You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
What are people's thoughts on this? I understand that there's a huge bill waiting to be paid but it's going to hit the poorest the hardest.
long overdue, but timing, not great
i'm sure i already pay a precept for social care in my council tax bill
Sorted...
Although we're seeing tax on share dividends hiked by a similar amount, what we really need to see is a proper wealth tax applied - the gap between assets and real wages has grown to insurmountable levels so it's highly likely that future generations won't have equity to put into social care.
Dare I say it, we also need to see the social care sector either nationalised or reorganised on a local council basis with a proper pay structure put in place for care workers - would you rather wipe bottoms for the NMW or go and work in an Amazon warehouse for twelve quid an hour? We have to find a shortfall of 115,000 care workers, build an industry with prospects and sustainability.
Honestly, I think it could end Boris as PM, which is insane given all that has gone before, but I believe it.
Backbench Tories won't like it because it's an increase in taxation, Income Tax / NI it all goes in the same pot. Anyone in Cabinet who wants his job will see it as a way to stick a knife in.
His base won't take long to remember that Bus and it's promise to give the NHS £350m a week.
Labour won't like it because, well they're in opposition and they're not supposed to, but fundamentally it's going to be felt by lowest earners. Bear in mind that whilst income tax jumps from 20% to 40% at £50k, NI actually drops 10% at about the same income, which actually makes the two rates far closer than they seem to be. NI hasn't be earmarked for 'care' or whatever for decades, it's just a less obvious tax.
Labour voters will hate it because it's a tax the rich simply don't pay.
PJM makes good points, especially regarding tax. This needs to be tax funded rather than NI funded.
I've no issue with people with assets using them to cover care costs if they can. You can't take it with you, as it will hopefully enable the publicly funded care budget go further. I say that watching MrsMC calculating how many more months the proceeds of the house sale will provide care for her mum. I also know that it's anathema to my parents who have worked and saved hard all their lives to enjoy their retire and hopefully leave me a legacy, but I'd sooner they used it all up on proper care when they (soon) need it and just leave me enough to organise a funeral.
(Personally, I'm close to retirement)
It seems completely wrong that the young are going to prop up & pay for services for the old, especially coming off the back of Covid lock-downs; primarily aimed at protecting the old to the detriment of the young.
I would prefer to see social services like care for the elderly to be funded locally, with a combination of local income tax + asset tax.
NI is possibly the least equitable way of providing the necessary funding.
His base won’t take long to remember that Bus and it’s promise to give the NHS £350m a week.
Quite - no doubt some bore will be along in a minute to say "no-one really expected the Tories to hand over an extra £350m a week to the NHS", the truth of the matter is that people really did expect exactly that, especially in view of the empty shelves and food inflation that we're seeing.
This is a gift to Labours & the Lib Dems who could counter that a tax on banker bonuses, assets over £1m and earnings over £500k per annum should be levied so that those who stand to live out their retirements in relative comfort should pay their dues to the state.
Meanwhile, we see this - Earnings vs House Prices since 1970. Either homes should be seen as an investment and be affordable for the majority, or we should go the way of having a rental economy and a proper state funded social care scheme.
What are people’s thoughts on this? I understand that there’s a huge bill waiting to be paid but it’s going to hit the poorest the hardest.
If labour get into power they can change the funding mechanism
The problem they will have is voting against the funding gifts the conservatives a message that labour tried to stop increased money in social care.
But Starmer is an establishment stooge etc etc
Call me a cynic but I can see the tories rolling out this tax hike, only to reverse it shortly afterwards. They will do this because they can say quite strongly that society do not value the NHS as they are unwilling to pay for it and therefore accelerate the selling off of the NHS to their mates.
Secondly, am I correct in reading that the NI tax hike is nationwide, but the increase in spending is only in England?
Let's have a bit less of "the young subsidising the old". The "old" have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
Successive misuse of the funds raised are not the fault of the old, maybe if some of the young got off their backsides and voted for change and accountability things could improve.
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
Successive misuse of the funds raised are not the fault of the old, maybe if some of the young got off their backsides and voted for change and accountability things could improve.
It's not that simple though, the population is ageing so the 'burden' of social care costs are increasing and no government has wanted to tackle the issue (as taxing people that can't see beyond their own pay cheque isn't a vote winner).
I'm sort of surprised Boris is trying it now (although not surprised he's trying to do it via NI which, as others have said, is unfair). I guess he wants a legacy and figured the Tory majority would guarantee it working but surely he's not dim-witted enough to have forgotten about all the backstabbers within the party (as he was one of them) and all the grief they'll cause him
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,
they haven't paid enough though - the funding should have been building up a backlog of money ready to pay for this. It didn't, and that's no fault of old people themselves, but *someone* needs to pay, and having this as income tax (which wealthy pensioners pay towards) not NI (which they don't) seems like it'd be fairer.
It seems completely wrong that the young are going to prop up & pay for services for the old, especially coming off the back of Covid lock-downs; primarily aimed at protecting the old to the detriment of the young.
Genuine curiosity, were similar arguments made when the state pension was rolled out? Its essentially funded by those (younger) still in work?
We all know that social care - for children, young adults and the elderly, remember - needs properly funding to attract the right number and quality of staff and make it fit for purpose. So does the NHS.
The argument is how to fund it fairly and adequately, both now and in the future. Everyone entitled to use it needs to contribute based on ability to pay, through some combination of taxation and sale of assets, either while alive or recovered from their estate.
Secondly, am I correct in reading that the NI tax hike is nationwide, but the increase in spending is only in England?
Impossible under the terms of the devolution settlements - any extra spend in England will inarguably get [url= https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/barnett-formula ]Barnetted[/url], i.e. devolved governments' budgets will increase.
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
Ok boomer
If they didn’t spend all their bloody money on ashes avocado on toast….etc, etc…
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
Actually, this is a subject fairly close to home for me, my father is paying £1,100 per week for residential care and has had to sell his home to pay for it.
As you can see here, home ownership is out of the question for many people. Graduates are saddled with tuition fees - what used to be paid for from our tax is now subject to an interest rate in excess of 5% here.
So we expect young people to work for less money, with virtually no accessibility to affordable housing, with debts to pay for qualifications demanded by industry (and again, no doubt there will be a wag bollocking on about how Media Studies isn't of value to society, a sentiment that they read in the Daily Mail or Sun).
In addition, defined benefit pension schemes have long since closed, so retirees have benefitted hugely from something that simply won't be an option for young(er) people.
Finally, we're not talking about slapping an extra tax on everyone. I do believe that the very wealthy - who've directly benefitted from a pool of poorly paid labour, from massive house price inflation, from tax cuts that have had a real impact upon public services and from final salary pension schemes - really ought to be taxed on the value of their assets.
His base won’t take long to remember that Bus and it’s promise to give the NHS £350m a week.
Quite – no doubt some bore will be along in a minute to say “no-one really expected the Tories to hand over an extra £350m a week to the NHS”, the truth of the matter is that people really did expect exactly that, especially in view of the empty shelves and food inflation that we’re seeing.
Totally disagree. His base is either self serving rich people who don't GAS about anyone less well off than themselves or terminally stupid $^$@ers who couldn't understand rational thought and economy if it slapped then in the face. As long as Bojo quotes a bit of Latin at them and tells them that actually they're not pigshit thick %#@^& they're really perceptive, clever and taking back control then they'll continue to vote for him.
I can't believe anyone can have lived through the last 2 years, and the recent elections and genuinely have any respect for the average British voter whatsoever
I think it’s terrible for all the reasons listed. Some ways off the top of my head to make it more equitable are
Expand NI so the pensioners pay it at the same earnings basis as everyone else.
Make dividends subject to NI
Make the sale of your house subject to CGT (that covers at least part of the wealth taxation issue)
Make inheritance payable by the recipient (rather than estate) as income in the year received.
Also what is wrong with selling your home, assuming you’re not going to be living there, to pay for your care? Otherwise what is it but a taxpayer subsidy for the recipients of your estate?
As the Labour Party appear to either be on holiday or now disbanded or something, it was left to one of the ‘Red Wall’ Tory’s to summarise:
Jake Berry, leader of the Northern Research Group of Conservative MPs, said he did not think it was reasonable for people in his constituency – more likely to be on lower wages than those in affluent southern England seats – to have to pay more tax to support those who simply want to “keep hold of their houses in other parts of the country where house prices may be much higher”.
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,
That's not how it works.
I'm happy with the increase if it was spent wisely, I won't be happy with the increase.
As above the idea that “I’ve paid tax all my life” means I should get social care is not how the system has been (under) funded. This is the problem. Until social care is integrated into the NHS very little will change.
It’s clear that there are other much more progressive ways of funding this if fairness is your goal. But that’s obviously not the goal of this government or it’s major donors so it’s hardly a surprise, as depressing as that is.
current pensioners are arguably the richest pensioners will ever be, final salary pensions and massive gains on property. and when they say they paid NI all their lives, that money goes no were near the amount required to fund them in oldage.
when i retire in 22-27 years i'll be on a private pension, which for the contributions 22%, i'll likely get 10-15% of my current wage. hardly worth bothering,
but i'll be better off than not having a pension ..
seems a ponsy scheme / stack of cards about to fall
Also what is wrong with selling your home, assuming you’re not going to be living there, to pay for your care? Otherwise what is it but a taxpayer subsidy for the recipients of your estate?
Nothing on the face of it but the richer you are the less this seems to be a problem . The wealthiest seem to be able to use their wealth to ensure that their kids inherit the majority if not all of their wealth . I’d quite like to leave my 3 bedroom semi to my kids , otherwise what’s the point of working 40 hours a week for 45 years if it’s not to give your kids a better life .
Should have been income tax really, but other than that, I'm OK with it.
Also what is wrong with selling your home, assuming you’re not going to be living there, to pay for your care? Otherwise what is it but a taxpayer subsidy for the recipients of your estate?
The real issue is it polls very badly with voters who see leaving their house to their children as a God given right (even ones without a house to leave). Hence, no government dares touch inheritence tax. Barking mad situation IMO.
They also chose NI over Income tax as it polled better as most voters mistakenly believe NI is ring fenced for NHS and social security.
I’m ok with it, and also with removal of triple lock, although initially only temporarily I understand.
I’m ok with it, and also with removal of triple lock, although initially only temporarily I understand.
The % hike this next year (or this year) is CV-19 anomoly anyway, so skipping it makes sense.
Although many pensioners only have the state pension to rely on and are far from rich. The gold plated final salary pensions only cover a modest percentage of people.
Graduates are saddled with tuition fees – what used to be paid for from our tax is now subject to an interest rate in excess of 5% here.
Except it acts like a tax not debt, and it's progressive in that those earning more pay more. There is even a threshold to stop low earners paying any tuition fees. The 5% just stops the high earners paying it off too fast.
They will do this because they can say quite strongly that society do not value the NHS as they are unwilling to pay for it and therefore accelerate the selling off of the NHS to their mates.
All the money raised will end up with their mates in the first instance to "reduce waiting lists".
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,
Yea that's never been the case.
My grandparents paid NI so that a handful of people at the time could retire at 60/65 and have a short retirement. Life expectancy for men born in the 1930's was 58*!
They actually retired at 55 (police) and have lived quite happily on their pension for 35+ years.
I don't begrudge them, they played the hand they were dealt. But in no way have they even come close to having "paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions".
*not sure if the war is included in that stat.
Although many pensioners only have the state pension to rely on and are far from rich. The gold plated final salary pensions only cover a modest percentage of people
The staggering stat they quoted on Channel 4 news last night was that once you account for housing costs, pensioners now have higher average incomes than those in work
That’s utterly insane!
The staggering stat they quoted on Channel 4 news last night was that once you account for housing costs, pensioners now have higher average incomes than those in work
Problem with averages and stats that it hides the fact you have some very poor pensioners who are by no means well off and whose standard of living really needs the triple lock. You also have others on 6 figure final salary pensions who don't even notice the state pension in their bank account.....
Plus it all stinks of a set one group off against another in a race to the bottom.
Except it acts like a tax not debt, and it’s progressive in that those earning more pay more. There is even a threshold to stop low earners paying any tuition fees.
There are repayment thresholds, however it should not be confused with a Graduate Tax. Way back when I didn't go to university, we had grants available from local authorities, now there are barriers in place so that less well off graduates have to load themselves heavily in debt.
Semantics aside, we're asking our graduates to pay back loans to cover what otherwise would've been covered by the state. We're also asking them to find way much more cash for their first homes too and now we're asking for more NIC.
The 5% just stops the high earners paying it off too fast.
Cause and effect - high income earning graduates paying the full whack of interest does indeed mean that they pay more.
Plus it all stinks of a set one group off against another in a race to the bottom.
That ship sailed quite some time ago, but got a real rocket up it’s arse because of you-know-what in 2016
because of you-know-what in 2016
Yes, Bowies death has had huge repercussions....
That ship sailed quite some time ago, but got a real rocket up it’s arse because of you-know-what in 2016
So much this.
Don't forget to email your Tory MP asking why the 350 million isn't enough.
Haven't read after seeing this but it may already have been picked up but...
Successive misuse of the funds raised are not the fault of the old, maybe if some of the young got off their backsides and voted for change and accountability things could improve.
If the old have voted properly when they were young then the young wouldn't be reading that comment and rolling their eyes as another old person (I've no idea if Brian is old or not, but the comment suggests he is likely to be) dictating what should be done as they didn't do it themselves...everyone should be voting for change so the change can be better for everyone - young and old, healthy and sick, not-so-well-off and well-off.
I'm all for taxing the well-off higher if it helps everyone. I always get concerned that these kind of things always appear to leave the well-off with plenty in their pockets and the not-so-well-off with less in their pockets. I'm not suggesting we strip all wealth away from well-off people but the system should be taxing them far higher than they are.
This is the response from failing grayling.
Just to let you know that the NHS has already had an extra £350m a week, but this announcement is about the future of social care in residential and nursing homes, and so a different issue.
Is his 350m a week quote true? I've certainly not seen any sign of it.
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
More boomer bollocks - the money paid by today’s pensioners paid for the care of their parents, it’s long since spent. It is today’s taxpayers who are picking up the bill for today’s pensioners. One issue is that for the last 40 years, we’ve had succession of predominantly Tory governments who’ve ‘bribed’ the electorate through tax-cuts and the sale of public assets. Add a decade’s worth of austerity and a pandemic and the problems are coming home to roost. This is just window dressing, the bare minimum just getting ready to sell-off chunks of the NHS when the next crisis hits.
The increase isn't that much and I'll sleep soundly knowing we have now solved The social care issues in this country.
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,
If they had contributed enough then there wouldnt be the need for this rise.
Very few of the old will have contributed anything close to the amount required to support them now.
This 'I've already paid for my care through a lifetime of NI' misconception is almost universal.
Where did it come from?
It doesn't even stand up to primary school level of challenge. Your annual contribution from 40 years ago has been inflated away to virtually nothing before you even get any further into the discussion. It's not been sitting in a bank earning interest waiting for you to retire.
You have to be spectacularly hard of thinking to believe this.
🤷♂️
Very few of the old will have contributed anything close to the amount required to support them now.
I can't recall the exact figure but until you earn about £45k you're a net drain on UK PLC. Obviously this is based on averages, but more people withdraw more from the system than they contribute than those who draw less than they contribute.
Thinking about it, for a country running fiscally neutral (no surpless or deficit annually) and a progressive tax system, you'd expect half the population to pay in less than they use and half to pay in more than they use.
You have to be spectacularly hard of thinking to believe this.
That's a bit harsh, the welfare state and NI was sold as a pay your dues in and take your needs out type system. The fact it doesn't invest the money and just uses this years contributions to pay out this years costs isn't exactly widely publicised.
Eg most motorists seem to think roads are paid for out of road tax!
The reason the Tax hike is on NI and not income tax is because polling showed that most people think NI pays for the NHS....
Alright then, how about 'a bit too optimistic for your own good'?
Thinking about it, for a country running fiscally neutral (no surpless or deficit annually) and a progressive tax system, you’d expect half the population to pay in less than they use and half to pay in more than they use.
The more I think about it, the more I realise it is very complicated and I don't know enough to even guess.
That’s a bit harsh, the welfare state and NI was sold as a pay your dues in and take your needs out type system. The fact it doesn’t invest the money and just uses this years contributions to pay out this years costs isn’t exactly widely publicised.
And it would still work well if people were on average dying at 68. Even in 1980 the average age of death for a man was 71, so only 6 years of state pension and not as likely to end up in case before they die. The fact no government properly planned for the year on year rise to today's 80 year age of death is the problem.
Very good point Kerley. When I was young it was the norm that you’d hit 70 and that’d be your lot. Now at 70 a lot of people will be only just retired.
Tax the wealthy by all means but please don't let the NHS employ more staff.
I have no issues paying extra to fund people with less than me
I have a massive issue paying extra to fund pensioners sitting on vast property wealth that they have accumulated through buying a house 50 years ago for a pittance, which they refuse to sell
As always, the young will be the ones who are shafted the most. Sickening.
but please don’t let the NHS employ more staff.
Why not?
As we live longer we'll need more medical care in our lives which means more people to provide it.
I love this thread...
Its very simple with a limited set of scenarios..
A. Piss poor - you can sit in your own shit and the government will subsidise it.
B. Home owners - you dont have to sit in your own shit, your house will pay for it.(House pays accommodation, government gives you an £86k "allowance" for care)
C. The genuinely well off - heres £86k tax free allowance per person - enjoy
This truly ranks as the biggest smoke and mirrors tax levy ever witnessed.
**** me this is a shite approach.
While I don't like the idea of the young paying for the old, I like far less changes to the costs or taxes for the elderly such as asset taxes, as they had planned on a certain basis and changing that basis leaves then no time to replan. I also don't like the present system where those unlucky enough to need lots of care suck up a lot of the cost, it is perverse imv. So tax changes best. I guess I tend to think it should be income tax changes though not ni.
**** me this is a shite approach.
Well it's not perfect but apparently polling suggested an NI raise was the most acceptable to the general public, which is what we got.
However, on the plus side we get a direct tax rise out of the Tories (which is very rare) and more money for the NHS, so overall I reckon it's a good thing.
Is it perfect, no; but then nothing in politics ever is.
While I don’t like the idea of the young paying for the old
That is sort of the whole principle of pensions in the welfare state, it's always been those working paying for those in retirement. Nothing new about that at all.
So tax changes best. I guess I tend to think it should be income tax changes though not ni.
Fully agree, but apparently mr/mrs average voter thinks NI pays for the NHS and pensions, so were much happier to accept a rise in it. NB These are the same people who think Road Tax pays for roads.....
I need to find a way to make £500 cash in hand each year now to offset the loss. I don't need to, but I want to.
I need to find a way to make £500 cash in hand each year now to offset the loss. I don’t need to, but I want to.
We were always going to have to pay more for CV-19, it's just the price for being one of the ones who didn't get killed by it.
The money tto be raised will have nothing to do with social care, thats just to pull on peoples heart strings.
I expect people on disability benefits, like those in the para-olympics, will find in the coming months the tories will reduce their benefits by a certain amount.
The NHS is the worlds 10th largest employer. No offence to every nurse and doctor out there, who are obviously amazing etc but is there really a need for that many? I'm not convinced people are necessarily 'living longer'. It just looks like they are 'statistically' because so few people die at a young age now (no TB, plague, smallpox etc).
Adult social care is easily the biggest spend of govt in recent years.
I would rather see a 'pay up front' model of healthcare.
is there really a need for that many?
Yes.
Yes.
Well, actually we need a lot more if we want waiting lists to come down.
I’m not convinced people are necessarily ‘living longer’.
It's hardly a secret!
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51433242572_93c17aa3ef.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51433242572_93c17aa3ef.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2mmYP7m ]Life expectancy[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
Although thanks to austerity, we've been going backwards the last few years!
Some useful comparisons with other countries here (USA focused, but has comparable European countries)…
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/
The Ratio of NHS clinicians to population is actually below average across developed nations and the cost per capita of healthcare is quite low in comparison to places like the US. The problem is we have a media fed Tory tropes about NHS inefficiency and over-staffing as an excuse to soften up the hard of thinking about privatisation. All those Tory ministers need jobs as Government relations specialists and NEDs with all those new providers you know…
Foot flaps, £45k? I'd have instinctively thought it would be close to average earnings but that's only just over £31k. The must be a few very high earners paying in a hell of a lot!
Yea, but the US spends loads on healthcare and I don't think they get very good value from it.
Still think we need no more staff, but better deployment of the existing ones.
You need to examine how life expectancy is calculated. ie if lots more people survive childhood these days, compared to 100 years ago, then life expectancy is higher. But people still could have lived to be 80 back in 1800.
Foot flaps, £45k? I’d have instinctively thought it would be close to average earnings but that’s only just over £31k. The must be a few very high earners paying in a hell of a lot!
Yep!
Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax
Although the IFS is a right wing lobby organisation, so I expect them to have stretched the numbers to show the most favourable outcome (that the rich are oppressed by the workshy poor).
Reality is just biting after COVID, we have for years had an ageing population, who are living longer, but not healthier lives, medical science has provided an extra decade on the average life expectancy, but at a cost, COVID recovery will cost a fortune, etc, etc, NI had to rise, putting it through Income Tax would be harder to do and easier to avoid for those in the top 1% i dare say.
They can make promises about not raising taxes, but reality over the last 2 years has changed dramatically, do i want to pay more, no, is there other options, not really as they're all being used up elsewhere.
Personally the bigger issue is still hanging over us, how do we swiftly change as a nation to support what we need to progress over the next generation and support them, rather than lumber them with more buy now pay later options.
Yea, but the US spends loads on healthcare and I don’t think they get very good value from it.
Supposedly the worst efficiency of any Health Service anyway. Massive incentive to order every test under the sun, even completely irrelevant ones, as the hospital wants to maximise revenue as every service / test makes a profit.
Then you end up with a huge underclass who have no cover whatsover.
Want a child, a straight forward child birth costs $30k. If you have complications you could end up loosing your house paying for them!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america
Personally the bigger issue is still hanging over us, how do we swiftly change as a nation to support what we need to progress over the next generation and support them, rather than lumber them with more buy now pay later options.
The solution is simple, a tax on wealth.
Political minefield even for Labour and you'll never see the Tories go anywhere near it. Given Labour has opted out of being elected for the next generation or two, we're stuck with buy now pay later.....
I'm concerned there is a Tory back game being played here.
Raise tax, need to spend it quicker to catch up on waiting times, well then we can bring in a private company to help with that.
Don't like more tax to pay for NHS? See, told you they don't value it, sell it off for efficiency.
Spend the new tax but waiting times don't come down? See, it's that lazy NHS. What they need is privatisation.
Plus a shed load of smoke and mirrors about who is paying more, for who to do what, what the real costs really are, and why we're falling short in having a truly funded and combined Health and Care system.
I can’t recall the exact figure but until you earn about £45k you’re a net drain on UK PLC.
I remember reading about the study that came up with the figures and it was more like £45k per family of 2 adults and 2 kids. The biggest take for a family out of the whole lot was education and other benefits directly related to the two kids, take that out and it's a lot less. I remember digging into the figures and working out that my personal break-even point was down at the £18k mark as I have no kids, no underlying medical conditions and wasn't receiving any benefits. A lot the services like bin collections that are usually don by the council are actually done privately for my block of flats too so that knocked a bit off my break-even point. Each child I think added £8k per year to the figure and things like separated parents added more again.
I did also work out that it would take 9 people in my situation to offset the money one of my cousin takes every year (never worked in their life). The fact that there's 5 of them in that part of the family doing the same made me very angry!
I think some of you are giving Boris the Berk far to much credit regarding stealth privatisation and tricking the public into not valuing the NHS. It's simple the NHS is screwed post Covid and Boris feels he'll get away with a tax rise cos of Covid. Not quite sure how more money now is going to help if we don't have trained staff and facilities but hey here details not to get in the way of a good announcement.
Bottom line is this is a drop in the ocean of what is required for proper social care. We've much bigger issues to sort, the first being the cost of living and specifically cost of housing which since personal borrowing was allowed to get out of control has got completely out of step with earnings. This in turn has driven wealth to fewer people. Second is proper wages and take the majority out working people out of the benefit system.
In the meantime it's business as usual as people get shafted, it's not the fact people's houses get taken to pay for care, I'm ok with that, why should someone else's kids pay for your parents care through their taxes whilst you inherit their assets, what's fundamentally wrong is people who fund their own care also end up subsidising people paid for by the state, no wonder care homes are so bad, the publically funded people should be paying the real cost.
From what I have read - social care will not get any of the money generated by the NI increase for at least 3 years ... so social care funding gets kicked down the road a bit further.
My own view is that the care sector should be funded within the NHS. Just like nurses not so long ago, carers too should gain a professional qualification to add status to their role.
Better pay and better recognition would increase young people going into the sector.
But of course we would all have to pay for this; personally I am happy to pay more. Its not worth blaming Torys; old people; Boomers; Brexshitters; Remoaners .. or even immigrants. It needs funding - we all know the rich wont pay because the rich are able to follow a different rule book to us - so we just have to suck it up.
footflaps
Full MemberI can’t recall the exact figure but until you earn about £45k you’re a net drain on UK PLC.
Assuming that you produce nothing while you work, sure.
Truth is, the tax most working people pay is a small part of their total contribution. For essentially everyone in the public sector, or in the private sector but fulfilling a public need, it's definitely the case- a teacher or a binman or a doctor adds massively more value by their work, pretty much by definition.
And if you're not doing something like that, the tax you pay still isn't the sum of the benefit you bring, because your labour is what makes the company make money, which is how they pay tax, produce products that people buy that pays tax, etc. (ironically yes there are people who do work that doesn't really add any value to anything, or actively destroys the value other people have added, but they're usually highly paid)
And of course, "Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax"- the tax that those 1% of earners pay based on their income, is generally made possible by the work of others. If you could calculate what proportion of that tax is essentially being paid on the money that other people have made for them, then things would look very different.
I think some of you are giving Boris the Berk far to much credit regarding stealth privatisation and tricking the public into not valuing the NHS.
Slightly contradiction there, if the public had been tricked into not valuing the NHS, there'd be no need to raise taxes to increase funding for it....
Fair point, people will continue to talk up the NHS, most won't be do keen to fork out more for it though.