Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem?" Closing loop holes on tax is long over due. I know many dislikes how some work the system but if they are doing it within the rules then that's a problem with the rules. As for tax well we all need to pay as likely to need it at some point. Has to be fair so a percentage type would be fairer. people mention on here about recent pay rises being bad news because the costs will be passed onto the customers so I would have thought capital gains tax would have the same problem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem?" Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford." No you are right life is not fair but it works both ways. Why should people who have scrimped and saved to buy a property which by demographics and through no fault of their own has rocketed pay more when they have paid into the system all their lives. People paying taxes on pensions that they have saved for all their lives is that fair? or paying more because you happen to live in the south and your house price has rose significantly more than those in the north. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is the government so adverse to taxing the big multi nationals? Is it because they are tory party donors? Mps with dividends at risk? " Probably because if they did they would move somewhere else this is not only a uk governments problem its a world wide problem and i think you are taking a very simplistic view of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford." Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is the government so adverse to taxing the big multi nationals? Is it because they are tory party donors? Mps with dividends at risk? Probably because if they did they would move somewhere else this is not only a uk governments problem its a world wide problem and i think you are taking a very simplistic view of it. " So multi-nationals definitely would not go elsewhere because Brexit makes doing business more complicated and more expensive (see today’s Times - £7.5 billion cost to to business of Brexit). But they will leave if they are taxed more - like they are in almost every other European country? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change" Businesses are cutting back on employers and big business is becoming more profitable with less employees. Think about that next time you go to Asda and Tesco and used the ever expanding self checkouts. The biggest burden of taxes needs to go on the biggest of businesses. They are already robbing the country of NIC by reducing the number of employees. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change Businesses are cutting back on employers and big business is becoming more profitable with less employees. Think about that next time you go to Asda and Tesco and used the ever expanding self checkouts. The biggest burden of taxes needs to go on the biggest of businesses. They are already robbing the country of NIC by reducing the number of employees." When I say better off I meant better off people not business as was responding to another poster. I know what you mean about self checkout as often feel I'm doing a job for them when shopping. However its how it is. Automation is how things are going. I don't personally class shops of robbing the country by using these as one of there jobs is to stay competitive and afloat. It's not to employ people for a job that no longer exists. Closing loopholes on tax would be a good start as often hear lots could be raised this way. Tax rises on business is another way but as some on here said, pay rises for staff were bad because the costs would be passed on to customers, it would have the same problem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford.No you are right life is not fair but it works both ways. Why should people who have scrimped and saved to buy a property which by demographics and through no fault of their own has rocketed pay more when they have paid into the system all their lives. People paying taxes on pensions that they have saved for all their lives is that fair? or paying more because you happen to live in the south and your house price has rose significantly more than those in the north. " The well off can cry me a river. Why? Well, the unfairness you talk about isn't going to leave them in anywhere near the levels of financial insecurity that the people about to be asked to bail them out are already living in. Basically; tough shit, suck it up buttercup, etc. Now, today, I have heard that senior Tory politicians - lords, indeed, Hammond and Major both - are in agreement with me. So, if I'm in company like that, I could be wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change" The UC cut is a reversion to the pre-Covid amount; but the point I was making is that it's going to happen at at time when the government are seriously thinking about shifting a chunk of the financial burden for social care, from the wealthy, and onto the working poor, through increasing NICs. As for defining wealth, I don't know how the government currently assess it; but I do know that those they define as living in food poverty, energy poverty and working for the minimum wage - as many carers do - shouldn't be expected to bail out the person whose arse they're washing, whose home is worth over £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000 - whatever you like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"90 percent of the uk money is held by the top 1percent. Lets increas tax for the richest by ten percent" I agree, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"90 percent of the uk money is held by the top 1percent. Lets increas tax for the richest by ten percent I agree, "sounds good to me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change The UC cut is a reversion to the pre-Covid amount; but the point I was making is that it's going to happen at at time when the government are seriously thinking about shifting a chunk of the financial burden for social care, from the wealthy, and onto the working poor, through increasing NICs. As for defining wealth, I don't know how the government currently assess it; but I do know that those they define as living in food poverty, energy poverty and working for the minimum wage - as many carers do - shouldn't be expected to bail out the person whose arse they're washing, whose home is worth over £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000 - whatever you like." I see, so not a cut in UC after all. I do agree that those not earning enough to pay tax or out of work should not be expected to pay. However those that pay tax should. I think the income tax system would be best rather than NI but not a tax guru. I'm thinking it will be fairer as the more you earn the more you pay. How would you define wealth? Is it money in the bank that you would take from them. Does it include assets like houses ect. Would you force someone to sell there home and take some of the proceeds. How do you differentiate for the different areas. Just saying take from the rich is not a simple as it sounds | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"90 percent of the uk money is held by the top 1percent. Lets increas tax for the richest by ten percent" Shut down the avoidance schemes and that will throw in a few quid. If any personal tax avoiders leave so what? They don’t pay tax anyway and those that stay will add money. Companies must pay on profits generated here and not be allowed to move profits out of the country. JCB etc As for this particular issue . Income tax for all please. Then everyone pays including those on good pensions who will use the funds more than those who don’t. Stop the raid on old people houses that’s obscene. Why should the young pay more proportionately? Covid hurt us all. Brexit was mostly voted for by the elderly so they take the fall out and loss of tax revenue equally. Otherwise going forward take the vote of anyone over 65. Of course the older generation will say NI and the Tories know that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"90 percent of the uk money is held by the top 1percent. Lets increas tax for the richest by ten percent Shut down the avoidance schemes and that will throw in a few quid. If any personal tax avoiders leave so what? They don’t pay tax anyway and those that stay will add money. Companies must pay on profits generated here and not be allowed to move profits out of the country. JCB etc As for this particular issue . Income tax for all please. Then everyone pays including those on good pensions who will use the funds more than those who don’t. Stop the raid on old people houses that’s obscene. Why should the young pay more proportionately? Covid hurt us all. Brexit was mostly voted for by the elderly so they take the fall out and loss of tax revenue equally. Otherwise going forward take the vote of anyone over 65. Of course the older generation will say NI and the Tories know that. " Is that a typo or are you really saying anyone over 65 should not be able to vote? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"90 percent of the uk money is held by the top 1percent. Lets increas tax for the richest by ten percent Shut down the avoidance schemes and that will throw in a few quid. If any personal tax avoiders leave so what? They don’t pay tax anyway and those that stay will add money. Companies must pay on profits generated here and not be allowed to move profits out of the country. JCB etc As for this particular issue . Income tax for all please. Then everyone pays including those on good pensions who will use the funds more than those who don’t. Stop the raid on old people houses that’s obscene. Why should the young pay more proportionately? Covid hurt us all. Brexit was mostly voted for by the elderly so they take the fall out and loss of tax revenue equally. Otherwise going forward take the vote of anyone over 65. Of course the older generation will say NI and the Tories know that. "
Im not confident the government will do the right thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd vote to make it a flat rate for all. Why should I pay more than someone who chooses not to work as hard? " "Chooses not to work so hard"? Do you truly believe all earnings are tied to effort. I do fuck all most of the day, a couple of Zoom meetings maybe. But I know I get paid a hell of a lot more than a cleaner working flat out all day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"90 percent of the uk money is held by the top 1percent. Lets increas tax for the richest by ten percent Shut down the avoidance schemes and that will throw in a few quid. If any personal tax avoiders leave so what? They don’t pay tax anyway and those that stay will add money. Companies must pay on profits generated here and not be allowed to move profits out of the country. JCB etc As for this particular issue . Income tax for all please. Then everyone pays including those on good pensions who will use the funds more than those who don’t. Stop the raid on old people houses that’s obscene. Why should the young pay more proportionately? Covid hurt us all. Brexit was mostly voted for by the elderly so they take the fall out and loss of tax revenue equally. Otherwise going forward take the vote of anyone over 65. Of course the older generation will say NI and the Tories know that. Is that a typo or are you really saying anyone over 65 should not be able to vote?" I’m not being serious and being intentionally provocative but if you are say a councillor with a beneficiary of a decision such as council planning then you’re not allowed to vote as you have a vested interest. Pensioners will vote for what’s best for them and be happy someone else is paying. Boris will feed off that!! The pensioners voting for Brexit has contributed to less tax take so they suffer equally, Everyone pays their share it’s fair snd simple. NI penalises just workers and that’s not fair. If you’re a hard up pensioner or unemployed you don’t pay . Otherwise if you have income you do! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Chooses not to work so hard"? Do you truly believe all earnings are tied to effort. I do fuck all most of the day, a couple of Zoom meetings maybe. But I know I get paid a hell of a lot more than a cleaner working flat out all day." Uh huh. And what about a cleaner who works 20 hours a week compared to a cleaner who does the exact same job for 80 hours a week. What's your argument against making it a flat rate for all? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd vote to make it a flat rate for all. Why should I pay more than someone who chooses not to work as hard? " How do you define ‘working hard’ ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Chooses not to work so hard"? Do you truly believe all earnings are tied to effort. I do fuck all most of the day, a couple of Zoom meetings maybe. But I know I get paid a hell of a lot more than a cleaner working flat out all day. Uh huh. And what about a cleaner who works 20 hours a week compared to a cleaner who does the exact same job for 80 hours a week. What's your argument against making it a flat rate for all?" Because the world is not made up of cleaners. The difference between my earnings and either of those cleaners is huge. Why should I pay the same tax? I am in a better situation, and I was put here by tax payers. My education, my public sector job that furthered my training. I can afford to pay more, and it will support those less able. This seems fair to me. It's impossible to calculate how much effort someone puts into their work, at least in respect to an entire population for tax purposes. Earnings are a reasonable proxy for this. Would you be happy for a millionaire landowner, that inherited his wealth to pay the same tax as you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Chooses not to work so hard"? Do you truly believe all earnings are tied to effort. I do fuck all most of the day, a couple of Zoom meetings maybe. But I know I get paid a hell of a lot more than a cleaner working flat out all day. Uh huh. And what about a cleaner who works 20 hours a week compared to a cleaner who does the exact same job for 80 hours a week. What's your argument against making it a flat rate for all? Because the world is not made up of cleaners. The difference between my earnings and either of those cleaners is huge. Why should I pay the same tax? I am in a better situation, and I was put here by tax payers. My education, my public sector job that furthered my training. I can afford to pay more, and it will support those less able. This seems fair to me. It's impossible to calculate how much effort someone puts into their work, at least in respect to an entire population for tax purposes. Earnings are a reasonable proxy for this. Would you be happy for a millionaire landowner, that inherited his wealth to pay the same tax as you? " Spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was put here by tax payers. My education, my public sector job that furthered my training." That's one place where you and I differ. I got to where am I by myself, paying my own education, paying my own training, investing in myself. "I can afford to pay more, and it will support those less able. " By all means pay more voluntarily if you want. More power to you if that's the case. "Would you be happy for a millionaire landowner, that inherited his wealth to pay the same tax as you? " I thought that was pretty obvious by the 'flat rate for all'. Why does it matter if their wealth is self-made or inherited? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in a better situation, and I was put here by tax payers. My education, my public sector job that furthered my training" It's only just twigged. Of course you're going to want more people to pay more taxes. It's our tax money that indirectly pays your salary.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's one place where you and I differ. I got to where am I by myself, paying my own education, paying my own training, investing in myself. I thought that was pretty obvious by the 'flat rate for all'. Why does it matter if their wealth is self-made or inherited?" Did you pay for all the education you received as a child? How about all the healthcare? We all benefit from a cohesive society, it's not just about individuals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in a better situation, and I was put here by tax payers. My education, my public sector job that furthered my training It's only just twigged. Of course you're going to want more people to pay more taxes. It's our tax money that indirectly pays your salary.
"Not for 20 years it hasn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was put here by tax payers. My education, my public sector job that furthered my training. That's one place where you and I differ. I got to where am I by myself, paying my own education, paying my own training, investing in myself. I can afford to pay more, and it will support those less able. By all means pay more voluntarily if you want. More power to you if that's the case. Would you be happy for a millionaire landowner, that inherited his wealth to pay the same tax as you? I thought that was pretty obvious by the 'flat rate for all'. Why does it matter if their wealth is self-made or inherited? " You paid (personally) for all your education? You must have had a long paper round in Primary School. You've never used a road paid for by taxes, called on the Police, employed other people educated by the state etc? There is no such thing, in this country, as someone that has entirely funded themselves. At some point you will have had support from the state. I of course donate to charities, but that's not the same. So you are happy for a millionaire, whose not lifted a finger for his money to pay the same tax as yourself. Yet complain that you shouldn't have to pay more than people who haven't worked as hard as you. That logic doesn't seem to make sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There isn't going to be an increase in National Insurance ,the reports must surely be incorrect , ,When Johnson became leader he said he had a plan for social care , he then promised at the last election he wouldn't increase National Insurance , so his plan must be something other than raising National Insurance , , , " Johnson? Plan? OMG that's hilarious! Ha haa haaa  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was put here by tax payers. My education, my public sector job that furthered my training. That's one place where you and I differ. I got to where am I by myself, paying my own education, paying my own training, investing in myself. I can afford to pay more, and it will support those less able. By all means pay more voluntarily if you want. More power to you if that's the case. Would you be happy for a millionaire landowner, that inherited his wealth to pay the same tax as you? I thought that was pretty obvious by the 'flat rate for all'. Why does it matter if their wealth is self-made or inherited?" This "flat rate tax" you mention has the poll tax ring to it, qnd we all know where that went | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. " the question many are asking is whw will be nice to them in the future when they are old ... As it stands there won't be enough people working to repay the favour. (And those things like mat pay and breakfast club... They allow women to work longer hours and have careers ... Which creates taxes. One may argue if the older generations had got on board with that quicker... There would be more in the kitty today to pay for all this!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. " They could also buy property at around three times their annual salary not 10-14 times as today. I don’t agree that houses should be sold to pay for care and if anyone thinks that then why don’t cancer or maybe heart disease patients pay too? The nature of the disease should not dictate whether you pay or not however I do believe everyone who has income should pay their fair and equal contribution based on a percentage. So the more you earn the more you pay but only as the same percentage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. They could also buy property at around three times their annual salary not 10-14 times as today. I don’t agree that houses should be sold to pay for care and if anyone thinks that then why don’t cancer or maybe heart disease patients pay too? The nature of the disease should not dictate whether you pay or not however I do believe everyone who has income should pay their fair and equal contribution based on a percentage. So the more you earn the more you pay but only as the same percentage. " the houses they bought didnt have double glazing or central heating, they had outside loos and a coal fire, even b&bs advertised running water! and i bet most of them didnt have a car let alone need a garage! or holidays abroad etc etc its not all one sided by a long way... And interest rates were 17% not .5%, lowest in history, shit for older savers good for young buyers.... however it still comes back to how much tax we all want to pay one way or the other and how much we want to spend on what? I persoanlly think it send out the wrong message, dont save dont buy your own home government covers it? do save, lose it all..... you might as well go to the casino then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. the question many are asking is whw will be nice to them in the future when they are old ... As it stands there won't be enough people working to repay the favour. (And those things like mat pay and breakfast club... They allow women to work longer hours and have careers ... Which creates taxes. One may argue if the older generations had got on board with that quicker... There would be more in the kitty today to pay for all this!)" Your re-writing social history, the invention of the pill was more important than breakfast club lol my point was that young people take out what the older generation were never even offered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. the question many are asking is whw will be nice to them in the future when they are old ... As it stands there won't be enough people working to repay the favour. (And those things like mat pay and breakfast club... They allow women to work longer hours and have careers ... Which creates taxes. One may argue if the older generations had got on board with that quicker... There would be more in the kitty today to pay for all this!) Your re-writing social history, the invention of the pill was more important than breakfast club lol my point was that young people take out what the older generation were never even offered." and old people may be doing the same here. Not everyone believes we will have the same level of state support in our old age as today. Let alone care. It's a tricky issue to answer as I'm not a fan of enforced selling. I'm just not convinced of the fairness of taxation. It's too short termist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change The UC cut is a reversion to the pre-Covid amount; but the point I was making is that it's going to happen at at time when the government are seriously thinking about shifting a chunk of the financial burden for social care, from the wealthy, and onto the working poor, through increasing NICs. As for defining wealth, I don't know how the government currently assess it; but I do know that those they define as living in food poverty, energy poverty and working for the minimum wage - as many carers do - shouldn't be expected to bail out the person whose arse they're washing, whose home is worth over £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000 - whatever you like. I see, so not a cut in UC after all. I do agree that those not earning enough to pay tax or out of work should not be expected to pay. However those that pay tax should. I think the income tax system would be best rather than NI but not a tax guru. I'm thinking it will be fairer as the more you earn the more you pay. How would you define wealth? Is it money in the bank that you would take from them. Does it include assets like houses ect. Would you force someone to sell there home and take some of the proceeds. How do you differentiate for the different areas. Just saying take from the rich is not a simple as it sounds" A reversion to what it was before IS a cut. Or are you telling me that it won't be missed by those receiving it; because their circumstances have improved so much? I agree with you on an income based tax for funding care. That said, means testing is still an element that should be included. As for defining wealth, I already gave you a hint on that one. But let's try a more concrete example. Why should someone who owns two homes be bailed out by someone who cannot - even though they are working - afford the rent on one home; and have to have it paid via the Housing Benefit element of their Universal Credit? If anyone thinks such an example is extreme, I can assure you that it isn't. If anyone thinks it's fair - and many Tories are, actually, fine with it; then there's something wrong with them. A couple of days ago, in The Telegraph, a member of the Cabinet was reported as saying this: “After all that’s happened in the last 18 months they can’t seriously be thinking about a tax raid on supermarket workers and nurses so the children of Surrey homeowners can receive bigger inheritances.” That's essentially my initial argument. The fact that a Tory has recognised it as the wrong thing to do, from a moral point of view, won't make any difference. They are devoid of morals. All they care about is money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd vote to make it a flat rate for all. Why should I pay more than someone who chooses not to work as hard? " Still using all the muscles except the one that matters. LOL | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. They could also buy property at around three times their annual salary not 10-14 times as today. I don’t agree that houses should be sold to pay for care and if anyone thinks that then why don’t cancer or maybe heart disease patients pay too? The nature of the disease should not dictate whether you pay or not however I do believe everyone who has income should pay their fair and equal contribution based on a percentage. So the more you earn the more you pay but only as the same percentage. the houses they bought didnt have double glazing or central heating, they had outside loos and a coal fire, even b&bs advertised running water! and i bet most of them didnt have a car let alone need a garage! or holidays abroad etc etc its not all one sided by a long way... And interest rates were 17% not .5%, lowest in history, shit for older savers good for young buyers.... however it still comes back to how much tax we all want to pay one way or the other and how much we want to spend on what? I persoanlly think it send out the wrong message, dont save dont buy your own home government covers it? do save, lose it all..... you might as well go to the casino then!" My dad is in his late 80s and had central heating in the 60s. A car in the 60s and double glazing in the early 70s so not true for all. His parents didn’t though. But they died 50 years ago. This Dickensian view is very out dated. If you’re poor you’re more likely to live in a crap house today just as-you we’re 50 years ago. The average 65 year old is not poor. In fact the average wealth for 65-75 year olds including pension savings and property is over £600k ( average not mode so cut that by 20 30% to account for London property prices). I believe if you earn then you pay a tax as it’s fair for everyone. One family paying over £700 per week for care whilst in the same care home others get it free is just wrong so it needs funding through the tax system. You don’t pay for cancer care so why do you pay for dementia care? I’m playing with numbers so just examples. If the rate is 2% and you earn (after allowances) £100 then it’s £2 if you earn £1000 then you pay £20 . It’s the same percentage of pain and it’s equal based on your level of income. Blow your money in a casino to save £20 hmmm really? A multimillionaire multi property owner who’s over 65 pays nothing whilst a low paid career who 49 pays more of their low wage. NI is not a fair solution. One more thing. I think we can all agree Boris was yet again lying when he said he had a simple plan in 2019. That guy is not fit for the office of PM. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The system of this generation paying for the care of the last generation, is a flawed one. We need a system of personal responsibility for care, from the moment that a person starts work and is able to contribute. And who pays for those who can't, or choose not to, work " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The system of this generation paying for the care of the last generation, is a flawed one. We need a system of personal responsibility for care, from the moment that a person starts work and is able to contribute. My point being that the older generations are the ones who have been funding the NHS and education etc of those youngsters who are now at employment age. Seems only fair that they now reciprocate to help care for those no longer able to work due to old age " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with increasing NI is that pensioners don’t pay it…. And it disproportionately affects as a percentage of wages those at the bottom rather than those at the top…. So much for us all being in it together In a way you are hitting all the people least likely to vote Tory… It will be interesting next to see if the triple lock on state pensions goes next….." the national state pension is taken from taxes and paid out just about immediately, there's no banking of ni contributions sitting there, waiting for you to retire. Raising tax is one aspect, how it's spent snd how care hkmes justify the costs should be asked. Bit radical, but, how about nationalising and putting care homes under the NHS umbrella in addition to raising taxes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. They could also buy property at around three times their annual salary not 10-14 times as today. I don’t agree that houses should be sold to pay for care and if anyone thinks that then why don’t cancer or maybe heart disease patients pay too? The nature of the disease should not dictate whether you pay or not however I do believe everyone who has income should pay their fair and equal contribution based on a percentage. So the more you earn the more you pay but only as the same percentage. the houses they bought didnt have double glazing or central heating, they had outside loos and a coal fire, even b&bs advertised running water! and i bet most of them didnt have a car let alone need a garage! or holidays abroad etc etc its not all one sided by a long way... And interest rates were 17% not .5%, lowest in history, shit for older savers good for young buyers.... however it still comes back to how much tax we all want to pay one way or the other and how much we want to spend on what? I persoanlly think it send out the wrong message, dont save dont buy your own home government covers it? do save, lose it all..... you might as well go to the casino then! My dad is in his late 80s and had central heating in the 60s. A car in the 60s and double glazing in the early 70s so not true for all. His parents didn’t though. But they died 50 years ago. This Dickensian view is very out dated. If you’re poor you’re more likely to live in a crap house today just as-you we’re 50 years ago. The average 65 year old is not poor. In fact the average wealth for 65-75 year olds including pension savings and property is over £600k ( average not mode so cut that by 20 30% to account for London property prices). I believe if you earn then you pay a tax as it’s fair for everyone. One family paying over £700 per week for care whilst in the same care home others get it free is just wrong so it needs funding through the tax system. You don’t pay for cancer care so why do you pay for dementia care? I’m playing with numbers so just examples. If the rate is 2% and you earn (after allowances) £100 then it’s £2 if you earn £1000 then you pay £20 . It’s the same percentage of pain and it’s equal based on your level of income. Blow your money in a casino to save £20 hmmm really? A multimillionaire multi property owner who’s over 65 pays nothing whilst a low paid career who 49 pays more of their low wage. NI is not a fair solution. One more thing. I think we can all agree Boris was yet again lying when he said he had a simple plan in 2019. That guy is not fit for the office of PM. " Yes the queen was also ok in the 60s, but an old friend was a professional football player in the 60s and he owned the only car on the street lol But were getting off subject, have the older generation paid in, yes, did they get lots of free stuff on route, no. So how is it fair to penalise savers? But give free stuff to drug users or gamblers... gamble lose your money the government covers your care? or win and your ok anyway.... ? But I agree the whole system wants looking at. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with increasing NI is that pensioners don’t pay it…. And it disproportionately affects as a percentage of wages those at the bottom rather than those at the top…. So much for us all being in it together In a way you are hitting all the people least likely to vote Tory… It will be interesting next to see if the triple lock on state pensions goes next….. the national state pension is taken from taxes and paid out just about immediately, there's no banking of ni contributions sitting there, waiting for you to retire. Raising tax is one aspect, how it's spent snd how care hkmes justify the costs should be asked. Bit radical, but, how about nationalising and putting care homes under the NHS umbrella in addition to raising taxes? " The reason why the triple lock will go is there is no way you could justify pensioners getting potentially and 8% increase because it’s tied to increase in wages, whilst at the same time excluding them from the increase in NI conts…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look at all spending, old people never got maternity leave or breakfast club and no one had even heard the term mental well being, they heard chin up! Keep calm carry on and now they are being told theyre expensive! Think as a nation we should think about what we really need and whats just nice? And how much tax we want to pay. They could also buy property at around three times their annual salary not 10-14 times as today. I don’t agree that houses should be sold to pay for care and if anyone thinks that then why don’t cancer or maybe heart disease patients pay too? The nature of the disease should not dictate whether you pay or not however I do believe everyone who has income should pay their fair and equal contribution based on a percentage. So the more you earn the more you pay but only as the same percentage. the houses they bought didnt have double glazing or central heating, they had outside loos and a coal fire, even b&bs advertised running water! and i bet most of them didnt have a car let alone need a garage! or holidays abroad etc etc its not all one sided by a long way... And interest rates were 17% not .5%, lowest in history, shit for older savers good for young buyers.... however it still comes back to how much tax we all want to pay one way or the other and how much we want to spend on what? I persoanlly think it send out the wrong message, dont save dont buy your own home government covers it? do save, lose it all..... you might as well go to the casino then! My dad is in his late 80s and had central heating in the 60s. A car in the 60s and double glazing in the early 70s so not true for all. His parents didn’t though. But they died 50 years ago. This Dickensian view is very out dated. If you’re poor you’re more likely to live in a crap house today just as-you we’re 50 years ago. The average 65 year old is not poor. In fact the average wealth for 65-75 year olds including pension savings and property is over £600k ( average not mode so cut that by 20 30% to account for London property prices). I believe if you earn then you pay a tax as it’s fair for everyone. One family paying over £700 per week for care whilst in the same care home others get it free is just wrong so it needs funding through the tax system. You don’t pay for cancer care so why do you pay for dementia care? I’m playing with numbers so just examples. If the rate is 2% and you earn (after allowances) £100 then it’s £2 if you earn £1000 then you pay £20 . It’s the same percentage of pain and it’s equal based on your level of income. Blow your money in a casino to save £20 hmmm really? A multimillionaire multi property owner who’s over 65 pays nothing whilst a low paid career who 49 pays more of their low wage. NI is not a fair solution. One more thing. I think we can all agree Boris was yet again lying when he said he had a simple plan in 2019. That guy is not fit for the office of PM. Yes the queen was also ok in the 60s, but an old friend was a professional football player in the 60s and he owned the only car on the street lol But were getting off subject, have the older generation paid in, yes, did they get lots of free stuff on route, no. So how is it fair to penalise savers? But give free stuff to drug users or gamblers... gamble lose your money the government covers your care? or win and your ok anyway.... ? But I agree the whole system wants looking at." I posted earlier about taxing a percentage of property on death. If you own a house worth £600k, this year you have made £60k in unearned income to give to your family but no contribution to your care. Is that work or just luck of the postcode draw. The savers are keeping most of their money and with the present suggestion they pay nothing. It’s a percentage of their earned income I’m suggesting not a raid on their total life savings. Sadly for some the present system is exactly that. A total raid and they lose everything. Well apart from the last £23k I agree the system needs looking at as it’s flawed beyond belief. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When will rise take place? " April 2022, and the levy will show on your tax statements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with increasing NI is that pensioners don’t pay it…. And it disproportionately affects as a percentage of wages those at the bottom rather than those at the top…. So much for us all being in it together In a way you are hitting all the people least likely to vote Tory… It will be interesting next to see if the triple lock on state pensions goes next….. the national state pension is taken from taxes and paid out just about immediately, there's no banking of ni contributions sitting there, waiting for you to retire. Raising tax is one aspect, how it's spent snd how care hkmes justify the costs should be asked. Bit radical, but, how about nationalising and putting care homes under the NHS umbrella in addition to raising taxes? The reason why the triple lock will go is there is no way you could justify pensioners getting potentially and 8% increase because it’s tied to increase in wages, whilst at the same time excluding them from the increase in NI conts…. " ...and there it goes, or at least suspended for a year. I wonder if it will come back though? Probably need to before the next GE or they will be well and truly buggered! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys" Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a shame we haven't got a spare weekly £350million " Have you looked down the side Boris’ sofa? Oh hang on the PPE guys got there first!, silly me. Have we ever had a more incompetent bunch in charge? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys" De beers have found the larges diamond on the planet in an African mine (1,098 carat) (jwaneng mine) It’s large enough to crown 614 engagement rings. How much did the African state debswana mining give to the country? Nothing Diamonds now shelved  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has Johnson's lying bus been mentioned yet? Weren't we told we'd be getting loads more money to fund the NHS that way?" . Ssssssssshhhhhhhh don't mention the bus | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with increasing NI is that pensioners don’t pay it…. And it disproportionately affects as a percentage of wages those at the bottom rather than those at the top…. So much for us all being in it together In a way you are hitting all the people least likely to vote Tory… It will be interesting next to see if the triple lock on state pensions goes next….. the national state pension is taken from taxes and paid out just about immediately, there's no banking of ni contributions sitting there, waiting for you to retire. Raising tax is one aspect, how it's spent snd how care hkmes justify the costs should be asked. Bit radical, but, how about nationalising and putting care homes under the NHS umbrella in addition to raising taxes? The reason why the triple lock will go is there is no way you could justify pensioners getting potentially and 8% increase because it’s tied to increase in wages, whilst at the same time excluding them from the increase in NI conts…. ...and there it goes, or at least suspended for a year. I wonder if it will come back though? Probably need to before the next GE or they will be well and truly buggered! " the triple lock is dead, once you start saying if wages go up or inflation goes up you are not going to honor it , then there is no lock, the Tories have just kicked the door in . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. " nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad," I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has Johnson's lying bus been mentioned yet? Weren't we told we'd be getting loads more money to fund the NHS that way?" wey the good old red bus what next the cliff edge lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad,I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... " I've got health insurance, can I opt out of paying the NHS. Oh also, while we are all choosing what our money goes on, I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either. Plus I've not driven much this year, I'll take a refund on my road tax thanks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad,I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... I've got health insurance, can I opt out of paying the NHS. Oh also, while we are all choosing what our money goes on, I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either. Plus I've not driven much this year, I'll take a refund on my road tax thanks. " but this thread is about how to fund health and care,stop sending money abroad theres billions of quid right there that can be spent on it.why batter working people for more money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad,I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... I've got health insurance, can I opt out of paying the NHS. Oh also, while we are all choosing what our money goes on, I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either. Plus I've not driven much this year, I'll take a refund on my road tax thanks. but this thread is about how to fund health and care,stop sending money abroad theres billions of quid right there that can be spent on it.why batter working people for more money" I'd neither seek to take it from the poor nor the workers. Take it from someone's estate either via higher IHT or through earmarking some to HMT. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change The UC cut is a reversion to the pre-Covid amount; but the point I was making is that it's going to happen at at time when the government are seriously thinking about shifting a chunk of the financial burden for social care, from the wealthy, and onto the working poor, through increasing NICs. As for defining wealth, I don't know how the government currently assess it; but I do know that those they define as living in food poverty, energy poverty and working for the minimum wage - as many carers do - shouldn't be expected to bail out the person whose arse they're washing, whose home is worth over £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000 - whatever you like. I see, so not a cut in UC after all. I do agree that those not earning enough to pay tax or out of work should not be expected to pay. However those that pay tax should. I think the income tax system would be best rather than NI but not a tax guru. I'm thinking it will be fairer as the more you earn the more you pay. How would you define wealth? Is it money in the bank that you would take from them. Does it include assets like houses ect. Would you force someone to sell there home and take some of the proceeds. How do you differentiate for the different areas. Just saying take from the rich is not a simple as it sounds A reversion to what it was before IS a cut. Or are you telling me that it won't be missed by those receiving it; because their circumstances have improved so much? I agree with you on an income based tax for funding care. That said, means testing is still an element that should be included. As for defining wealth, I already gave you a hint on that one. But let's try a more concrete example. Why should someone who owns two homes be bailed out by someone who cannot - even though they are working - afford the rent on one home; and have to have it paid via the Housing Benefit element of their Universal Credit? If anyone thinks such an example is extreme, I can assure you that it isn't. If anyone thinks it's fair - and many Tories are, actually, fine with it; then there's something wrong with them. A couple of days ago, in The Telegraph, a member of the Cabinet was reported as saying this: “After all that’s happened in the last 18 months they can’t seriously be thinking about a tax raid on supermarket workers and nurses so the children of Surrey homeowners can receive bigger inheritances.” That's essentially my initial argument. The fact that a Tory has recognised it as the wrong thing to do, from a moral point of view, won't make any difference. They are devoid of morals. All they care about is money." Personally I think if you put a credit up and then back down again its reverting not cutting. If they put it lower than it was before then it would be a cut. This new tax could be an example. So we are looking at an increase of 1.25%. If later on they (highly unlikely) reduce it to 0.25% can they claim a tax reduction. So now we are talking about people with 2 houses-Thats changed already. How did they get these houses? Please define what you mean by wealth is it bank balance only or include assets? How do you differentiate between areas as property prices can be very different in different parts of the country. I do not favour this NI increase as would prefer to see it on income tax instead. I see anyone with below £20k will not have to pay anything and those with more still have to pay up to £86k so hardly getting it for free. A comment I heard on the radio this evening got me thinking is why do we pay for this care separately. Their point was if we get cancer or another long term health issue we are not asked to pay for it and no one wants to take your home. If you get dementia then for some reason you have to pay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad," You do know we account for 65% of known global tax evasion which is £465 B A lot more than the aid budget. Also I wonder how much is pissed away treating dole scrounging bums who have no intention of working. Don’t forget the gravy train of government in this country which is basically obscene. I’d rather stop the MPs taking the piss with house swapping etc than not help someone in a war torn country where we started the war!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe stop the fuel subsidies to the airlines that are keeping the cost of flying down "Like this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad,I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... I've got health insurance, can I opt out of paying the NHS. Oh also, while we are all choosing what our money goes on, I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either. Plus I've not driven much this year, I'll take a refund on my road tax thanks. but this thread is about how to fund health and care,stop sending money abroad theres billions of quid right there that can be spent on it.why batter working people for more moneyI'd neither seek to take it from the poor nor the workers. Take it from someone's estate either via higher IHT or through earmarking some to HMT. " Where is the rich line? 2 cars? Detached house? Foreign holiday every year? Kids in private school? Private lessons? Kung-fu? Piano? Have a motorcycle just for fun? Savings ? ........ communist state then?..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To benefit from this scheme you have to have no money and no house. Where’s the incentive to work hard and buy a house. " Exactly let's encourage the jobless to let food rot in fields coz there are no Romanians to pick it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To benefit from this scheme you have to have no money and no house. Where’s the incentive to work hard and buy a house. " Benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle. As for buying a house I may have my facts wrong but listening to the radio and due to houses outstripping earnings less people buy and more are having to rent. More and cheaper housing is needed. Otherwise saying you have to borrow 10 times your salary is the nightmare scenario for some. Why would they bother to even contemplate it as an option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad,I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... I've got health insurance, can I opt out of paying the NHS. Oh also, while we are all choosing what our money goes on, I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either. Plus I've not driven much this year, I'll take a refund on my road tax thanks. but this thread is about how to fund health and care,stop sending money abroad theres billions of quid right there that can be spent on it.why batter working people for more moneyI'd neither seek to take it from the poor nor the workers. Take it from someone's estate either via higher IHT or through earmarking some to HMT. Where is the rich line? 2 cars? Detached house? Foreign holiday every year? Kids in private school? Private lessons? Kung-fu? Piano? Have a motorcycle just for fun? Savings ? ........ communist state then?....." why mention rich? I'm talking poor. Poverty. There's plenty of space between the two to not feel rich nor poor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To benefit from this scheme you have to have no money and no house. Where’s the incentive to work hard and buy a house. Exactly let's encourage the jobless to let food rot in fields coz there are no Romanians to pick it?"Yes and how much tax revenue have we lost with all those workers leaving. The jobs are there and the U.K. can’t find anyone wanting to work, or living in the right areas or even have the skills. It’s all a bit shit. Good job those wealthy tax avoiders can get relief by flying off to their yachts. I do worry they may get stressed!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To benefit from this scheme you have to have no money and no house. Where’s the incentive to work hard and buy a house. Exactly let's encourage the jobless to let food rot in fields coz there are no Romanians to pick it?"fruit pickers will do well to have 100k still saved by teh time they get to care stage ... Outside house ownership i suspect many won't have this much saved at retirement let alone having lived off it for a number of years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford." Means testing means in many cases rewarding the lazy and feckless who blew their earnings whilst making those who worked hard, saved hard and invested in bettering themselves carry the cost. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To benefit from this scheme you have to have no money and no house. Where’s the incentive to work hard and buy a house. Exactly let's encourage the jobless to let food rot in fields coz there are no Romanians to pick it? fruit pickers will do well to have 100k still saved by teh time they get to care stage ... Outside house ownership i suspect many won't have this much saved at retirement let alone having lived off it for a number of years. "Oh I think you might be very surprised just how hard working and financially wise some Romanian farm workers are! Why are you taking house ownership out, current assessment regards needing to find care costs includes homes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement of 1.2% on NI isn't going to go to ease the social care crisis. It's going to the huge wastage of NHS" It’s not just 1.2%. Employers have to contribute too, in reality what additional employer contributions means is your next 1.2% of pay rises isn’t going to happen... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement of 1.2% on NI isn't going to go to ease the social care crisis. It's going to the huge wastage of NHS It’s not just 1.2%. Employers have to contribute too, in reality what additional employer contributions means is your next 1.2% of pay rises isn’t going to happen..." So on a 50p an hour pay rise, you'd lose 6p of it. Or £2.40ish a week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement of 1.2% on NI isn't going to go to ease the social care crisis. It's going to the huge wastage of NHS It’s not just 1.2%. Employers have to contribute too, in reality what additional employer contributions means is your next 1.2% of pay rises isn’t going to happen... So on a 50p an hour pay rise, you'd lose 6p of it. Or £2.40ish a week. " I think they mean that any payrise is offest by the NI increase this year. Your take home won't be more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's only a partial fix, The nhs is a leaky bucket financially and needs fixing.. " Incredibly, some trusts pay £1.68 for a pack of 100 adhesive plasters yet others shell out £21.76. And prices range from £761 to £3,669 for more than 200 different types of hip implant used on the NHS. " As for social care, it'll not fix the low wages, working conditions. Theres 112000 vacancies to be filled, it'll also be seen as an opportunity to milk the nhs even more by unscrupulous owners of care homes " Agree, what the different NHS trusts pay for the same items is outrageous. If not there should be a NHS data base on prices so all trusts get the same quality items at the best possible price. If there is already one it clearly is not working. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's only a partial fix, The nhs is a leaky bucket financially and needs fixing.. " Incredibly, some trusts pay £1.68 for a pack of 100 adhesive plasters yet others shell out £21.76. And prices range from £761 to £3,669 for more than 200 different types of hip implant used on the NHS. " As for social care, it'll not fix the low wages, working conditions. Theres 112000 vacancies to be filled, it'll also be seen as an opportunity to milk the nhs even more by unscrupulous owners of care homes Agree, what the different NHS trusts pay for the same items is outrageous. If not there should be a NHS data base on prices so all trusts get the same quality items at the best possible price. If there is already one it clearly is not working. " To be fair procurement across all Government departments and agencies is quite poor. Look at Defence! One might be suspicious that it's designed this way, as the conspiracy guys say "follow the money"... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement of 1.2% on NI isn't going to go to ease the social care crisis. It's going to the huge wastage of NHS It’s not just 1.2%. Employers have to contribute too, in reality what additional employer contributions means is your next 1.2% of pay rises isn’t going to happen... So on a 50p an hour pay rise, you'd lose 6p of it. Or £2.40ish a week. I think they mean that any payrise is offest by the NI increase this year. Your take home won't be more. " Yes. If your company was going to give you a 2% pay rise this year you will now get just a 0.8% rise or perhaps no rise at all, any of which is a real cuts to income given inflation bring well above 2%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad,I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... I've got health insurance, can I opt out of paying the NHS. Oh also, while we are all choosing what our money goes on, I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either. Plus I've not driven much this year, I'll take a refund on my road tax thanks. but this thread is about how to fund health and care,stop sending money abroad theres billions of quid right there that can be spent on it.why batter working people for more moneyI'd neither seek to take it from the poor nor the workers. Take it from someone's estate either via higher IHT or through earmarking some to HMT. Where is the rich line? 2 cars? Detached house? Foreign holiday every year? Kids in private school? Private lessons? Kung-fu? Piano? Have a motorcycle just for fun? Savings ? ........ communist state then?.....why mention rich? I'm talking poor. Poverty. There's plenty of space between the two to not feel rich nor poor. " I'm saying the poor line keeps moving, no Internet equals poor lol no foreign holiday.... poor ! Size 22 but starving! Yeah of course you are..... rich/poor line are connected | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To benefit from this scheme you have to have no money and no house. Where’s the incentive to work hard and buy a house. Exactly let's encourage the jobless to let food rot in fields coz there are no Romanians to pick it? fruit pickers will do well to have 100k still saved by teh time they get to care stage ... Outside house ownership i suspect many won't have this much saved at retirement let alone having lived off it for a number of years. "So if you cant earn big bucks don't work? What are you on about? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop foreign aid im pretty sure that will go a long way to covering care.ooops forgot people dont like the idea of stopping giving away billions in tax to other countrys Stop aid at home. Specifically the legal tax avoidance of the super rich and some corporations. Problem solved and aid to those who desperately need it can continue. nah id rather the tax thats paid in this country stays in this country to pay for stuff here rather than be tipped into the bottomless pit that is aid to other countrys,i wonder how much would be given away if u could opt out of your tax being spent abroad,I wonder what would happen if we could opt out of supporting benefits here too ... I've got health insurance, can I opt out of paying the NHS. Oh also, while we are all choosing what our money goes on, I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either. Plus I've not driven much this year, I'll take a refund on my road tax thanks. but this thread is about how to fund health and care,stop sending money abroad theres billions of quid right there that can be spent on it.why batter working people for more moneyI'd neither seek to take it from the poor nor the workers. Take it from someone's estate either via higher IHT or through earmarking some to HMT. Where is the rich line? 2 cars? Detached house? Foreign holiday every year? Kids in private school? Private lessons? Kung-fu? Piano? Have a motorcycle just for fun? Savings ? ........ communist state then?.....why mention rich? I'm talking poor. Poverty. There's plenty of space between the two to not feel rich nor poor. I'm saying the poor line keeps moving, no Internet equals poor lol no foreign holiday.... poor ! Size 22 but starving! Yeah of course you are..... rich/poor line are connected " I'm truly lost. But when I mentioned poor above I meant poverty. As in those who benefit from foreign aid. Plenty of old folks who spend money on internet, foreign holidays and thw like who could have been saving for twjie care costs if that's the line to take ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change The UC cut is a reversion to the pre-Covid amount; but the point I was making is that it's going to happen at at time when the government are seriously thinking about shifting a chunk of the financial burden for social care, from the wealthy, and onto the working poor, through increasing NICs. As for defining wealth, I don't know how the government currently assess it; but I do know that those they define as living in food poverty, energy poverty and working for the minimum wage - as many carers do - shouldn't be expected to bail out the person whose arse they're washing, whose home is worth over £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000 - whatever you like. I see, so not a cut in UC after all. I do agree that those not earning enough to pay tax or out of work should not be expected to pay. However those that pay tax should. I think the income tax system would be best rather than NI but not a tax guru. I'm thinking it will be fairer as the more you earn the more you pay. How would you define wealth? Is it money in the bank that you would take from them. Does it include assets like houses ect. Would you force someone to sell there home and take some of the proceeds. How do you differentiate for the different areas. Just saying take from the rich is not a simple as it sounds A reversion to what it was before IS a cut. Or are you telling me that it won't be missed by those receiving it; because their circumstances have improved so much? I agree with you on an income based tax for funding care. That said, means testing is still an element that should be included. As for defining wealth, I already gave you a hint on that one. But let's try a more concrete example. Why should someone who owns two homes be bailed out by someone who cannot - even though they are working - afford the rent on one home; and have to have it paid via the Housing Benefit element of their Universal Credit? If anyone thinks such an example is extreme, I can assure you that it isn't. If anyone thinks it's fair - and many Tories are, actually, fine with it; then there's something wrong with them. A couple of days ago, in The Telegraph, a member of the Cabinet was reported as saying this: “After all that’s happened in the last 18 months they can’t seriously be thinking about a tax raid on supermarket workers and nurses so the children of Surrey homeowners can receive bigger inheritances.” That's essentially my initial argument. The fact that a Tory has recognised it as the wrong thing to do, from a moral point of view, won't make any difference. They are devoid of morals. All they care about is money. Personally I think if you put a credit up and then back down again its reverting not cutting. If they put it lower than it was before then it would be a cut. This new tax could be an example. So we are looking at an increase of 1.25%. If later on they (highly unlikely) reduce it to 0.25% can they claim a tax reduction. So now we are talking about people with 2 houses-Thats changed already. How did they get these houses? Please define what you mean by wealth is it bank balance only or include assets? How do you differentiate between areas as property prices can be very different in different parts of the country. I do not favour this NI increase as would prefer to see it on income tax instead. I see anyone with below £20k will not have to pay anything and those with more still have to pay up to £86k so hardly getting it for free. A comment I heard on the radio this evening got me thinking is why do we pay for this care separately. Their point was if we get cancer or another long term health issue we are not asked to pay for it and no one wants to take your home. If you get dementia then for some reason you have to pay" I don't believe that even you think someone who owns two homes is not wealthy. I have a friend who owns four properties - three of which he bought to rent. His initial stake to buy these properties was his redundancy payment - he was a miner. Btw, he's fucking loaded - and it's money and assets. He's a great guy - but he's not so full of shit as to deny he's wealthy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having heard what's actually been proposed - and voted on; it occurs to me that - yet again - the Tories have gone all socialist. Since the pandemic, they've been borrowing/spending to benefit the many, rather than just the few, all over the place. Now they're going to be increasing taxes - and not just on the poorest in society, either. Obviously, I'm ok with that. The more left-wing policies they adopt, the nearer they get to the centre and the further they withdraw from the extreme right they drifted off to, resulting in Brexit. Clearly, what is now to become law, is not ideal. There were better approaches that could have been tried. That said, if some rich people getting to keep their houses means that nobody poor has to pay for care; is that such a bad thing? Really? The most interesting part of the new law was the intention to tax working pensioners. I'm not against that - but what I would like to know is this ... will that apply to members of the House of Lords?" Workers in social care will still get low wages, unsocial and long hours and less wages via more ni payments People will still have to sell their homes Extra tax will go into the bottomless pit of the nhs where contractors and suppliers will milk the nhs with extortion for example extortionate procurement.. £10 for a box of paracetamol, £20 box of disposable gloves... The gravy train keeps rolling for the ill deserved rich and the bullington club eaton pie scoffing tories... Whoopee fucking doo.. The world is a wonderful place  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i'm not particularly bothered. the tory government have created an environment where i can offset any tax increase by charging people more. in fact it gives me good cover to increase prices more than needed to cover any tax increase so i get to make nice chunck of extra money on top without any one noticing. my overseas bankers will be pleased to have my uk profits removed from the uk economy and invested in their countries banks. it's a win win to be honest. "You run a business i take it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having heard what's actually been proposed - and voted on; it occurs to me that - yet again - the Tories have gone all socialist. Since the pandemic, they've been borrowing/spending to benefit the many, rather than just the few, all over the place. Now they're going to be increasing taxes - and not just on the poorest in society, either. Obviously, I'm ok with that. The more left-wing policies they adopt, the nearer they get to the centre and the further they withdraw from the extreme right they drifted off to, resulting in Brexit. Clearly, what is now to become law, is not ideal. There were better approaches that could have been tried. That said, if some rich people getting to keep their houses means that nobody poor has to pay for care; is that such a bad thing? Really? The most interesting part of the new law was the intention to tax working pensioners. I'm not against that - but what I would like to know is this ... will that apply to members of the House of Lords? Workers in social care will still get low wages, unsocial and long hours and less wages via more ni payments People will still have to sell their homes Extra tax will go into the bottomless pit of the nhs where contractors and suppliers will milk the nhs with extortion for example extortionate procurement.. £10 for a box of paracetamol, £20 box of disposable gloves... The gravy train keeps rolling for the ill deserved rich and the bullington club eaton pie scoffing tories... Whoopee fucking doo.. The world is a wonderful place "pmsl you think money is only being milked from the nhs under the torys lol,suppliers have been ripping off the nhs for decades,its tax payers money nhs managment dont worry about it because they know its a never ending supply of cash | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"suppliers have been ripping off the nhs for decades,its tax payers money nhs managment dont worry about it because they know its a never ending supply of cash" so what has prevented the tory government from stopping this happening for the last 11 years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sell the BBC and use the money to fund NHS The BBC are long past the point of use for the peoples of the UK. Over paid and over sexed. " Going to have to disagree there. Virtually anyone that listens to radio listens to some (or all) BBC. Which is a lot of the population. I am less happy with the BBC's present news and current affairs output, but that is just an element of what they do. The Drama, documentary, investigative journalism, comedy etc. that they do is still of a high standard, and often gives coverage to things commercial organisations would not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having heard what's actually been proposed - and voted on; it occurs to me that - yet again - the Tories have gone all socialist. Since the pandemic, they've been borrowing/spending to benefit the many, rather than just the few, all over the place. Now they're going to be increasing taxes - and not just on the poorest in society, either. Obviously, I'm ok with that. The more left-wing policies they adopt, the nearer they get to the centre and the further they withdraw from the extreme right they drifted off to, resulting in Brexit. Clearly, what is now to become law, is not ideal. There were better approaches that could have been tried. That said, if some rich people getting to keep their houses means that nobody poor has to pay for care; is that such a bad thing? Really? The most interesting part of the new law was the intention to tax working pensioners. I'm not against that - but what I would like to know is this ... will that apply to members of the House of Lords? Workers in social care will still get low wages, unsocial and long hours and less wages via more ni payments People will still have to sell their homes Extra tax will go into the bottomless pit of the nhs where contractors and suppliers will milk the nhs with extortion for example extortionate procurement.. £10 for a box of paracetamol, £20 box of disposable gloves... The gravy train keeps rolling for the ill deserved rich and the bullington club eaton pie scoffing tories... Whoopee fucking doo.. The world is a wonderful place "That's shit managers and a shit system that doesn't let managers bargain with suppliers..... Yes it's mad! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sell the BBC and use the money to fund NHS The BBC are long past the point of use for the peoples of the UK. Over paid and over sexed." the 350 mil per week from the big red righty bus is still yet to happen. maybe waiting to see if it ever arrives before selling off the small remainder of what the country collectively owns first | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sell the BBC and use the money to fund NHS The BBC are long past the point of use for the peoples of the UK. Over paid and over sexed." Yes then have no chance of a national media which we can trust. Would you trust the Daily Mail for all your news?? It’s the same principal of a media owned by Boris supporters . Who do you think will buy the shares? P The bbc is being muzzled right now but if they can manage to fight back it would show this government for who they really are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trying to find the bit about the allowances “not including accommodation” does this mean basically there is no change to selling your house as the accommodation will quickly ramp up. Also is only 20-25% of this new NI going on social care? More bullshit about reform. " I'd be surprised if social care got anything like 20-25%. Most likely it will be swallowed up by the NHS | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trying to find the bit about the allowances “not including accommodation” does this mean basically there is no change to selling your house as the accommodation will quickly ramp up. Also is only 20-25% of this new NI going on social care? More bullshit about reform. I'd be surprised if social care got anything like 20-25%. Most likely it will be swallowed up by the NHS" One admin to one front line worker. What service industry could actually survive with those ratios? It’s mad! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having heard what's actually been proposed - and voted on; it occurs to me that - yet again - the Tories have gone all socialist. Since the pandemic, they've been borrowing/spending to benefit the many, rather than just the few, all over the place. Now they're going to be increasing taxes - and not just on the poorest in society, either. Obviously, I'm ok with that. The more left-wing policies they adopt, the nearer they get to the centre and the further they withdraw from the extreme right they drifted off to, resulting in Brexit. Clearly, what is now to become law, is not ideal. There were better approaches that could have been tried. That said, if some rich people getting to keep their houses means that nobody poor has to pay for care; is that such a bad thing? Really? The most interesting part of the new law was the intention to tax working pensioners. I'm not against that - but what I would like to know is this ... will that apply to members of the House of Lords? Workers in social care will still get low wages, unsocial and long hours and less wages via more ni payments People will still have to sell their homes Extra tax will go into the bottomless pit of the nhs where contractors and suppliers will milk the nhs with extortion for example extortionate procurement.. £10 for a box of paracetamol, £20 box of disposable gloves... The gravy train keeps rolling for the ill deserved rich and the bullington club eaton pie scoffing tories... Whoopee fucking doo.. The world is a wonderful place pmsl you think money is only being milked from the nhs under the torys lol,suppliers have been ripping off the nhs for decades,its tax payers money nhs managment dont worry about it because they know its a never ending supply of cash"Yep, I was in the nhs in the 80s when thatcher was in, fancy plush managers offices with fancy expensive swivel chairs, yet I struggled to find blankets for patients, especially during nightshift | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By the way, has everyone noticed that the NI rises and £86,000 cap only applies to the cost of care. You will still need to sell your house to cover the cost of food and accommodation if you are taken into residential care. Also, when everybody has got into paying for insurance to cover the possible £86,000 fee, our lorda and masters will extend 'care' to any care - maybe even cancer care because it would be unfair for only dementia patients to pay out. Once everybody has got the hang of paying for additional insurance 'hey presto' private health care for the entire country and good bye NHS. Its what they have wanted for years. Am I wrong?" and the 86 cap will become 90.... 95... my pension keeps moving away from me! however, we need to decide what we want the nhs to cover, social care to cover and then make sure its run well and managers lose their pensions if found out to be on the rob! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By the way, has everyone noticed that the NI rises and £86,000 cap only applies to the cost of care. You will still need to sell your house to cover the cost of food and accommodation if you are taken into residential care. Also, when everybody has got into paying for insurance to cover the possible £86,000 fee, our lorda and masters will extend 'care' to any care - maybe even cancer care because it would be unfair for only dementia patients to pay out. Once everybody has got the hang of paying for additional insurance 'hey presto' private health care for the entire country and good bye NHS. Its what they have wanted for years. Am I wrong? and the 86 cap will become 90.... 95... my pension keeps moving away from me! however, we need to decide what we want the nhs to cover, social care to cover and then make sure its run well and managers lose their pensions if found out to be on the rob! " I think at this point fighting for the NHS is a lost cause. It's already screwed. The best bits (i.e. the most lucrative) are already privatised, once the rest has been run down a bit more it will follow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By the way, has everyone noticed that the NI rises and £86,000 cap only applies to the cost of care. You will still need to sell your house to cover the cost of food and accommodation if you are taken into residential care. Also, when everybody has got into paying for insurance to cover the possible £86,000 fee, our lorda and masters will extend 'care' to any care - maybe even cancer care because it would be unfair for only dementia patients to pay out. Once everybody has got the hang of paying for additional insurance 'hey presto' private health care for the entire country and good bye NHS. Its what they have wanted for years. Am I wrong? and the 86 cap will become 90.... 95... my pension keeps moving away from me! however, we need to decide what we want the nhs to cover, social care to cover and then make sure its run well and managers lose their pensions if found out to be on the rob!" I don’t think managers need to be robbing anyone. The perks are good enough. I think the excessive cost of the NHS is down to poor management through and through with no accountability. My ex worked with a number of local NHS Directors and by June one of them had taken 44 days holiday without a tally being taken (only by my ex who kept records. How is that possible ? The answer is the other directors aren’t responsible for cash so they don’t care and do the same. We need a body to challenge the system and clean out the wastes of space who not only cost a fortune but stop more cleaners, front line admin, nurses and doctors being employed. Oh and better drugs and machines. (CQC run by ex NHS and more clinical care.) They still employ admin managers to manage Directors PA’s FFS! . Why can’t directors share PA’s btw?? If they actually need them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One admin to one front line worker. What service industry could actually survive with those ratios? It’s mad! " i doubt you can find data to show what you claim but let's indulge your assertion and make those frontline workers do their own admin or at best increase the workload of back room admin staff | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having heard what's actually been proposed - and voted on; it occurs to me that - yet again - the Tories have gone all socialist. Since the pandemic, they've been borrowing/spending to benefit the many, rather than just the few, all over the place. Now they're going to be increasing taxes - and not just on the poorest in society, either. Obviously, I'm ok with that. The more left-wing policies they adopt, the nearer they get to the centre and the further they withdraw from the extreme right they drifted off to, resulting in Brexit. Clearly, what is now to become law, is not ideal. There were better approaches that could have been tried. That said, if some rich people getting to keep their houses means that nobody poor has to pay for care; is that such a bad thing? Really? The most interesting part of the new law was the intention to tax working pensioners. I'm not against that - but what I would like to know is this ... will that apply to members of the House of Lords?" Of course not their £300 per day is a tax free allowance . It’s being defended by ministers and guess where a lot of those ministers end up?? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2016-17/Finance_Bill/06-0_2016-07-07c.228.3 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One admin to one front line worker. What service industry could actually survive with those ratios? It’s mad! i doubt you can find data to show what you claim but let's indulge your assertion and make those frontline workers do their own admin or at best increase the workload of back room admin staff " Kind of you to indulge me 
Feel free to read the attached. The kings fund although dated I believe more now work for the NHS
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/how-many-managers
Full fact approaches from a different question
https://fullfact.org/news/two-managers-every-nurse-our-nhs/
Nuffield try to smooth it over but result is similar .
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the-nhs-workforce-in-numbers
PA’s a do not need managers and the level of work carried out by the majority of Directors means they can share PAs and as you say do a lot of their own work.
I couldn’t disappear for 44 days in 6 months without some work falling over . How can they? It’s because they aren’t busy.
A good friend of mine oversaw a brand new £3m building erected partly to house her team of social workers. It is stated of the with various large meeting and lecture rooms .
Within a month she had taken forty staff to Harrogate for three days to present a new structure and roles. No team building just admin and if you say £300 per person for accommodation plus food so another £300
It comes to £24k .. just a disgraceful use of tax payers money. I did challenge her and she said we need to invest and wanted it to be a nice environment for the staff to work in. That £3m must have created a right dump!
I bit my tongue very hard after that as we started to fall out. I was good friends with her husband so didn’t want to push it .
I want those who work hard in the NHS along with social careers rewarded and well supported. It’s not a bad want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having heard what's actually been proposed - and voted on; it occurs to me that - yet again - the Tories have gone all socialist. Since the pandemic, they've been borrowing/spending to benefit the many, rather than just the few, all over the place. Now they're going to be increasing taxes - and not just on the poorest in society, either. Obviously, I'm ok with that. The more left-wing policies they adopt, the nearer they get to the centre and the further they withdraw from the extreme right they drifted off to, resulting in Brexit. Clearly, what is now to become law, is not ideal. There were better approaches that could have been tried. That said, if some rich people getting to keep their houses means that nobody poor has to pay for care; is that such a bad thing? Really? The most interesting part of the new law was the intention to tax working pensioners. I'm not against that - but what I would like to know is this ... will that apply to members of the House of Lords? Of course not their £300 per day is a tax free allowance . It’s being defended by ministers and guess where a lot of those ministers end up?? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2016-17/Finance_Bill/06-0_2016-07-07c.228.3 " I was, of course, kidding. Good to have their hypocrisy confirmed, though. Thank you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"suppliers have been ripping off the nhs for decades,its tax payers money nhs managment dont worry about it because they know its a never ending supply of cash so what has prevented the tory government from stopping this happening for the last 11 years?" probably what stopped labour doing anything about when they were last in i imagine,its tax payers money why should any of them give a fuck if its wasted,they can just tap the public up for more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By the way, has everyone noticed that the NI rises and £86,000 cap only applies to the cost of care. You will still need to sell your house to cover the cost of food and accommodation if you are taken into residential care. Also, when everybody has got into paying for insurance to cover the possible £86,000 fee, our lorda and masters will extend 'care' to any care - maybe even cancer care because it would be unfair for only dementia patients to pay out. Once everybody has got the hang of paying for additional insurance 'hey presto' private health care for the entire country and good bye NHS. Its what they have wanted for years. Am I wrong? and the 86 cap will become 90.... 95... my pension keeps moving away from me! however, we need to decide what we want the nhs to cover, social care to cover and then make sure its run well and managers lose their pensions if found out to be on the rob! I don’t think managers need to be robbing anyone. The perks are good enough. I think the excessive cost of the NHS is down to poor management through and through with no accountability. My ex worked with a number of local NHS Directors and by June one of them had taken 44 days holiday without a tally being taken (only by my ex who kept records. How is that possible ? The answer is the other directors aren’t responsible for cash so they don’t care and do the same. We need a body to challenge the system and clean out the wastes of space who not only cost a fortune but stop more cleaners, front line admin, nurses and doctors being employed. Oh and better drugs and machines. (CQC run by ex NHS and more clinical care.) They still employ admin managers to manage Directors PA’s FFS! . Why can’t directors share PA’s btw?? If they actually need them. " i was generalizing with the term rob, run badly etc etc like the bankers, get a bonus for being shit and then run.... we need to claw back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems my doubts are justified as you are conflating 'frontline' staff to nurses in your reply. frontline staff are also hotel services, estates, motorpool, allied health professionals, clinical support, scientific, theraputic, technical, ambulance services, practice nurses, GP's, HCHS doctors, trainees, students etc etc. and let's not forget that a massive number of admin staff are patient facing, so also front line. figures in the latest ONS, Nuffield Trust show the ratios are quite different from your wild claims. i would agree with the kingsfund conclusions in their 24 june 2021 report that better quality admin without reduction in numbers would improve the NHS hugely but that this is unachievable on the current average of aprox £21,00 per annum wages. "are you a admin worker by any chance? better quality admin lol what does that actually mean? stop losing shit and record stuff properly? wow that would be better quality lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"probably what stopped labour doing anything about when they were last in i imagine." no answer to the question aside from a overactive imagination and some 11 year old waffle about labour. that explains over a decade of right wing policy then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"better quality admin lol what does that actually mean? " sensible people would read the report named in the post to which you are replying to get the answer to that question. hope that helps | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"better quality admin lol what does that actually mean? sensible people would read the report named in the post to which you are replying to get the answer to that question. hope that helps "sensible people would not waste their time  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems my doubts are justified as you are conflating 'frontline' staff to nurses in your reply. frontline staff are also hotel services, estates, motorpool, allied health professionals, clinical support, scientific, theraputic, technical, ambulance services, practice nurses, GP's, HCHS doctors, trainees, students etc etc. and let's not forget that a massive number of admin staff are patient facing, so also front line. figures in the latest ONS, Nuffield Trust show the ratios are quite different from your wild claims. i would agree with the kingsfund conclusions in their 24 june 2021 report that better quality admin without reduction in numbers would improve the NHS hugely but that this is unachievable on the current average of aprox £21,00 per annum wages. "The term your looking for is clinical support staff and in all cases its a huge number. Your confusing my claim that the service is overburdened with admin, with the reality they DO need admin staff frontline or otherwise. The facts in the kings fund chart the are Clinical support staff - Admin. 225,000 ( this may include auxiliaries so can’t claim 100% ) Hotel property - Procurement and admin ( not bed makers). 55;000 Central functions - 63,000 admin / managers / procurement / IT ( no patient interaction) GP reception staff Admin 52,000 Managers 23,000 Toatal. 418,000 out of a total of 873,000 if you halved the clinical support you still get 30% and in the last 10 years the number of staff has increased by around 400k . I don’t recall that many nurses being employed? Don’t think I’m far off. I ask again what service business could support these ratios? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By the way, has everyone noticed that the NI rises and £86,000 cap only applies to the cost of care. You will still need to sell your house to cover the cost of food and accommodation if you are taken into residential care. Also, when everybody has got into paying for insurance to cover the possible £86,000 fee, our lorda and masters will extend 'care' to any care - maybe even cancer care because it would be unfair for only dementia patients to pay out. Once everybody has got the hang of paying for additional insurance 'hey presto' private health care for the entire country and good bye NHS. Its what they have wanted for years. Am I wrong? and the 86 cap will become 90.... 95... my pension keeps moving away from me! however, we need to decide what we want the nhs to cover, social care to cover and then make sure its run well and managers lose their pensions if found out to be on the rob! I don’t think managers need to be robbing anyone. The perks are good enough. I think the excessive cost of the NHS is down to poor management through and through with no accountability. My ex worked with a number of local NHS Directors and by June one of them had taken 44 days holiday without a tally being taken (only by my ex who kept records. How is that possible ? The answer is the other directors aren’t responsible for cash so they don’t care and do the same. We need a body to challenge the system and clean out the wastes of space who not only cost a fortune but stop more cleaners, front line admin, nurses and doctors being employed. Oh and better drugs and machines. (CQC run by ex NHS and more clinical care.) They still employ admin managers to manage Directors PA’s FFS! . Why can’t directors share PA’s btw?? If they actually need them. i was generalizing with the term rob, run badly etc etc like the bankers, get a bonus for being shit and then run.... we need to claw back." I know you were generalising so didn’t mean to be too critical. I just think the monster it’s now become with no financial control is making it lurch around just throwing money at everything. I actually think the NHS should get better management in. ( not consultants but vested interested employees). The crap leadership is doing a compete disservice to the many wonderful people who work in the NHS. I don’t want to see funding cuts I just want the money spent better. I think the same of the benefits system which is generous to some who take advantage but mean to others who genuinely need help. We have the Tory party in power for most of the last 50 years and yet with the party of prudence. Our economy has grown and yet even before Covid we have never owed so much. I think we are being had. This type of government is not working for the people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By the way, has everyone noticed that the NI rises and £86,000 cap only applies to the cost of care. You will still need to sell your house to cover the cost of food and accommodation if you are taken into residential care. Also, when everybody has got into paying for insurance to cover the possible £86,000 fee, our lorda and masters will extend 'care' to any care - maybe even cancer care because it would be unfair for only dementia patients to pay out. Once everybody has got the hang of paying for additional insurance 'hey presto' private health care for the entire country and good bye NHS. Its what they have wanted for years. Am I wrong? and the 86 cap will become 90.... 95... my pension keeps moving away from me! however, we need to decide what we want the nhs to cover, social care to cover and then make sure its run well and managers lose their pensions if found out to be on the rob! I don’t think managers need to be robbing anyone. The perks are good enough. I think the excessive cost of the NHS is down to poor management through and through with no accountability. My ex worked with a number of local NHS Directors and by June one of them had taken 44 days holiday without a tally being taken (only by my ex who kept records. How is that possible ? The answer is the other directors aren’t responsible for cash so they don’t care and do the same. We need a body to challenge the system and clean out the wastes of space who not only cost a fortune but stop more cleaners, front line admin, nurses and doctors being employed. Oh and better drugs and machines. (CQC run by ex NHS and more clinical care.) They still employ admin managers to manage Directors PA’s FFS! . Why can’t directors share PA’s btw?? If they actually need them. i was generalizing with the term rob, run badly etc etc like the bankers, get a bonus for being shit and then run.... we need to claw back. I know you were generalising so didn’t mean to be too critical. I just think the monster it’s now become with no financial control is making it lurch around just throwing money at everything. I actually think the NHS should get better management in. ( not consultants but vested interested employees). The crap leadership is doing a compete disservice to the many wonderful people who work in the NHS. I don’t want to see funding cuts I just want the money spent better. I think the same of the benefits system which is generous to some who take advantage but mean to others who genuinely need help. We have the Tory party in power for most of the last 50 years and yet with the party of prudence. Our economy has grown and yet even before Covid we have never owed so much. I think we are being had. This type of government is not working for the people. " Agree, big Hungry out of control monster, wants chopping up and rebuild. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems my doubts are justified as you are conflating 'frontline' staff to nurses in your reply. frontline staff are also hotel services, estates, motorpool, allied health professionals, clinical support, scientific, theraputic, technical, ambulance services, practice nurses, GP's, HCHS doctors, trainees, students etc etc. and let's not forget that a massive number of admin staff are patient facing, so also front line. figures in the latest ONS, Nuffield Trust show the ratios are quite different from your wild claims. i would agree with the kingsfund conclusions in their 24 june 2021 report that better quality admin without reduction in numbers would improve the NHS hugely but that this is unachievable on the current average of aprox £21,00 per annum wages.
The term your looking for is clinical support staff and in all cases its a huge number.
Your confusing my claim that the service is overburdened with admin, with the reality they DO need admin staff frontline or otherwise.
The facts in the kings fund chart the are
Clinical support staff - Admin. 225,000 ( this may include auxiliaries so can’t claim 100% )
Hotel property - Procurement and admin ( not bed makers). 55;000
Central functions - 63,000 admin / managers / procurement / IT ( no patient interaction)
GP reception staff Admin 52,000
Managers 23,000
Toatal. 418,000 out of a total of 873,000 if you halved the clinical support you still get 30% and in the last 10 years the number of staff has increased by around 400k . I don’t recall that many nurses being employed? Don’t think I’m far off.
I ask again what service business could support these ratios?
"again you've lumped frontline staff into admin roles with your wild claims | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the government announced that there might need to increase in NI to fund social care. Opposition have decided yet, but elements are suggesting an increase in capital gains tax. What other tax alternatives could solve the social care problem? Means testing is still the best way. The only reason it's going to get scrapped is that it's "unfair" on the wealthy. That most of them vote Tory is a coincidence, I'm sure. If they go for an increase in NICs - which seems likely, the elderly won't be bearing the burden - the young will. Again, it's purely coincidence, but it won't be Tory voters who are coughing up. Obviously, having to use your great wealth, most of it wrapped up in the value of your house (which you intended to pass on to your family), to pay for your care is unfair; but you know what? So is life. The poorer members of society are about to have this demonstrated to them (yet again), when they have to pay more to see that the elderly rich are looked after, in a manner that means more of their wealth will be protected. So, just as the working poor have their UC cut by £80/month, just as their gas and electricity bills are going to increase, in the three months before Christmas; they can comfort themselves with the news that the extra NIC they are going to have to pay, will mean that a Tory won't have to be inconvenienced by paying a care bill they can easily afford. Should it only be the better off that contribute. How do you define it. Would it be bank balance, or also include assists like houses and cars. Where would the cut off be. I thought the UC cut was just reverting back to the pre lockdown amount. Are you talking of a different change The UC cut is a reversion to the pre-Covid amount; but the point I was making is that it's going to happen at at time when the government are seriously thinking about shifting a chunk of the financial burden for social care, from the wealthy, and onto the working poor, through increasing NICs. As for defining wealth, I don't know how the government currently assess it; but I do know that those they define as living in food poverty, energy poverty and working for the minimum wage - as many carers do - shouldn't be expected to bail out the person whose arse they're washing, whose home is worth over £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000 - whatever you like. I see, so not a cut in UC after all. I do agree that those not earning enough to pay tax or out of work should not be expected to pay. However those that pay tax should. I think the income tax system would be best rather than NI but not a tax guru. I'm thinking it will be fairer as the more you earn the more you pay. How would you define wealth? Is it money in the bank that you would take from them. Does it include assets like houses ect. Would you force someone to sell there home and take some of the proceeds. How do you differentiate for the different areas. Just saying take from the rich is not a simple as it sounds A reversion to what it was before IS a cut. Or are you telling me that it won't be missed by those receiving it; because their circumstances have improved so much? I agree with you on an income based tax for funding care. That said, means testing is still an element that should be included. As for defining wealth, I already gave you a hint on that one. But let's try a more concrete example. Why should someone who owns two homes be bailed out by someone who cannot - even though they are working - afford the rent on one home; and have to have it paid via the Housing Benefit element of their Universal Credit? If anyone thinks such an example is extreme, I can assure you that it isn't. If anyone thinks it's fair - and many Tories are, actually, fine with it; then there's something wrong with them. A couple of days ago, in The Telegraph, a member of the Cabinet was reported as saying this: “After all that’s happened in the last 18 months they can’t seriously be thinking about a tax raid on supermarket workers and nurses so the children of Surrey homeowners can receive bigger inheritances.” That's essentially my initial argument. The fact that a Tory has recognised it as the wrong thing to do, from a moral point of view, won't make any difference. They are devoid of morals. All they care about is money. Personally I think if you put a credit up and then back down again its reverting not cutting. If they put it lower than it was before then it would be a cut. This new tax could be an example. So we are looking at an increase of 1.25%. If later on they (highly unlikely) reduce it to 0.25% can they claim a tax reduction. So now we are talking about people with 2 houses-Thats changed already. How did they get these houses? Please define what you mean by wealth is it bank balance only or include assets? How do you differentiate between areas as property prices can be very different in different parts of the country. I do not favour this NI increase as would prefer to see it on income tax instead. I see anyone with below £20k will not have to pay anything and those with more still have to pay up to £86k so hardly getting it for free. A comment I heard on the radio this evening got me thinking is why do we pay for this care separately. Their point was if we get cancer or another long term health issue we are not asked to pay for it and no one wants to take your home. If you get dementia then for some reason you have to pay I don't believe that even you think someone who owns two homes is not wealthy. I have a friend who owns four properties - three of which he bought to rent. His initial stake to buy these properties was his redundancy payment - he was a miner. Btw, he's fucking loaded - and it's money and assets. He's a great guy - but he's not so full of shit as to deny he's wealthy." I did not claim anyone was or was not wealthy I asked you what you consider as wealthy if you were to implement taking money / propety away from them. I have not actually had an answer. The reason I ask is currently people who happen to own their own house face having to sell it to fund care. These are not mega rich people with mansions or multiple houses but normal people who decided to buy rather than rent. Should they be forced to sell up? Personally I would prefer people to be able to pass propety onto their children. It gives them a start and of course they do not then add to those seeking rented houses which in turn pushes rent up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems my doubts are justified as you are conflating 'frontline' staff to nurses in your reply. frontline staff are also hotel services, estates, motorpool, allied health professionals, clinical support, scientific, theraputic, technical, ambulance services, practice nurses, GP's, HCHS doctors, trainees, students etc etc. and let's not forget that a massive number of admin staff are patient facing, so also front line. figures in the latest ONS, Nuffield Trust show the ratios are quite different from your wild claims. i would agree with the kingsfund conclusions in their 24 june 2021 report that better quality admin without reduction in numbers would improve the NHS hugely but that this is unachievable on the current average of aprox £21,00 per annum wages.
The term your looking for is clinical support staff and in all cases its a huge number.
Your confusing my claim that the service is overburdened with admin, with the reality they DO need admin staff frontline or otherwise.
The facts in the kings fund chart the are
Clinical support staff - Admin. 225,000 ( this may include auxiliaries so can’t claim 100% )
Hotel property - Procurement and admin ( not bed makers). 55;000
Central functions - 63,000 admin / managers / procurement / IT ( no patient interaction)
GP reception staff Admin 52,000
Managers 23,000
Toatal. 418,000 out of a total of 873,000 if you halved the clinical support you still get 30% and in the last 10 years the number of staff has increased by around 400k . I don’t recall that many nurses being employed? Don’t think I’m far off.
I ask again what service business could support these ratios?
again you've lumped frontline staff into admin roles with your wild claims"Why do you use adverbs (wild) to put your argument. There’s nothing “wild” about my statement. Front line receptionist is admin is it not? You’re using the semantics of different job descriptions to make a point but not effecting my claim. Whilst the receptionist is needed as in my above post the point is the receptionist is support staff to enable treatment. Same goes for the guy who orders new wheelchairs or gowns etc etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems my doubts are justified as you are conflating 'frontline' staff to nurses in your reply. frontline staff are also hotel services, estates, motorpool, allied health professionals, clinical support, scientific, theraputic, technical, ambulance services, practice nurses, GP's, HCHS doctors, trainees, students etc etc. and let's not forget that a massive number of admin staff are patient facing, so also front line. figures in the latest ONS, Nuffield Trust show the ratios are quite different from your wild claims. i would agree with the kingsfund conclusions in their 24 june 2021 report that better quality admin without reduction in numbers would improve the NHS hugely but that this is unachievable on the current average of aprox £21,00 per annum wages.
The term your looking for is clinical support staff and in all cases its a huge number.
Your confusing my claim that the service is overburdened with admin, with the reality they DO need admin staff frontline or otherwise.
The facts in the kings fund chart the are
Clinical support staff - Admin. 225,000 ( this may include auxiliaries so can’t claim 100% )
Hotel property - Procurement and admin ( not bed makers). 55;000
Central functions - 63,000 admin / managers / procurement / IT ( no patient interaction)
GP reception staff Admin 52,000
Managers 23,000
Toatal. 418,000 out of a total of 873,000 if you halved the clinical support you still get 30% and in the last 10 years the number of staff has increased by around 400k . I don’t recall that many nurses being employed? Don’t think I’m far off.
I ask again what service business could support these ratios?
again you've lumped frontline staff into admin roles with your wild claims
Why do you use adverbs (wild) to put your argument. There’s nothing “wild” about my statement.
Front line receptionist is admin is it not? You’re using the semantics of different job descriptions to make a point but not effecting my claim.
Whilst the receptionist is needed as in my above post the point is the receptionist is support staff to enable treatment.
Same goes for the guy who orders new wheelchairs or gowns etc etc. "Adverb?? …. I need a lie down!, adjective | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A cap is not related to wealth, so those with more assets benefit more. NI is a regressive tax, so the poorest will feel it more as every £1 loss has a bigger effect on them,yet they lose the same proportion of their salary as the wealthiest. An increase of the higher rate with a smaller increase in lower tax band's would be fairer. Corporation tax could be increased. NI penalises companies who employ more people irrespective of profits. It discourages recruitment and fetain As many have stated, with an election promise of a fully costed social care an with no tax rises, why are we here at all and what is the actual plan?" I'm not keen on the NI choice either. Would have preferred it on income tax. If it has to be NI then the top rate should have increased by more and maybe the standard rate increase a bit less. It definitely a gamble breaking a manifesto promise and could be a big mistake. Having said that if there was ever a time to do it then in the wake of a pandemic and with the opposition not exactly doing great now might be the best choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A cap is not related to wealth, so those with more assets benefit more. NI is a regressive tax, so the poorest will feel it more as every £1 loss has a bigger effect on them,yet they lose the same proportion of their salary as the wealthiest. An increase of the higher rate with a smaller increase in lower tax band's would be fairer. Corporation tax could be increased. NI penalises companies who employ more people irrespective of profits. It discourages recruitment and fetain As many have stated, with an election promise of a fully costed social care an with no tax rises, why are we here at all and what is the actual plan? I'm not keen on the NI choice either. Would have preferred it on income tax. If it has to be NI then the top rate should have increased by more and maybe the standard rate increase a bit less. It definitely a gamble breaking a manifesto promise and could be a big mistake. Having said that if there was ever a time to do it then in the wake of a pandemic and with the opposition not exactly doing great now might be the best choice." My question still stands though. What is the full social care plan that was ready in 2019 with no tax rise? What is happening now is in large part to cover a backlog. Completely unconnected. The implication is that this has all been made up on the hoof with no plan, which tends to lead to wasted money and poor outcomes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A cap is not related to wealth, so those with more assets benefit more. NI is a regressive tax, so the poorest will feel it more as every £1 loss has a bigger effect on them,yet they lose the same proportion of their salary as the wealthiest. An increase of the higher rate with a smaller increase in lower tax band's would be fairer. Corporation tax could be increased. NI penalises companies who employ more people irrespective of profits. It discourages recruitment and fetain As many have stated, with an election promise of a fully costed social care an with no tax rises, why are we here at all and what is the actual plan? I'm not keen on the NI choice either. Would have preferred it on income tax. If it has to be NI then the top rate should have increased by more and maybe the standard rate increase a bit less. It definitely a gamble breaking a manifesto promise and could be a big mistake. Having said that if there was ever a time to do it then in the wake of a pandemic and with the opposition not exactly doing great now might be the best choice. My question still stands though. What is the full social care plan that was ready in 2019 with no tax rise? What is happening now is in large part to cover a backlog. Completely unconnected. The implication is that this has all been made up on the hoof with no plan, which tends to lead to wasted money and poor outcomes." They have not revealed that information so don't know. Hope they don't waste money but government projects of all colours don't have a great track record | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A cap is not related to wealth, so those with more assets benefit more. NI is a regressive tax, so the poorest will feel it more as every £1 loss has a bigger effect on them,yet they lose the same proportion of their salary as the wealthiest. An increase of the higher rate with a smaller increase in lower tax band's would be fairer. Corporation tax could be increased. NI penalises companies who employ more people irrespective of profits. It discourages recruitment and fetain As many have stated, with an election promise of a fully costed social care an with no tax rises, why are we here at all and what is the actual plan? I'm not keen on the NI choice either. Would have preferred it on income tax. If it has to be NI then the top rate should have increased by more and maybe the standard rate increase a bit less. It definitely a gamble breaking a manifesto promise and could be a big mistake. Having said that if there was ever a time to do it then in the wake of a pandemic and with the opposition not exactly doing great now might be the best choice. My question still stands though. What is the full social care plan that was ready in 2019 with no tax rise? What is happening now is in large part to cover a backlog. Completely unconnected. The implication is that this has all been made up on the hoof with no plan, which tends to lead to wasted money and poor outcomes. They have not revealed that information so don't know. Hope they don't waste money but government projects of all colours don't have a great track record" That's my point though. They said that they had one in 2019 and no tax increase needed. Yet no information on the an and a tax increase. Were they telling a bare faced lie? Surely not?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A cap is not related to wealth, so those with more assets benefit more. NI is a regressive tax, so the poorest will feel it more as every £1 loss has a bigger effect on them,yet they lose the same proportion of their salary as the wealthiest. An increase of the higher rate with a smaller increase in lower tax band's would be fairer. Corporation tax could be increased. NI penalises companies who employ more people irrespective of profits. It discourages recruitment and fetain As many have stated, with an election promise of a fully costed social care an with no tax rises, why are we here at all and what is the actual plan? I'm not keen on the NI choice either. Would have preferred it on income tax. If it has to be NI then the top rate should have increased by more and maybe the standard rate increase a bit less. It definitely a gamble breaking a manifesto promise and could be a big mistake. Having said that if there was ever a time to do it then in the wake of a pandemic and with the opposition not exactly doing great now might be the best choice. My question still stands though. What is the full social care plan that was ready in 2019 with no tax rise? What is happening now is in large part to cover a backlog. Completely unconnected. The implication is that this has all been made up on the hoof with no plan, which tends to lead to wasted money and poor outcomes. They have not revealed that information so don't know. Hope they don't waste money but government projects of all colours don't have a great track record That's my point though. They said that they had one in 2019 and no tax increase needed. Yet no information on the an and a tax increase. Were they telling a bare faced lie? Surely not? "I know its the point and said as yet they have not released the information. I doubt now they will. Maybe SKS can ask, who knows. I would expect it will come up in the lead up to the next election if the opposition are on the ball. The last time I voted Labour was after the conservatives broke the same promise to not raise tax but on VAT instead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe there should be a tax on MPs. They're mostly wealthy. And that way they could actually do something good for the country for a change. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
