Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Bozo wants to hike National Insurance to pay for social care


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Outrage as politician implements policy that benefits the people that voted for him.

I actually think it would have been far easier for Johnson to print up the extra money or just ignore the whole issue and let it get worse or leave it for the next government to sort out.

In fact he tackled it head on, and yes a fair few Tory voters who run Ltd companies are going to be pissed off about the consequences.

So I don't think it was an easy choice for him. Do I think it was the right policy ? No. I think he should have gone after unearned income more. But he's a Tory after all and as a consequence you might expect the policy he came up with.

Agree.

I don’t blame the politician for doing what they do (we’ll sort of true) but I blame those who gave them power either voting selfishly or stupidly.

I also don’t blame conservative voters if they truly believe in right wing politics ie wealth generates benefits for all. I just don’t agree with them…but that’s a very different thing. Disagreement if politics is fundamental and healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 779
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Si1 said:

It cost her majority because potential Tory voters were split over it, afaik. It was still a hot potato. The Tory constituency parties weren't behind it.

The new scheme is actually worse than Theresa May's  Dementia Tax !

At least that protected £100k for inheritance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kzb said:

The new scheme is actually worse than Theresa May's  Dementia Tax !

At least that protected £100k for inheritance.  

Off for a celebratory party with their lords and masters afterwards:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9981229/PM-Rishi-Sunak-fled-Commons-key-vote-glittering-fundraising-event.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/09/2021 at 08:34, sammersmith said:

No one posted this yet? Think this is the first policy i've seen of Starmer's that i actually agree with. 

Tax on landlords could pay for social care, says Keir Starmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58516799

Mr Johnson's plans, he will say, leave "a private landlord renting out multiple properties not paying a penny more in tax, and their hard-working tenants to pick up the burden".

Finally he has said something half worth listening to. they will have to get rid of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Si1 said:

And those will be the people the Tory party is run for now.

I guess they'll all be worrying about their kids having to pay tax on the billion pound property portfolios they'll no doubt inherit.

 

Edited by byron78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting facts:

The NHS will cost £230 billion this year.

That is the entire sum of Income Tax (£198bn), Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty and Property Transaction Tax.

Social Care is an additional £40bn expenditure.

Everything else must be coming off VAT, fuel and alcohol duties and Council Tax.

(Interesting facts courtesy of John Redwood's blog.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kzb said:

All that will do is increase your rent !  Andy Burnham's tax on estates is much better idea.

Not if we reintroduced a rent cap first.

Does look like us landlords will be the next to taxed, but they'll need to find a way to make sure the elite aren't affected and it's just you proles that bear the brunt first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Not if we reintroduced a rent cap first.

Does look like us landlords will be the next to taxed, but they'll need to find a way to make sure the elite aren't affected and it's just you proles that bear the brunt first.

Taxing landlords to fund social care is a sure fire way of ensuring the entire burden falls on renters rather than property owners.  I would've thought this lot on here would've been outraged by the mere suggestion.

Capping the rents would just result in more homeless.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

Capping the rents would just result in more homeless.

 

 

Nonsense. It never did in the UK before and it hasn't in parts of the world I've owned or travelled in that also has them.

Although your version - landlords just leaving properties empty and magically still meeting their mortgage - does make me wonder why they bother with tenants in the first place.

Edited by byron78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Nonsense. It never did in the UK before and it hasn't in parts of the world I've owned or travelled in that also has them.

Although your version - landlords just leaving properties empty and magically still meeting their mortgage - does make me wonder why they bother with tenants in the first place.

Why did they get rid of it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kzb said:

Why did they get rid of it then?

 1980.

Had one until 1956 - Tories binned it then, but Labour brought it back.

It was initially brought in back when whole towns were built round mines by families who owned mines (mine included!), because it became a lottery as to how much the mine owner would then claw back in rent.

Some were pretty good, some weren't. Most took as much back as they could (as it locked their workforce in place - they earned enough to live and rent, but had no chance of saving to escape).

It worked broadly. When the social housing building started en masse after WW2 it held private rents below social rents for most of the country.

It was probably a bit too restrictive (and definitely encouraged some notorious private "slum" landlords), but for most people housing was at least affordable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kzb said:

Taxing landlords to fund social care is a sure fire way of ensuring the entire burden falls on renters rather than property owners.  I would've thought this lot on here would've been outraged by the mere suggestion.

Capping the rents would just result in more homeless.

Have rents increased as a result of the tax changes made by Osborne? (I'm not sure, but thought they hadn't changed much in the years after this change*, despite the claims of the 'Axe the tenant tax' gang. Can anyone confirm or does anyone have evidence to the contrary?)

If landlords could put up rents they would, but if they couldn't they would have to accept a lower net yield, or sell if that they considered the yield too low.

 

* What has happened to rents over the last 18 months? Rents seem to be higher for the small number who have started new tenancies, but are landlords planning to increase rents en masse? If not, it suggests the market couldn't bear this. The increases are affordable to a small number of movers, but probably not the majority of renters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't landlords generally just charge what the market will bare or what the government is willing to pay in housing benefit? With ultra low rates, landlords will have seen the value of their properties shoot up alongside a fall in mortgage repayments. Did they pass this saving on to their tenants? Unless the taxes were punitive, they would just have to absorb them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kzb said:

Interesting facts:

The NHS will cost £230 billion this year.

That is the entire sum of Income Tax (£198bn), Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty and Property Transaction Tax.

Social Care is an additional £40bn expenditure.

Everything else must be coming off VAT, fuel and alcohol duties and Council Tax.

(Interesting facts courtesy of John Redwood's blog.)

It doesn't have to cost £230 billion pounds.......years of throwing money at it instead of reforming it...PFI and the  waste of money that went towards an abandoned computer system that failed £10 billion>.....still parts of it do not talk to each other, still a postcode lottery, not an even equal distribution of service and care nationwide.......the NHS needs are not solely the need for money, money going into the wrong places does not always improve it, it creates a greater need.;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, winkie said:

It doesn't have to cost £230 billion pounds.......years of throwing money at it instead of reforming it...PFI and the  waste of money that went towards an abandoned computer system that failed £10 billion>.....still parts of it do not talk to each other, still a postcode lottery, not an even equal distribution of service and care nationwide.......the NHS needs are not solely the need for money, money going into the wrong places does not always improve it, it creates a greater need.;)

 

 

NHS has huge numbers of admin roles which seem to be supporting a whole ‘business and marketing type company’.

The large old fashioned corporate I worked for was streamlined massively with no more than 6 levels (it used to be about 14 levels) between the CEO and the junior clerical job. Often unnerving when a board member occasionally joined a meeting when we were discussing a product, sales process, leaflet, customer issue but with an open invite it kept the mind sharp and also kept senior directors close to the real issues. Also the senior Execs were surprising sharp, insightful, knowledgeable and lacked that ‘middle management ego nonsense’.

I imagine the public sector ‘businesses’ play at corporate style accountancy management but when it really comes to cutting costs self preservation normally prevails.

More nurses, more doctors….less layers of admin. Probably too simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

NHS has huge numbers of admin roles which seem to be supporting a whole ‘business and marketing type company’.

The large old fashioned corporate I worked for was streamlined massively with no more than 6 levels (it used to be about 14 levels) between the CEO and the junior clerical job. Often unnerving when a board member occasionally joined a meeting when we were discussing a product, sales process, leaflet, customer issue but with an open invite it kept the mind sharp and also kept senior directors close to the real issues. Also the senior Execs were surprising sharp, insightful, knowledgeable and lacked that ‘middle management ego nonsense’.

I imagine the public sector ‘businesses’ play at corporate style accountancy management but when it really comes to cutting costs self preservation normally prevails.

More nurses, more doctors….less layers of admin. Probably too simple.

I'm not sure the issue with the NHS isn't primarily that we KNOW there's a large ageing generation (boomers) about to pass through the system, and of course most of the NHS spend goes on the elderly, that's just how it goes.

Therefore there are massive demographic costs coming up in the coming decades and any healthcare system would need a load more money to cope. However no contingency has been made for it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/11/poll-tax-20-will-harm-jobs-families-treasurys-experts-admit/ 

 

 

"A bombshell impact assessment produced by HM Revenue and Customs for the Treasury warned that one effect of the 1.25 percentage point tax increase "may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce".

 

The disclosure comes as several MPs in Red Wall seats said they faced a major backlash from constituents over the move. One MP said they had received angry letters referring to the levy as the "poll tax 2.0" – a phrase that was also used spontaneously by voters in a focus group in a northern city last week"ek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Si1 said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/11/poll-tax-20-will-harm-jobs-families-treasurys-experts-admit/ 

 

 

"A bombshell impact assessment produced by HM Revenue and Customs for the Treasury warned that one effect of the 1.25 percentage point tax increase "may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce".

 

The disclosure comes as several MPs in Red Wall seats said they faced a major backlash from constituents over the move. One MP said they had received angry letters referring to the levy as the "poll tax 2.0" – a phrase that was also used spontaneously by voters in a focus group in a northern city last week"ek

Prole Tax.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

NHS has huge numbers of admin roles which seem to be supporting a whole ‘business and marketing type company’.

The large old fashioned corporate I worked for was streamlined massively with no more than 6 levels (it used to be about 14 levels) between the CEO and the junior clerical job. Often unnerving when a board member occasionally joined a meeting when we were discussing a product, sales process, leaflet, customer issue but with an open invite it kept the mind sharp and also kept senior directors close to the real issues. Also the senior Execs were surprising sharp, insightful, knowledgeable and lacked that ‘middle management ego nonsense’.

I imagine the public sector ‘businesses’ play at corporate style accountancy management but when it really comes to cutting costs self preservation normally prevails.

More nurses, more doctors….less layers of admin. Probably too simple.

Senior executives are smart, more levels that work below them, less work for them......work trickle down.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Si1 said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/11/poll-tax-20-will-harm-jobs-families-treasurys-experts-admit/ 

 

 

"A bombshell impact assessment produced by HM Revenue and Customs for the Treasury warned that one effect of the 1.25 percentage point tax increase "may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce".

 

The disclosure comes as several MPs in Red Wall seats said they faced a major backlash from constituents over the move. One MP said they had received angry letters referring to the levy as the "poll tax 2.0" – a phrase that was also used spontaneously by voters in a focus group in a northern city last week"ek

Tories have nothing to worry about.

The wealthy won’t vote Labour anyway, the middle classes will be hit and they don’t like ‘communism’ so they will vote Tory and many of red wall seats will vote Tory because Labour didn’t want Brexit and are too politically correct. “You can’t even say you are English nowadays without going to prison” type of propaganda nonsense.

So they will apply this new tax across to CGT, IHT and unearned income (eg investment and rental income)  if they really really need to ie to avoid a true disaster….but if they don’t need to they won’t.

Happy days.

Eton 1 v Rest of the World 0 

Edited by Pop321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Tories have nothing to worry about.

The wealthy won’t vote Labour anyway, the middle classes will be hit and they don’t like ‘communism’ so they will vote Tory and many of red wall seats will vote Tory because Labour didn’t want Brexit and are too politically correct. “You can’t even say you are English nowadays without going to prison” type of propaganda nonsense.

So they will apply this new tax across to CGT, IHT and unearned income (eg investment and rental income)  if they really really need to ie to avoid a true disaster….but if they don’t need to they won’t.

Happy days.

Eton 1 v Rest of the World 0 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/11/poll-tax-20-will-harm-jobs-families-treasurys-experts-admit/ 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/11/poll-tax-20-will-harm-jobs-families-treasurys-experts-admit/ 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/12/national-insurance-rise-will-bite-boris-johnson-public-feel/ 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Tory and Labour wanted brexit.......then they, if in power can have the control they want, that is why an alliance or coalition is not something we do.....Clegg agreed to give in to conditions like school fees and PR, he never had the power to change anything significant.....the EU is a much bigger fish.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.