Would you be willing to pay more NI or tax to fund the NHS and social care?

Just been reading about the Governments plans to increase Ni or tax to fund better social care and clear the NHS backlog, Jeremy Hunt is calling it a health and care premium and should be taxed based and not added to NI.

Anyone agree with this idea? I would generally be against the usual Tory trick of raising taxes but we are at crisis point in social care. mental health and the NHS so if the extra money raised was guaranteed to only be used for those reasons then i myself would happily pay a bit extra in whichever way they decide to fund it.

Anyone else willing to do the same?  I can afford to pay a bit extra but I know it gets tricky when the lower paid end up a lot worse off when taxes go up but i can't see any other way to be honest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58430364

Norpig wrote:Just been reading about the Governments plans to increase Ni or tax to fund better social care and clear the NHS backlog, Jeremy Hunt is calling it a health and care premium and should be taxed based and not added to NI.

Anyone agree with this idea? I would generally be against the usual Tory trick of raising taxes but we are at crisis point in social care. mental health and the NHS so if the extra money raised was guaranteed to only be used for those reasons then i myself would happily pay a bit extra in whichever way they decide to fund it.

Anyone else willing to do the same?  I can afford to pay a bit extra but I know it gets tricky when the lower paid end up a lot worse off when taxes go up but i can't see any other way to be honest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58430364

Tory trick of raising taxes???

They are the party whose history has been to reduce taxation!

Anyway setting that aside, of course people in any decent society should be happy to pay towards the care and health of all.

As for how this is funded, the tax is a proposed increase on National Insurance and NI is a 'band' tax, meaning the lower paid contribute a lesser percentage of their earnings towards it than people earning higher bands of income, with the intent that the burden of paying it be fair to all irrespective of their incomes.

We discussed this before - I think in the context of the Brexit discussions.
Remember mentioning that e.g. in France folk pay 30% tax on income of which 17.2% is a ring fenced "social charge" which is dedicated to their equivalent of the NHS plus some other social programmes which is why they have such well funded hospitals. CGT in France also has a 17.2% social charge.

Successive Governments in the UK have avoided raising income tax and NI as it is historically perceived as a vote loser, but perhaps that is changing?

If the NHS is to be saved I think that the only realistic funding option is via taxation but with the caveat that the money is ring fenced AND that actuarial calculations are made to forecast the requirement with tax set accordingly.

That nettle needs to be grasped.

Sluffy the Tories always promise tax cuts at election time then renege on that at the earliest opportunity

Will this mean local councils will stop lumping this on as an add-on on the council tax bill?

Norpig wrote:Sluffy the Tories always promise tax cuts at election time then renege on that at the earliest opportunity

The whole ethos of the Tory party is less taxation ffs!!!

Of course any government must raise or lower taxes in accordance with the circumstances they find themselves in at the time but in Janet and John terms the whole Conservative philosophy is to create wealth by reducing government taxation and state interference - less taxation means more wealth to the individual, whereas the Labour philosophy is to enhance state control for the benefit of the weak and poor - and more state control means more government expenditure, therefore more money to pay for the services which equals higher taxation (and/or national debt).

Why else do you think big businesses and the rich and wealthy want Tory governments and the Trade Unions and the working class that want Labour ones?

karlypants wrote:Will this mean local councils will stop lumping this on as an add-on on the council tax bill?

No is the short answer.

In simple terms local councils are funded in two ways, a yearly grant from the government and from Council Taxes (and also a retained amount of Business Rates - the rest of which is paid to the government).

So a local council needs to set its annual budget based on what they need to spend on services and staff wages and what the will need to raise in Council Tax after knowing how much the government will be giving them.

The problem for the local authorities though is that they will often claim the government grant to them is not enough to provide the services they are mandated to do in law and that to meet this shortfall they can't increase their Council Tax charges by more than a fixed percentage every year.

(Also big council tax rises are not popular with the votes at council election times!).

The theory behind all this is aimed at making councils more efficient in how they run.

The problem since Covid came is that not only as things like collecting council tax and business rates been suspended/deferred but also the massive effects it has had on care homes - of which local councils fund the care of the residents they place in them*

The recent increase in the Council Tax to help with this (local) social care won't disappear anytime soon if at all.

I expect in some years to come it will simply become a fixed precept in the same way that there is a charge for the Police (and County Councils and/or parishes if you have them in the authorities where you pay your council tax to.



*In fact this really is the nub of the problem in that why should someone who has worked hard and saved all their live have to sell their homes and deprive their children of their inheritance to obtain the social care they need when someone who hasn't worked a day in their live and hasn't saved a penny get it for free?

What really is the incentive for anyone to work when the state will take all you have whilst providing the same service for people who have contributed nothing to the pot all their life and get the exact same service for free?

Sluffy wrote:

The whole ethos of the Tory party is less taxation ffs!!!

Of course any government must raise or lower taxes in accordance with the circumstances they find themselves in at the time but in Janet and John terms the whole Conservative philosophy is to create wealth by reducing government taxation and state interference - less taxation means more wealth to the individual, whereas the Labour philosophy is to enhance state control for the benefit of the weak and poor - and more state control means more government expenditure, therefore more money to pay for the services which equals higher taxation (and/or national debt).

Why else do you think big businesses and the rich and wealthy want Tory governments and the Trade Unions and the working class that want Labour ones?

On the surface, yes, but I'd add a caveat.

The Tories sell the idea of meritocracy but practice something else.

The "ethos" is not as much cutting taxes but rather spreading taxation across the population despite the fact that it is far, far easier to make money if you are privileged to start off with i.e. have access to capital for business investment, inherit wealth, have contacts to progress your career, are in a position to take advantage of nepotism, have managed tax - efficient investments, have a trust or simply have a better education. That's not really "merit" - it's the luck of the draw. 

The leftie ethos has been largely based around the idea that the privileged - and ergo wealthy - should contribute more to pay for the relatively disadvantaged members of society and that ties into the concept that much of their wealth is predicated on the idea that they wouldn't have that wealth were it not for the labour of the disadvantaged anyway - i.e. no workers, no factory. And then as a mature (ostensibly christian with a small c) society we decided a long time ago to look after the sick, vulnerable and disabled who can't earn money/contribute tax.

So if for example the tax allowance threshhold is frozen as Sunak proposed in his budget - despite inflation - the additional tax raised represents a substantially higher proportion of a lower earner's income than a higher earners income.

Similarly Thatcher cut income tax substantially more for top earners than lower earners and got a reputation for cutting taxes, but at the same time replaced it by raising VAT which meant the higher income earners contribution was paid for by everyone regardless of their situation.

There have been over 1000 tax increases in the last 10 years of Tory government according to the Telegraph - including some fairly obscure taxes - and that underlines the fact that making a claim to be the party that cuts taxes  isn't quite correct - it's more the party that manipulates a very complex taxation system in the general direction of favouring a smaller section of society - enabling the rich to get/stay richer and the poor to get/stay poorer as it's often described.

The other relevant and related point is that the Tories are the party that historically cut public spending. 

Now cutting public spending tends to impact the rich far less than the poor - the affordability of private healthcare for instance. But in doing so it does reduce the need for taxation which opens the door to make headline/vote grabbing token tax cuts.

So between big cuts for the privileged, smaller cuts to entice the middle class vote, backdoor taxes that many people don't see or recognise and cutting public spending the epithet "helping the rich at the expense of the poor" is perhaps more accurate.

IMO of course.

As regards popularity of the idea it was only back in 2017 when a main plank of the Libdems election campaign was to add just 1p to income tax to support the NHS which would equate to an extra £6 billion NHS funding - and in the general election they lost 0.5% of their share of the vote so it's not a vote winner in this country.

Question is why aren't we funding the NHS with the money we aren't sending to Europe anymore?

There was this bus.....

As Boris said , "there was not a Pandemic in my Manifesto".

Social care has never been addressed before by the sainted Blair, Brown or successive Tory governments since, until now.

It is still just tinkering. It seems to be about care costs and not the residential costs of having to be in a care home.

There is still a lot of detail to come out.

Labour will no doubt bang on about breaking manifesto promises,  while sitting on the fence about making any concrete proposals themselves.

Get booked in now, before all the best beds go.

Cajunboy wrote:Labour will no doubt bang on about breaking manifesto promises,  while sitting on the fence about making any concrete proposals themselves.

Completely agree, pathetic from Labour again. Kendall outright refused to state their alternative on Sky the other day.

Barely surprising that the Tories have yet again targeted working people and seemingly got away with it, the tax increase is right, who’s been targeted is completely regressive.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:Labour will no doubt bang on about breaking manifesto promises,  while sitting on the fence about making any concrete proposals themselves.

Completely agree, pathetic from Labour again. Kendall outright refused to state their alternative on Sky the other day.

Barely surprising that the Tories have yet again targeted working people and seemingly got away with it, the tax increase is right, who’s been targeted is completely regressive.

I agree with you both.

As I've said before I don't support any political party - they all want power (and to retain it thereafter), so they will always do what it takes to follow the two golden rules of the game of politics.

Of course the game is immensely easier if there is no effective alternative party for people to vote for - and that is exactly what has happened  - dare I say it, since Blair handed over power to Brown.

I've said a number of times that the only way Labour will get back in power is if they present themselves as a government in waiting until the next election.

In order to do that they need some well thought out polices and the ability to present those and themselves authoritatively and actually look the part of knowing how to take the country and its people forward.

Christ it isn't hard to think Covid has caused huge damage to the country in many respects, the economy, the health service, demands on the care services, supply chain problems, and many other issues, so it shouldn't have been hard to take a lead in coming up with ideas and alternatives and taking a lead on things - capturing the publics attention and confidence.

But no, nothing there is there?

On the backfoot without a clue as usual.

Labour's lost a generation under Corbyn - loads of decent Labour MP's left rather than work under him - and the lack of talent they have now is testament to that.

I don't even know who their leader is anymore?

Yes I know Starmer is supposed to be but he lost credibility when he couldn't sack Rayner, so is it her?  Burnham has puffed himself up making out he the saviour so is it him?  And all the while the union paymasters all want a return of Corbyn - or a Corbynista such as Long-Bailey, is it her then?

Who exactly is in charge???

Jesus, if they are incapable of even sorting themselves out then who in the right minds believe they could sort the country out if they got in power?

No one, obviously.

They are a bloody shambles.

Someone needs to knock a few heads together, take a statesman's like lead and have the charisma so that everyone will want to follow them.

It's not going to happen is it?

That's why Boris remains PM no matter how bad the government is or how many pledges and promises they break.



I'll say this for Boris, whether he's a buffoon or not he takes decisions - they might not be good ones and he might do plenty of u-turns but he's made a decision - has Labour made even one single decision about any policy under Starmer?

If Labour doesn't seem to know what they stand for then how the hell would the electorate???

They urgently need the equivalent of a Dominic Cummings type puppet master pulling their strings - and fast I would suggest, because they are completely leaderless and rudderless as far as I can see.

Sluffy wrote:
Who exactly is in charge???

...and who is in charge of the Tory party given that 25% of their funding comes from just 10 people - presumably the ones who tell Boris what his "decisions" will be?

Incidentally there is only one woman in the 10 - Libov Chernukhin - whose husband was Vladimir Putin's Deputy Finance Minister. The rest are billionaire businessmen.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Who exactly is in charge???

...and who is in charge of the Tory party given that 25% of their funding comes from just 10 people - presumably the ones who tell Boris what his "decisions" will be?

Incidentally there is only one woman in the 10 - Libov Chernukhin - whose husband was Vladimir Putin's Deputy Finance Minister. The rest are billionaire businessmen.

Oh hello, someones been reading (and believing) social media again.

Do you really believe we life in a perfect world because I don't.

Have you thought that maybe people (even billionaires) contribute to political parties not because they want to have them in their pocket but rather they want them to win to keep the other political party's (and ideology) out.

Social media is full to the brim everyday about Tory corruption, Russians influencing political decisions and Donald Trump protecting the world from a child paedophile ring - but you know, nobody ever comes up with any proof.

Ever!

Funny that don't you think, all these millions of people talking amongst themselves about how these things are definitely going on, all these millions of people watching like hawks so they can say 'I told you so', all these investigative journalists and activists digging for evidence, all these people who must be involved in someway with all this corruption and illegal activities and everything else involved in physically bringing about all the so called shit that is happening - yet nobody, not one single person, as come up with one actual bit of evidence to prove it?

Nothing, zilch, nada.

If these things really were going on don't you thing someone would have exposed it by now?

That it would be in all the papers, on the telly, all over social media that there was actual physical and factual proof!

Even nutjobs like Maugham doesn't believe it is really happening - he's just in it to embarrass (and hopefully bring down) the Tory government.

For someone who once claimed he doesn't read social media - you clearly swallow and regurgitate an awful lot of it believing it to be true!

It was just a question - and no more or less nuanced than the one you posed - which really does reside in the social media you clearly avidly consume and regularly cite.

But on a serious note I just don't get this idea that Boris is a "decision-maker". He's not - he's a liar and what comes out of his mouth is purely based on political expediency in the moment.

Loads of examples of this but for the purposes of underlining the point...

In Borisland...
- Being a member of the EU was the only option and the best thing since sliced bread - and then when the opportunity to grab the leadership came up the EU was suddenly the worst thing ever.

- "ignore the Covid outbreak" - and then when the bodies started to pile up it was suddenly his number one priority

- "end the Covid mass testing programme" and then suddenly we need a mass testing programme - an issue that ultimately he managed a double U turn on

- Keep the NHS £400 staff visa charge/Scrap the NHS staff visa charge

- No compulsory mask coverings in shops/compulsory mask coverings

- "My guarantee" document to get him elected. That's looking a bit embarrassing for those who believed it nowadays isn't it?

The list is massive.

You see Boris doesn't make decisions - he says stuff, and when his foot is in his mouth/public outcry/fall in popularity or an eventual realisation that he's completely wrong - he says the opposite.

To simply say he's a "buffoon" is creating a smokescreen for a very, very dangerous lunatic who already has blood on his hands and will cause more chaos before he is eventually run out of town.

And frankly, whilst I don't think Labour constitutes a viable opposition at the moment I think that inaction until careful consideration of the problem has been undertaken is actually a better option than continuously diving down the wrong path and then reversing it when it all goes wrong. Or in Boris's case when it has a whiff of unpopularity about it.

Stop believing the hype and maybe you'll finally start to see that the lunatics are running the asylum.