employers harder though. I'd have left them well alone. People will expect their employers to give pay rises to cover cost of living increases and they'll look to them to cover the extra NI they're paying. Many businesses are struggling, and an extra 1.25% going out will hit hard. 

Should businesses like this one be left alone?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58485816

Quote

Online shopping giant Amazon has said it is "proud" of its contribution to the UK economy, as it reveals its latest financial results.

The firm paid £492m in taxes on sales which rose 50% to £20.63bn, amid a Covid-driven surge in demand.

Most of that tax bill is apparently employers NI contributions.  This is definitely one company that isn't paying its 19% corporation tax....

Again, the solution seems very simple and if these huge companies weren't allowed to dodge the taxes that they should be paying, then the low skilled, low paid workers that work for them wouldn't be saddled with the bill....

[Millbrook Saint]

What I find odd is that the same people (mostly labour and their supporters) screaming about how it's unfair on low paid workers, the young etc are absolutely fine with the congestion and pollution charges being expanded further across London and it's outskirts, after all a low paid worker can't afford to go out and buy a brand new electric car to reduce the cost of the charges thrust upon him, once again the low paid taking the hit.  This will also likely happen in other cities.

This has to be because of one of the following

1. It's a labour mayor so all is good

2. they don't really care about social care, not as much as raising a few quid for the London mayor

3. it was a tory idea so they want to cause as much trouble as possible without offering any solutions

4. all of the above

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

What I find odd is that the same people (mostly labour and their supporters) screaming about how it's unfair on low paid workers, the young etc are absolutely fine with the congestion and pollution charges being expanded further across London and it's outskirts, after all a low paid worker can't afford to go out and buy a brand new electric car to reduce the cost of the charges thrust upon him, once again the low paid taking the hit.  This will also likely happen in other cities.

This has to be because of one of the following

1. It's a labour mayor so all is good

2. they don't really care about social care, not as much as raising a few quid for the London mayor

3. it was a tory idea so they want to cause as much trouble as possible without offering any solutions

4. all of the above

A bit weird.

Congestion and pollution charges are supposed to be funding climate change initiatives (whether they actually do or not, I have no idea).  Other solutions exist to avoid travelling by car into these areas thus avoiding the charges.

Getting old on the other hand is completely unavoidable for the overwhelming majority of the population and something that eventually we will all have to encounter.

Odd that you've equated a tax to fund care with the congestion charge.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A bit weird.

................

Odd that you've equated a tax to fund care with the congestion charge.

Some people will do anything to bash 'the left', some will go out of their way to berate "the right". Mostly it's because people just need a bogeyman to moan about.

[buctootim]

10 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

What I find odd is that the same people (mostly labour and their supporters) screaming about how it's unfair on low paid workers, the young etc are absolutely fine with the congestion and pollution charges being expanded further across London and it's outskirts, after all a low paid worker can't afford to go out and buy a brand new electric car to reduce the cost of the charges thrust upon him, once again the low paid taking the hit.  This will also likely happen in other cities.

This has to be because of one of the following

1. It's a labour mayor so all is good

2. they don't really care about social care, not as much as raising a few quid for the London mayor

3. it was a tory idea so they want to cause as much trouble as possible without offering any solutions

4. all of the above

No banana. Most commuters into London, who are probably majority Tory voters welcome the congestion charge because it makes their commute by bus quicker and walking from tube stations easier and more pleasant.   

The tax is regressive. How is it fair that somebody on national average wage of c£33,000pa pays 8.6% of their income in NI whilst somebody on £100,000pa pays 5.9% and on £250k pays 3.6%?   

[Millbrook Saint]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A bit weird.

Congestion and pollution charges are supposed to be funding climate change initiatives (whether they actually do or not, I have no idea).  Other solutions exist to avoid travelling by car into these areas thus avoiding the charges.

Getting old on the other hand is completely unavoidable for the overwhelming majority of the population and something that eventually we will all have to encounter.

Odd that you've equated a tax to fund care with the congestion charge.

I'm all for a tax to fund care, it's long overdue, just hope it actually goes where it's supposed to.

The congestion charge is still a tax and it's a tax only the well off can afford, or avoid paying by purchasing nice new electric cars.  The other solutions are more expensive than the congestion taxes, you ever caught a train from Southampton to London.

I'd be more open to the congestion taxes if the money got spent on research and development into things like hydrogen cars, or on subsidies to help people replace their older cars with electric ones, but no, that helmet running London uses it to put up more cycle lanes so lycra clad twats can speed round London holding up all the traffic and causing accidents and slowing down any traffic who can afford to enter London now.

[Millbrook Saint]

7 minutes ago, buctootim said:

No banana. Most commuters into London, who are probably majority Tory voters welcome the congestion charge because it makes their commute by bus quicker and walking from tube stations easier and more pleasant.   

The tax is regressive. How is it fair that somebody on national average wage of c£33,000pa pays 8.6% of their income in NI whilst somebody on £100,000pa pays 5.9% and on £250k pays 3.6%?   

Till they get hit by a cyclist
Not sure about your second paragraph, on the face of it, it sounds wrong, how do you work that out, not disagreeing with what you said, just interested to know.

Still doesn't change the fact that no one stood up for low paid people who can no longer afford to drive their cars into London because of the congestion charges.

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Till they get hit by a cyclist
Not sure about your second paragraph, on the face of it, it sounds wrong, how do you work that out, not disagreeing with what you said, just interested to know.

Still doesn't change the fact that no one stood up for low paid people who can no longer afford to drive their cars into London because of the congestion charges.

Poor people never really drove their cars in central London anyway. It was too slow and the parking cost too much when you got there. Central London parking meters typically cost more per hour than the minimum wage. Afaik the congestion charge income subsidises public transport in London. 

Re regressive national insurance use this calculator https://listentotaxman.com   

 

[badgerx16]

46 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

......, more cycle lanes so lycra clad twats can speed round London holding up all the traffic and causing accidents and slowing down any traffic who can afford to enter London now.

 

41 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Till they get hit by a cyclist
 

Is there something you need to share ?

[egg]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Should businesses like this one be left alone?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58485816

Most of that tax bill is apparently employers NI contributions.  This is definitely one company that isn't paying its 19% corporation tax....

Again, the solution seems very simple and if these huge companies weren't allowed to dodge the taxes that they should be paying, then the low skilled, low paid workers that work for them wouldn't be saddled with the bill....

No, and you understood my point. Real world businesses will be hit by the NI increase, and that will impact on wages, and employment to some extent. 

 

Amazon are another issue and get away with murder, metaphorically of course.

[Warriorsaint]

Test and Trace,£50 million a month to Serco “ but you there, peasants, you pay for the old and infirm, we’ve got cocktails to sip ra ra ra!”

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, Warriorsaint said:

Test and Trace,£50 million a month to Serco “ but you there, peasants, you pay for the old and infirm, we’ve got cocktails to sip ra ra ra!”

The average is 7.4million tests per day over the past 7 days, so that's what, about 30million tests per month?

Source

£1.67 per test doesn't seem like an awful lot to me, given the logistics involved.

How have you reached the conclusion that 'we've got cocktails to sip ra ra ra'? 

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The average is 7.4million tests per day over the past 7 days, so that's what, about 30million tests per month?

Source

£1.67 per test doesn't seem like an awful lot to me, given the logistics involved.

How have you reached the conclusion that 'we've got cocktails to sip ra ra ra'? 

They spent £37 billion on test and trace and the Public Accounts Committee found that it made "no measurable difference to the course of the pandemic".  

[Warriorsaint]

27 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

They spent £37 billion on test and trace and the Public Accounts Committee found that it made "no measurable difference to the course of the pandemic".  

Thanks ECUK. Point of the tweet but contrarians will be contrarian 

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, Warriorsaint said:

Thanks ECUK. Point of the tweet but contrarians will be contrarian 

Lol.  Surely the point of the tweet (post) was that Serco have been paid £50m per month, given that that was pretty much all that was in the post!  Well, that and some bollocks about peasants and cocktails.

[Weston Super Saint]

36 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

They spent £37 billion on test and trace and the Public Accounts Committee found that it made "no measurable difference to the course of the pandemic".  

I imagine that's probably about right - it's been discussed before on the covid thread that test and trace is only effective when there are 'low' numbers of infections when the aim is to control the spread.  Ours was launched when we already had tens of thousands of infections and was therefore pointless.

Still, this has taken the thread so far off topic and isn't relevant at all to funding social care.

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I'm all for a tax to fund care, it's long overdue, just hope it actually goes where it's supposed to

Only it’s not a tax to “fund” social care. It’s a tax that transfers  the cost  of social care from relatively well off individuals, to the state. The poor already have their social care paid for.