0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
BFYPThe point I'm making is that we will still need to pay large amounts for care costs every year, well after COVID is a far distant memory. Essentially COVID is a big one-time capital cost, whereas care is a big permanent, annual current cost. You can pay for capital costs through long term borrowing, not through tax income. You have to pay current costs through tax income. So conflating the two is calculated to deceive. But it does sound superficially plausible.
Quote from: albie on September 07, 2021, 03:32:14 pmSo where does this leave the so called pay rise for NHS staff?The increase in NI will eat into the minimal increase given to NHS staff after Covid, alongside the fall in value due to cost of living increases.Give miserly with one hand, take back with the other.This will do nothing for staff morale and recruitment to the sector.As a follow up, it looks like inflation is going towards 4% this year;https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/05/bank-of-england-uk-inflation-interest-rates-pricesSo the NHS pay rise of 3% is reduced by the NI increase to 1.75% before inflation.Add in the 4% forecast for inflation, and the pay rise for NHS staff is actually a real terms pay CUT of 2.25%, for some of those on low pay to start with.In what world is that reasonable or fair?
So where does this leave the so called pay rise for NHS staff?The increase in NI will eat into the minimal increase given to NHS staff after Covid, alongside the fall in value due to cost of living increases.Give miserly with one hand, take back with the other.This will do nothing for staff morale and recruitment to the sector.
For example someone who owns and rents out a dozen houses and lives off that income will not pay a penny to the new care sector costs because they don't pay NI on their rental income. Their care costs will be subsidised by hospital cleaners and call centre workers who WILL pay the increased NI.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 03, 2021, 03:57:01 pmQuote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on September 03, 2021, 01:02:50 pmEasy for you to say. It's the young that get fleeced. A graduate for example is massively more stung already and this is just yet another addition to that, not to mention house prices.Of course things need to be paid for but they choose a tax that impacts the well off and elderly less proportionately (or not at all if a retiree).BFYPI've been calling for more support for younger people and more taxation on very comfortable, well off older people (of which I'm now one) since before your balls dropped.Define “well off” please. Genuine question.
Quote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on September 03, 2021, 01:02:50 pmEasy for you to say. It's the young that get fleeced. A graduate for example is massively more stung already and this is just yet another addition to that, not to mention house prices.Of course things need to be paid for but they choose a tax that impacts the well off and elderly less proportionately (or not at all if a retiree).BFYPI've been calling for more support for younger people and more taxation on very comfortable, well off older people (of which I'm now one) since before your balls dropped.
Easy for you to say. It's the young that get fleeced. A graduate for example is massively more stung already and this is just yet another addition to that, not to mention house prices.Of course things need to be paid for but they choose a tax that impacts the well off and elderly less proportionately (or not at all if a retiree).
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 07, 2021, 03:58:02 pmBFYPThe point I'm making is that we will still need to pay large amounts for care costs every year, well after COVID is a far distant memory. Essentially COVID is a big one-time capital cost, whereas care is a big permanent, annual current cost. You can pay for capital costs through long term borrowing, not through tax income. You have to pay current costs through tax income. So conflating the two is calculated to deceive. But it does sound superficially plausible.Of course it's a narrative I don't disagree. It only builds up that way because of choice of the government doesn't it? It's not as simple as A pays for B, C pays for D etc etc and doesn't need to be, big picture and all. Of course it would be better if the capital expenditure promoted growth in the economy and thus increased the tax take naturally wouldn't it?Quote from: albie on September 07, 2021, 04:26:34 pmQuote from: albie on September 07, 2021, 03:32:14 pmSo where does this leave the so called pay rise for NHS staff?The increase in NI will eat into the minimal increase given to NHS staff after Covid, alongside the fall in value due to cost of living increases.Give miserly with one hand, take back with the other.This will do nothing for staff morale and recruitment to the sector.As a follow up, it looks like inflation is going towards 4% this year;https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/05/bank-of-england-uk-inflation-interest-rates-pricesSo the NHS pay rise of 3% is reduced by the NI increase to 1.75% before inflation.Add in the 4% forecast for inflation, and the pay rise for NHS staff is actually a real terms pay CUT of 2.25%, for some of those on low pay to start with.In what world is that reasonable or fair?And therin lies the problem, pay the NHS more you need to fund it and the challenge that I mentioned months ago and was blooming obvious. Don't increase the NHS funding then pay the staff more giving 0 benefit to the system. Something has to give somewhere and it's the public who pays for it in the end in just about every example.
BFYP,It is not the public who pay for it though, it is certain sections of the community who pay disproportionately to their available resources.A NI hike is a bigger slice of the disposable income of those on low pay.The principle is wrong, the burden should fall to those who can most afford it, not those who struggle to make ends meet.A wider discussion needs to be had about the tax system in the UK, it is badly in need of a review and a root and branch overhaul.Rather than adding to a tax system which is regressive, and looks to the tax objectives of the 1970's, the system must reflect the weightings of the new economy.Digital services, off shore tax avoidance, and the need to decarbonise are all priorities not properly supported within the current tax framework. It is time that they were!
Ok….clearly the question was worded wrong…Why should a wealthy man/woman pay National Insurance Contributions?
Quote from: sha66y on September 07, 2021, 05:43:10 pmOk….clearly the question was worded wrong…Why should a wealthy man/woman pay National Insurance Contributions?It's just tax with a different name basically.
There's no such thing as a tax "for" anything. Governments impose taxes on who and what they choose. They spend on who and what they choose. No specific tax is ever ringfenced to pay for anything specific. It all goes into a big pot to pay for all the expenditure
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 07, 2021, 06:37:07 pmThere's no such thing as a tax "for" anything. Governments impose taxes on who and what they choose. They spend on who and what they choose. No specific tax is ever ringfenced to pay for anything specific. It all goes into a big pot to pay for all the expenditure Ok …So why is it called NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION.?
There's no such thing as a tax "for" anything. Governments impose taxes on who and what they choose. They spend on who and what they choose. No specific tax is ever ringfenced to pay for anything specific. It all goes into a big pot to pay for all the expenditure
Quote from: sha66y on September 07, 2021, 06:56:11 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 07, 2021, 06:37:07 pmThere's no such thing as a tax "for" anything. Governments impose taxes on who and what they choose. They spend on who and what they choose. No specific tax is ever ringfenced to pay for anything specific. It all goes into a big pot to pay for all the expenditure Ok …So why is it called NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION.? Because it was brought in to help balance the books when the Welfare State was founded. But NI income is not designed to, and never does perfectly balance Welfare spending.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 07, 2021, 06:37:07 pmThere's no such thing as a tax "for" anything. Governments impose taxes on who and what they choose. They spend on who and what they choose. No specific tax is ever ringfenced to pay for anything specific. It all goes into a big pot to pay for all the expenditure Ok …So why is it called NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION.?
There's no such thing as a tax "for" anything. Governments impose taxes on who and what they choose. They spend on who and what they choose. No specific tax is ever ringfenced to pay for anything specific. It all goes into a big pot to pay for all the expenditure
So the manifesto promise was broken because of Covid? Aye, social care wasn't in the shit before Covid.
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on September 07, 2021, 08:13:18 pmSo the manifesto promise was broken because of Covid? Aye, social care wasn't in the shit before Covid. Is anyone saying that Glyn.It is fair to say that covid has caused lots of expenditure which wouldn’t normally have been required and perhaps some of that money would have gone to providing care.
Quote from: drfchound on September 07, 2021, 08:22:21 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on September 07, 2021, 08:13:18 pmSo the manifesto promise was broken because of Covid? Aye, social care wasn't in the shit before Covid. Is anyone saying that Glyn.It is fair to say that covid has caused lots of expenditure which wouldn’t normally have been required and perhaps some of that money would have gone to providing care.Boris said Covid was the reason he's breaking his promise not to raise NI to fund social care, in his speech in the Commons. And social care was a problem way before covid happened.
So does NI go into the NHS pot or the Pensions pot? Or no pot at all…
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on September 07, 2021, 08:29:35 pmQuote from: drfchound on September 07, 2021, 08:22:21 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on September 07, 2021, 08:13:18 pmSo the manifesto promise was broken because of Covid? Aye, social care wasn't in the shit before Covid. Is anyone saying that Glyn.It is fair to say that covid has caused lots of expenditure which wouldn’t normally have been required and perhaps some of that money would have gone to providing care.Boris said Covid was the reason he's breaking his promise not to raise NI to fund social care, in his speech in the Commons. And social care was a problem way before covid happened.I’m not sure what you mean by that.Edit.I have retread your post and I think you are backing up my earlier post.Yes, social care has been a problem for many years, agreed.But money used to get us through covid surely could have been earmarked to help alleviate the social care problems.