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

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

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 said this to you days ago - you acknowledged and agreed with it so must have read it. Why are you now repeating it back to me? Do you have a point to make or not?

Eh???

What is it you aren't understanding?

Social care needs dealing with and hasn't been up to now - yes?

Is it now urgent that it needs dealing with - yes?

Johnson has now taken action - yes?

This is being done by increasing NI - yes?

You and many others believe it will cause hardship on the lower paid - yes?

I don't disagree - yes?

As Labour got a costed alternative - no?

Is there currently another costed alternative out there to finance the urgent need - no?

Then what other alternative there other than to yet again do nothing - which we both agree isn't an acceptable option anymore???


There's nothing to stop the taxation funding to be modified in the months and years to come but for now it is the only plan for financing social care that anyone - particularly Labour - has got - as evidenced by their continual inability to put any alternative funding strategy on the table.

You're clearly just arguing for arguing sake yet again.

I'm no expert on tax but surely there must be a better alternative than raising NI? People on lower incomes will end up paying more proportionally than high earners.

It being the only plan does not make it the right one. 

Working people have paid a high price for the government and an even higher price during Covid. Income inequality is only going one way and that’s up - when we already have a major issue with it in this country.

So if you agree with all of that, great. But I don’t understand why you’ve engaged in a conversation on it for almost a week.

Norpig wrote:I'm no expert on tax but surely there must be a better alternative than raising NI? People on lower incomes will end up paying more proportionally than high earners.

Ye (in my view at least) it’s a regressive tax (taking a higher proportion from low earners than high earners). There are other options out there. Such as a 1% tax on millionaires (could raise £260bn over 5 years) or introducing capital gains tax (reportedly £90bn over 5 years), obviously these are educated guesses on what could be earned but essentially it’s the same group of people targeted again.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It being the only plan does not make it the right one. 

Working people have paid a high price for the government and an even higher price during Covid. Income inequality is only going one way and that’s up - when we already have a major issue with it in this country.

So if you agree with all of that, great. But I don’t understand why you’ve engaged in a conversation on it for almost a week.

I am happy to debate with you, or anyone else for that matter.

The thing I find with you though is that the longer the debate goes on, the more you start to go over the stuff we've already discussed (and that nothing as changed in the mean time about it).

I believe you do so deliberately to artificially prolong the discussion for your own means (and amusement) as opposed to furthering the debate between us.

And say if there is a fire in your house, you try to put it out by any means possible - your plan on putting out the fire does not mean it is the right one but if it's the only one you've got and the alternative is to watch your home burn down, then what do you do?

Time is of the essence.

You do your best to deal with it now until you or someone else can come up with a better way of dealing with it.

You’re comparing a taxation plan with a burning house fire? They’d be comparable if the government had seconds to make a decision not weeks or months. They’ve been on this plan since 2019 according to Boris.

Ye I have to repeat myself a fair bit with you because you avoid a question, then ask something that’s already been covered a few posts back. And to be honest that’s why I haven’t been on much recently, it’s a bit much ending up in a constant loop with you.

Norpig wrote:I'm no expert on tax but surely there must be a better alternative than raising NI? People on lower incomes will end up paying more proportionally than high earners.

It basically a political hot potato that consecutive governments - including Labour - have not wanted to touch because it means raising taxes which is a vote loser.

Sadly we've now reached a point where something has to be done - the NHS has a massive backlog and the age profile of the population means a growing demand for social care.

The government simply can't fund the needs without doing something now otherwise things will become critical in the near future.

Fwiw the NHS has been funded by a 1p increase on National Insurance before - by non other than the Labour Government  - so it seems a bit incongruous that they suddenly care about the burden falling on the lower paid workers now - don't you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1936547.stm

The other obvious alternative as TROY is pointing out is to tax the rich, which seems fine until you think about it.

Who exactly are the rich - well the millionaire rich all have expensive accountants minimising what tax the pay now, so I take TROY's claim of raising £260b from them with a very large pinch of salt and raising capital gains tax means taxing people like you, me and anyone's granny who owns their own house and dies are now all directly effected - property values have risen so much that 'normal' people on modest incomes now fall within it.

Somebody somewhere has got to be taxed and no solution is the fairest to everyone.

For now the only plan on offer is the NI route again - the one remember that Labour thought was the right way to go just 20 years ago!

Couple of things: 

Define rich - in 2019 Labour had it as top 5% of earners which are £80k+ per annum. 

‘TROY’s claim’ of a £260bn revenue from a one off 1% tax on millionaires was proposed by LSE and University of Warwick.

“A one-off wealth tax would work, raise significant revenue, and be fairer and more efficient than the alternatives.“

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Wealth-Commission-report

To claim there is no alternative to raising NI is lazy, rubbish.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You’re comparing a taxation plan with a burning house fire? They’d be comparable if the government had seconds to make a decision not weeks or months. They’ve been on this plan since 2019 according to Boris.

Ye I have to repeat myself a fair bit with you because you avoid a question, then ask something that’s already been covered a few posts back. And to be honest that’s why I haven’t been on much recently, it’s a bit much ending up in a constant loop with you.

I compared the issue with something that can no longer wait - such as PPE procurement earlier in this thread.

If Boris has been planning this for two years, then why hasn't Labour been doing the same thing - not as though the issue was ever going to go away was it?

I like to think I answer all the questions, I don't deliberately duck any from you or anyone else.

As far as I'm concerned - and anyone can check back on this or any number of debates we have - it's you that deliberately takes the discussion round and round in circles and fwiw I simply see that as your ploy to either make people simply sick to death of engaging any further with you, or for your amusement in stringing people along.

If you only visit the site to engage with me (and put me right - as you have stated before) then I think you do the other posts on here a great disservice as they are all far more interesting and broader in their outlooks and appeal than I who tend only to stick with the few subjects I have some knowledge and experience in.

Labour did have a plan in 2019, it was in their manifesto. I’ve told you that twice now.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Labour did have a plan in 2019, it was in their manifesto. I’ve told you that twice now.

Well why haven't they told ANYONE how they intend to fund it then???

Rayner Fails Eight Times to Detail Labour’s Alternative Social Care Funding Plans https://t.co/WhcIyT0jrf pic.twitter.com/bC5o65VdmD

— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) September 13, 2021

It might be a plan but it certainly is being kept away from anyone scrutinising it!!!

Just because it's a plan doesn't mean it is a viable one - and I strongly suspect it isn't and that's why they are on the backfoot with this.

Why else are they keeping schtum about it?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Couple of things: 

Define rich - in 2019 Labour had it as top 5% of earners which are £80k+ per annum. 

‘TROY’s claim’ of a £260bn revenue from a one off 1% tax on millionaires was proposed by LSE and University of Warwick.

“A one-off wealth tax would work, raise significant revenue, and be fairer and more efficient than the alternatives.“

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Wealth-Commission-report

To claim there is no alternative to raising NI is lazy, rubbish.

If it's such a wonderful plan why aren't Labour vociferously promoting it then?



Could it be this perhaps???

They're being incredibly cautious over what policy they announce/commit to in order to try and avoid any scrutiny over it - that's been the case for a number of issues since Starmer came on.

They clearly felt that there was too much policy announcing under Corbyn (some truth in that), which only ended up with the right wing media attacking Labour every 5 minutes.

In my view though (as i've said so many times) it's a mistake and we end up with no credible alternative - so a balance needs to be found.

But the reason is clearly not because they're sat at Labour HQ unable to think up a plan, do you know how much party's spend on policy making - it's kind of their entire purpose!!!

I think if they brought in a separate tax that was clearly going to go to health and social care and it was based on your annual income then i presume most people wouldn't have a problem with it would they?

As i said at the start i don't mind paying a bit extra as i can afford it but low income families would struggle along with the proposed cuts to Universal Credit.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:They're being incredibly cautious over what policy they announce/commit to in order to try and avoid any scrutiny over it - that's been the case for a number of issues since Starmer came on.

They clearly felt that there was too much policy announcing under Corbyn (some truth in that), which only ended up with the right wing media attacking Labour every 5 minutes.

In my view though (as i've said so many times) it's a mistake and we end up with no credible alternative a balance needs to be found.

But the reason is clearly not because they're sat at Labour HQ unable to think up a plan, do you know how much party's spend on policy making - it's kind of their entire purpose!!!

I don't but I suspect budgets are under quite a bit of pressure these days as I understand Labour funding is considerably down? -

Around 80 members of Labour staff will take voluntary redundancy amid reports of financial pressures in the party.

Earlier this week, employees were told the party was looking to cut around 90 jobs, with unions threatening to strike if the redundancies were compulsory.

But the GMB Union confirmed on Friday they had "received assurances that compulsory redundancies will now not need to be considered".

But its finances have been hampered by pay-outs in legal cases relating to anti-Semitism, as well as the cost of fighting three general elections since 2015.

The party's loss of 59 seats at the 2019 vote also means it will receive less public funding for opposition parties, known as "short money".

Party sources said Labour needed to "get a grip" on its finances, as well as refocus the party's structure ahead of the next general election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58439902

I suggest over reliance on union funding can and does have an effect on formulating policy and I suspect people like Starmer knows such polices will not be helpful in electing a Labour government - hence my original musing as to who exactly is in charge of the Labour Party?

Norpig wrote:I think if they brought in a separate tax that was clearly going to go to health and social care and it was based on your annual income then i presume most people wouldn't have a problem with it would they?

As i said at the start i don't mind paying a bit extra as i can afford it but low income families would struggle along with the proposed cuts to Universal Credit.

In simple terms I think that is fair and reasonable and most people would go along with that but politically it causes many problems.

The first is exactly the same problem that this NI increase has - namely it is a tax on earnings - the richer you are the less of your wealth comes from earnings and more with other things such as investments and tax avoidance schemes.

It also 'punishes' those that work and those that choose not too don't pay anything (in fact they take out of the pot so to speak).

The second is more people in employment vote Conservative and that would be a vote loser for them if they imposed such a tax.

The third is that the political party's have pledged to not put up tax - up to now it's been unprecedented that a government in power has done such things - certainly undermines their credibility.

Another issue that nobody thinks about is the cost of implementing and administering such as system - employers would need to change all their payrolls, etc.

Nothing really is as straight forward as it may seem and much of it is skewed on political considerations more than the universal good of everybody.

The bottom line I suppose is that Labour has continually lost the last FOUR General Elections and the latest one being their worst result of the four.  Rightly or wrongly the majority of voters want the Conservatives in government and not Labour - so this NI increase is aimed at achieving the revenue required with the least disenfranchising of the people who will vote for them.

Politics - Rule 1, obtain power, Rule 2, keep power.

That's what it is about.

It always is.

Sluffy wrote:

I don't but I suspect budgets are under quite a bit of pressure these days as I understand Labour funding is considerably down? -

Around 80 members of Labour staff will take voluntary redundancy amid reports of financial pressures in the party.

Earlier this week, employees were told the party was looking to cut around 90 jobs, with unions threatening to strike if the redundancies were compulsory.

But the GMB Union confirmed on Friday they had "received assurances that compulsory redundancies will now not need to be considered".

But its finances have been hampered by pay-outs in legal cases relating to anti-Semitism, as well as the cost of fighting three general elections since 2015.

The party's loss of 59 seats at the 2019 vote also means it will receive less public funding for opposition parties, known as "short money".

Party sources said Labour needed to "get a grip" on its finances, as well as refocus the party's structure ahead of the next general election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58439902

I suggest over reliance on union funding can and does have an effect on formulating policy and I suspect people like Starmer knows such polices will not be helpful in electing a Labour government - hence my original musing as to who exactly is in charge of the Labour Party?

Less ‘large’ donations and a a drop in membership too, so I’m sure there are issues that need addressing. I think it’s pretty obviously a strategy from Starmer’s team to be non committal though - I also don’t see the connection you’re making between a reduction in funding and who runs the Labour Party.

So pretend your Boris for the day, presumably you would choose to target NI too?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Less ‘large’ donations and a a drop in membership too, so I’m sure there are issues that need addressing. I think it’s pretty obviously a strategy from Starmer’s team to be non committal though - I also don’t see the connection you’re making between a reduction in funding and who runs the Labour Party.

So pretend your Boris for the day, presumably you would choose to target NI too?

Never heard the saying 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'?

Are you really trying to tell me that Trade Unions donations don't influence policy?

They even have a say in who the leader is ffs!

And IF I was Boris for the day I would have resigned first rather break my word - so I couldn't be him even in a pretend world.

But to answer your question if I was an advisor to Boris (as I was somewhat of an 'advisor' to elected politicians in my job that I held), I would point out firstly that the Labour Party had already set a precedence under Blair in raising NI to fund the NHS - so that would put them in a difficult spot to argue against Boris doing it.

How could they come out a claim it is a tax on the poor, when they've already done exactly the same thing themselves not that long ago?

I would point out that the funding required has to come from some form of taxation and the most obvious alternative is either some sort of a windfall tax on companies such as Amazon and Google, a purchase tax such as a rise in VAT, or some sort of a 'super tax' on the rich.

The former is fraught with all sorts of international difficulties - but some progress is being made following the recent G7 meeting -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57368247

...however that is not in place yet and 'jumping the gun' so to speak to obtain the money now would not be welcomed by our partner nations to this agreement.

A rise in purchase Tax (equivalent to 6% apparently) would be highly detrimental to the economy which isn't bouncing back as quickly as was predicted since lockdown ended.

That really only leaves a tax on the rich and the rich these days now include many people with large assets (they own a house in London or the south east for example inherited from their parents) but are revenue poor.

My ex's father bought his council house and has just had to go into a care home.  The house was sold for just over £600k.  He was a bus driver, the ex is a shop worker - in theory the sale of the asset would mean that he would be deemed to have assets that would fall into the potential high taxation bracket - if he died and the ex inherited - she would instead.

If he lives for not many years longer (6 or 7 iirc) the £600k would all be gone (apart from 24k I think it is?) on care home fees.

In the care home are residents who don't pay a penny and in at least one case the tenancy of one old Asian lady's council house has been assigned to her daughter who doesn't work and receives Housing Benefit/Universal Credit.

I wouldn't therefore recommend to Boris that he imposed a wealth tax and in fact would welcome Labour proposing such a thing as it would make them unelectable in large swathes of the country and certainly not capable of turning over a 78 seat majority.

The raising of NI leaves the Labour Party in an extremely weak position to argue against something they have done themselves before and leaves no obvious political (windfall tax on multinationals), economical (increase in purchase tax eg VAT) or electoral (taxation of the rich) alternative for the Labour Party to respond with.

Probably why Labour has been embarrassingly quite on the matter.

Does that answer your hypothetical question?

Certainly, very informative to read your thought process thanks for taking the time.

Just a couple of points - Starmer has hinted towards a wealth tax and Labour have jumped ahead in the polls for first time in a long time (pinch of salt of course), so there’s evidence to undermine your certainty that Labour would shed votes for opting for a more progressive tax strategy.

Your father in law would have paid less under Corbyn’s plan - based on the cap on personal care and the taxation plan to raise funds was aimed at raising income tax for the top 5%, Starmers Labour haven’t announced a firm policy so what type of wealth tax do you mean?

It's normal for the main opposition party to head the polls in mid terms and I doubt Starmer's tax plans were even a factor in that.

As for the ex's dad it means nothing about who has the best plan Labour or Tory, I just put that in to show that normal every day people who are in normal jobs can be drawn into to wealth tax brackets depending on if the value of assets are taken into account and the minimum level that such taxes start from.

I also wanted to show the unfairness of the current system where one family have worked all their lives, bought there house (from the council in this case) and will lose it to pay for social care, whilst another family have never worked, pay nothing for the same social care and have their council house handed down to the next generation of their family who have never worked either.

I know life is unfair at times and no doubt he'd be on free social care too, (with the house possibly being handed down too if the ex still lived with her dad) if he had not bought it but he did, he took the opportunity to better himself and his family so it must be galling to see those around him in the care home getting it for free something that basically wipes out the inheritance he had for his children.

I don't suppose the ex and her sister are over the moon about things too.

That's why social care costs need addressing now - they are effecting many 'normal' people and will simply effect more and more as the time goes on.  Those who stand to lose their inheritance - even those whose parents die at home and not in care homes - don't want to see a chunk of it taken as capital gains tax, or any other form of wealth tax - simply because their mums, dads or granny worked hard, paid their taxes and simply bought a house.

It doesn't make sense to do that if you can live off the state for free and in the case of the Asian lady's daughter, even keep the house too!

I take with a pinch of salt the LSE report - there's a big difference between an experts report and acceptable political implementation - you only need to look what the experts have said during Covid and how politically and economically those decisions are amended or watered down in order to be implemented.

You can look at it the other way too - the experts told us to wear masks, stay in bubbles, keep your distance etc, but people didn't.  They told the country Brexit would be bad for the country - the country didn't listen.

Government is always through consensus (unless you are in China and other places of course) and the people must accept whatever rules and laws they live under.  To my mind if any party proposed a punitive wealth tax that effects people who don't themselves consider they are even wealthy, then it certainly wouldn't be a vote winner.

Labour know that - and even if they are considering it - what else is there really - they know it won't be popular with the voters they need to win back - even if the students and the poor love the sound of it - and that's why Labour really haven't had anything to fire back against Boris and the NI increase.

Burnham chirping up certainly looks as though he fancies himself as the next Labour leader too - which again harps back to my musing on exactly who is in charge at Labour - clearly Starmer isn't seen to be in untouchable as the knives already seem to be out for him already.