Great point.
It's such a perfect fit for both Boris(Who's only interested in spin)and for the Tory voters who only care about house prices and the spectacle of nationalism.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
It's such a perfect fit for both Boris(Who's only interested in spin)and for the Tory voters who only care about house prices and the spectacle of nationalism.
She's talking rubbish. Some women like it. As long as one doesn't apply pressure.
Over-40s in UK to pay more tax under plans to fix social care crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care
They kept that one quiet during the Election.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care
They kept that one quiet during the Election.
This is a great idea; about time. I would be amazed if Hancock has the balls and kudos to pull it off, though.
German model sounds more logical
Perhaps enhanced payments for over 40s now to catch up but a flat tax on everybody would seem more logical
Yeah anything like that that would be great, even if it has some issues and seems unable to cover the costs.
Surely it would make sense to adjust tax on wealth and income rather than age.
It is so stupid. Rich under 40s paying feck all tax while poor over 40s paying more.
It is a terrible idea. Tax should be based on wealth or income, not age.
As an alternative if we closed the tax loopholes, or even claimed the billions owed by companies like Amazon and Starbucks then it would not be necessary to increase tax on over 40s on a basic wage.
Maybe put the top rate of tax back up to 50p for high incomes as a start. They reduced tax for people earning over £150k from 50p to 45p per pound a few years ago. Now there is a blanket increase for all over 40s, rich or poor.
Tory logic.
I think it's fair to say that older people with above average income or wealth are the group that would be most able to pay more tax without any great difficulty, but quite what form that tax should take I'm not sure.
I was amazed for years that Tories would go on and on about inheritance tax, even the ones that weren't wealthy enough to pay it, but seemed to completely ignore the risk that they would lose the value if their house, however modest, if they went into care. I can only think the very wealthiest Tories were the ones to push that line, and the others were just plain gullible and swallowed it.
I was amazed for years that Tories would go on and on about inheritance tax, even the ones that weren't wealthy enough to pay it, but seemed to completely ignore the risk that they would lose the value if their house, however modest, if they went into care. I can only think the very wealthiest Tories were the ones to push that line, and the others were just plain gullible and swallowed it.
The highlighted is the key element. Not age.
In general I agree, but I said I'm not sure how to do it because it's not easy thinking of a way to tax more those with greater disposable income, with disposable being the key. £30k pa ain't rich for a 40 year old with kids and a mortgage, but it's more than enough for a pensioner with their house paid off. Raising a range of taxes that would apply more to them is possibly the answer, but I'm not clever enough to work it out, sorry.
This is not an income tax. I think age can be a fair criterion for an insurance tax to cover older peoples' care, especially if the cover itself is age dependent.
What, like NI that already exists and is linked to income?
Age is clearly not a fair criterion unless you believe a tax based in no factor other than not having died is reasonable.
I think a scheme that works more like the auto enrollment pension scheme would be better. Essentially you pay for your own care via an employer matched tax free savings scheme.
It wouldn't plug the hole immediately but if the take up is anything like pension auto enrollment it'll go a large way to fixing the problem long term. In the short term they could set the auto enrollment level at a higher % for the over 40s.
Poor people who die younger paying for the care of the wealthy who live longer via general taxation in my view is awful policy.
If there was a surplus from NI contributions, then we wouldn't need to be talking about a new scheme. And, why do think contributions for such a scheme would not be linked to income? From what I can gather, after accounting for age, it would still be based on income.
Your second sentence makes no sense. Just reflexively rejecting age as a criterion doesn't really advance the argument.
Agree with this.
I'm not suggesting there is an NI surplus. I am unsure which aspect of my second sentence makes no sense.
The points I'm making, if it is unclear, is that including a mechanism for paying into an insurance scheme to cover the costs of such care already. There is no need to create a new tax, least of all one that is linked to a factor as arbitrary as age.
I'd personally be wary of any new mechanism to fund this especially when they look to be moving social care to the NHS.
When social care costs keep increasing and more types of care inevitably get covered in that fee what do you think the argument will be then? Will the Tories take responsibility for any increases?
As soon as you allow a little direct funding from tax payers the government will absolve themselves of any responsibility and the NHS will suffer as a result.
From what i read it's also a mandatory tax or insurance suggestion and it doesn't take a superforcaster to see them use that to support a movement towards private treatment with an NHS forced to it's knees.
When social care costs keep increasing and more types of care inevitably get covered in that fee what do you think the argument will be then? Will the Tories take responsibility for any increases?
As soon as you allow a little direct funding from tax payers the government will absolve themselves of any responsibility and the NHS will suffer as a result.
From what i read it's also a mandatory tax or insurance suggestion and it doesn't take a superforcaster to see them use that to support a movement towards private treatment with an NHS forced to it's knees.
That last sentence is an interesting bit of spin on the purposes of taxation isn't it? If you're poor you'll be paying less or next to nothing through general taxation anyway and secondly it ignores that they're paying for their own care too.
Desperate for a barrier so he can avoid the tough questions.
I wonder if those who thought Johnson was doing a great job at PMQs will revise their assessment
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53588275
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53588275
The reason behind your example being an awful policy is because one group are poor and one group are wealthy. So yes, I agree, it is ridiculous to base taxation on age alone.
The state of this;
As we all mourn the plight of some holidaymakers in Spain....
Universal Credit 'failing millions of people', say peers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53599763
Universal Credit 'failing millions of people', say peers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53599763
Totally a normal country
Neh the BBC aren’t in the tories pocket... no way.
Come on guys, a BBC News staff member merely typed 'Rishi Sunak' into the Jupiter system and that Superman video popped up and was accidentally used. We've all made mistakes like that.
Holy shit Batman!
Edit: Just got round to watching the content and it's even worse. A huge spending spree and no mention of debt or financing it, as if that would ever happen with Labour involved.
You can tell the difference around a lot of this with Brown's QE at the time. You can argue they're led by opposition and the Tories challenge spending whilst Labour welcome it but that's not journalism is it? Especially if you're the economics editor of the BBC.
Last edited:
Compare/contrast
Evgeny Lebedev, Jo Johnson, Ruth Davidson, Claire Fox, Ian Botham, Kate Hoey and 30 others to receive peerages
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/queen-confers-peerages-31-july-2020
Philip May to get a knighthood.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/queen-confers-peerages-31-july-2020
Philip May to get a knighthood.
Kate Hoey for services to hatred and bigotry.
It's fine, they have a plan for saving money too. Pay freeze for the public sector, benefits cut for everyone else, and an army of mouthpieces on TV telling the public that anyone who complains about those things is a bastard.
Banana republic.
Also Ian Austin, John woodcock, Frank field and gisela Stuart... I wonder why
I think a post alluding to Corbyn has just occurred without the Jezbollah spammer appearing. Warms this cynical old heart.Compare/contrast
Not necessarily pay freezes. Instructions to increase pay with no correlated increases to budgets resulting in further cuts is more likely. That seems to be the current tactic.
Guido obviously haven't published an article about it yet.
For political service???
Edit: Although the peerages are obviously worse. Until we scrap the Lords Kate Hoey, Ian Austin, John Woodcock, Charles Moore (Jesus Christ), will be permanent fixtures of our legislature. Extremely normal democracy.
Last edited: