Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
4 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Raising costs for the worker with no change for the wealthy

That’s not what he’s done. I mean I detest him and the tories, but as I understand it the more you earn the more you pay, up to a max level. Then there’s share dividends another rich people thing, which get taxed more.

I don’t think the government has got it right, but it’s not a case of no change for the wealthy, more like not assigning as much of the burden on the wealthy as some people would like

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

That’s not what he’s done. I mean I detest him and the tories, but as I understand it the more you earn the more you pay, up to a max level. Then there’s share dividends another rich people thing, which get taxed more.

I don’t think the government has got it right, but it’s not a case of no change for the wealthy, more like not assigning as much of the burden on the wealthy as some people would like

I'm a bit conflicted in this. I don't see it as a wealthy vs poor thing.

On the one hand, the whole idea of NI is one that I think pretty much anyone who's not a complete rocket polisher can get behind. We'll all need some kind of medical care at some point in time, some need more, some barely need any. NI as a concept is at it's base about spreading the risk of society so that everyone takes a share of the burden. The result is you don't have people dying in the gutter for lack of care or in this case, people having to sell everything they own when they're infirm.

On the other hand, in this case they're asking a lot of young people who won't need access to this service for (hopefully) many many years/decades to pay for a bunch of older people (and I know I'm generalising people in care as old people, when I know there are younger disabled people too) who might be sat on a sizable pension/estate/investments who could legitimately afford to pay at least a good portion of their bills. It doesn't sit right. Especially since this older demographic just voted in majority to make everyone poorer - but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

Don't get me wrong, the system clearly needed an overhaul, I just think it would have been better to have some kind of sliding scale of age for NI. As you get older, and thus more likely to use the services the more you pay into them. The obvious problem with that would be that it would mean the Tories implementing something that would disproportionately affect their base of wealthy, old, Daily Mail reading folks - Or is that too cynical an analysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

That’s not what he’s done. I mean I detest him and the tories, but as I understand it the more you earn the more you pay, up to a max level. Then there’s share dividends another rich people thing, which get taxed more.

I don’t think the government has got it right, but it’s not a case of no change for the wealthy, more like not assigning as much of the burden on the wealthy as some people would like

Fair enough.  CON +15 then.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
11 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

 

On the other hand, in this case they're asking a lot of young people who won't need access to this service for (hopefully) many many years/decades to pay for a bunch of older people (and I know I'm generalising people in care as old people, when I know there are younger disabled people too) who might be sat on a sizable pension/estate/investments who could legitimately afford to pay at least a good portion of their bills. It doesn't sit right. Especially since this older demographic just voted in majority to make everyone poorer - but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

Don't get me wrong, the system clearly needed an overhaul, I just think it would have been better to have some kind of sliding scale of age for NI. As you get older, and thus more likely to use the services the more you pay into them. The obvious problem with that would be that it would mean the Tories implementing something that would disproportionately affect their base of wealthy, old, Daily Mail reading folks - Or is that too cynical an analysis?

The flip side is that today’s pensioners paid income tax at rates of up to 80%, but certainly higher than current max 45% rates. So they’d maybe argue “hold on, we did our work, our larger contributions and now we have to pay again?”  The other thing is that today’s taxes pay for today’s schools, hospitals where all those babies are born and all the rest of it. Much of care spending goes on the young but disabled/ill. It isn’t purely an age thing at all. I don’t like this trend towards dividing society into “hard done by this lot” v “Scot free that lot”, whether age or race or gender. It’s just people. Some need help, some don’t.

The good thing that’s come out of this is the realisation that stuff needs to be paid for, that we can’t demand ever better care, but not be willing to pay for it via tax increases. At least now the discussion is where to target those increases

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
31 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

On the one hand, the whole idea of NI is one that I think pretty much anyone who's not a complete rocket polisher can get behind. We'll all need some kind of medical care at some point in time, some need more, some barely need any. NI as a concept is at it's base about spreading the risk of society so that everyone takes a share of the burden. The result is you don't have people dying in the gutter for lack of care or in this case, people having to sell everything they own when they're infirm.

NI is just another income tax. The money is not hypothecated for health and social care spending in any way. Its main function, as a tax, is to give the Tory party political cover so they can raise taxes while saying they haven't raised income tax (which is a lie, because it is an income tax).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

The flip side is that today’s pensioners paid income tax at rates of up to 80%, but certainly higher than current max 45% rates. So they’d maybe argue “hold on, we did our work, our larger contributions and now we have to pay again?”  The other thing is that today’s taxes pay for today’s schools, hospitals where all those babies are born and all the rest of it. Much of care spending goes on the young but disabled/ill. It isn’t purely an age thing at all. I don’t like this trend towards dividing society into “hard done by this lot” v “Scot free that lot”, whether age or race or gender. It’s just people. Some need help, some don’t.

The good thing that’s come out of this is the realisation that stuff needs to be paid for, that we can’t demand ever better care, but not be willing to pay for it via tax increases. At least now the discussion is where to target those increases

1) Income tax is not National Insurance. They're completely different. NI is for access to benefits, state pension and NHS/Social care. It's not for paying for schools and other infrastructure services.

2) Agreed society is too divided but that doesn't mean those "it's just people" haven't played their part. The cost of living has gone up markedly and it's primarily due to a generation that decided to **** us all. Those people will be the primary beneficiaries of this NI increase, that all of working age are now paying for while they've been asked to shoulder no more of the burden. I don't begrudge them getting more money, they didn't make the policy. They did vote in large numbers to put the lying filth in office that did though.

3) Come on, man. We've had years of stagnant wages and austerity due to something very few of us were responsible for. We're all old enough to know the value of money and this characterisation that we're all thinking money grows on trees is just lazy. It's not unreasonable for them to close the tax loopholes that allow large (mainly american) multi nationals to pay **** all in tax or to stop very wealthy (largely) tory donors to avoid paying their fair share by burying their wealth in offshore tax havens before coming after the working man/woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

NI is just another income tax. The money is not hypothecated for health and social care spending in any way. Its main function, as a tax, is to give the Tory party political cover so they can raise taxes while saying they haven't raised income tax (which is a lie, because it is an income tax).

Is that really the case though? I'd always thought it was entirely different. Happy to be wrong though.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/national-insurance/what-is-national-insurance-a01s79v8uxrp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
8 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Income tax is not National Insurance. They're completely different. NI is for access to benefits, state pension and NHS/Social care. It's not for paying for schools and other infrastructure services.

 

Myth. The government raises revenue. It all goes in one pot. It’s not hypothecated. It’s political cover for something that would be more unpopular. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
11 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

We're all old enough to know the value of money and this characterisation that we're all thinking money grows on trees is just lazy. It's not unreasonable for them to close the tax loopholes that allow large (mainly american) multi nationals to pay **** all in tax or to stop very wealthy (largely) tory donors to avoid paying their fair share by burying their wealth in offshore tax havens before coming after the working man/woman?

This bit, yeah. With the caveat that money sort of does grow on trees if you control your own currency (though there are adverse impacts to endless money creation)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Myth. The government raises revenue. It all goes in one pot. It’s not hypothecated. It’s political cover for something that would be more unpopular. 

Well that just makes this worse, doesn't it?

We've got a proven liar asking for people to pay more and promising it'll go to fix a certain problem. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


So they're breaking up and further privatising the NHS,  and increasing tax to pay for the NHS?

How thick are people?

The extra money will be going to shareholders and tax havens.

Then they'll tell you they're spending more than ever on the 'NHS'.

This nation needs to wake up, it's getting rinsed by parasites.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

The problem is that Boris and co promised that this wouldn’t need to be raised via tax increases and it’s why he is the PM. He also said that Brexit was going to bring with it a wave of extra funding for the NHS specifically.

It’s lies upon lies upon bungs for his pals upon investigations into his behaviour upon corrupt dealings upon affairs upon general constant incompetence.

It’s blows my mind that anybody could be so bad at their job and keep it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Just now, Genie said:

The problem is that Boris and co promised that this wouldn’t need to be raised via tax increases and it’s why he is the PM. He also said that Brexit was going to bring with it a wave of extra funding for the NHS specifically.

It’s lies upon lies upon bungs for his pals upon investigations into his behaviour upon corrupt dealings upon affairs upon general constant incompetence.

It’s blows my mind that anybody could be so bad at their job and keep it.

image.jpeg.96c60b136bd7be9c20df9ad40f48230d.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
5 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

image.jpeg.96c60b136bd7be9c20df9ad40f48230d.jpeg

Not even in the same league. Southgate biggest crime is setting teams up a bit defensively (whilst generally getting results).

Boris has the blood of tens of thousands of people on his hands and the hunger of thousands of children on his conscience.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

The problem is that Boris and co promised that this wouldn’t need to be raised via tax increases and it’s why he is the PM. He also said that Brexit was going to bring with it a wave of extra funding for the NHS specifically.

It’s lies upon lies upon bungs for his pals upon investigations into his behaviour upon corrupt dealings upon affairs upon general constant incompetence.

It’s blows my mind that anybody could be so bad at their job and keep it.

This is on the people that voted for him.  He was a proven liar long before the 2019 election.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

The details of the plan are in:

Boris Johnson unveils £12bn-a-year tax rise to pay for NHS and social care

'Boris Johnson has confirmed his government will impose a manifesto-busting £12bn-a-year package of tax increases from next April to tackle NHS Covid backlogs and overhaul social care.

The cabinet signed up on Tuesday morning to a controversial 1.25 percentage point increase in national insurance contributions, which will be levied on employers and employees.

Tax on share dividends will also be increased by 1.25 percentage points, in a move expected to raise £600m.

Much of the revenue initially will be devoted to cutting waiting lists in the NHS, with social care receiving only £5.3bn of the £36bn expected to be raised over the next three years.

From 2023-24, once HM Revenue’s computer systems have been updated, the NICs increase will be rebadged as a health and social care levy, which will appear as a separate line on payslips.

It will be extended at that point to cover pensioners who are still in work, and the proceeds hypothecated – put into a separate pot by law.

Over time, a growing proportion of the revenue raised will go to social care, allowing the government to implement a new cap on total care costs, so that no individual will have to pay more than £86,000 over their lifetime.

Anyone with under £100,000 in savings will receive some state help under the new system – with care funded completely by the state for those with less than £20,000.

The prime minister called the plan “the biggest catch-up programme in NHS history”, and said it would also “fix the long-term problems of health and social care that have been so cruelly exposed by Covid”.

While the new social care cap will apply only to patients in England, the levy will apply across the UK. The government said health services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would receive an extra £2.2bn a year.

The leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees Mogg, announced that MPs will be given a vote on the proposals on Wednesday, with the government keen to secure the agreement of its backbenchers before the party conference season kicks off later this month.

The health secretary, Sajid Javid, is expected to set out further details of how the money will be spent in the NHS and social care systems, which the government says will become more closely integrated.

The money is intended to fund a further 9m procedures in the NHS, and allow the health service to operate at 110% of planned activity levels by 2023-24 in an effort to tackle the historic backlog of cases after the Covid crisis.

Johnson acknowledged he was breaking the pledge made during the 2019 general election not to raise VAT, income tax or national insurance. “It breaks a manifesto commitment, and I do not do that lightly; but a global pandemic was in no one’s manifesto,” he said.

He said a white paper would be published later this year, with more details of how social care and the NHS will be more closely integrated, and the proposals would ensure that “people get the care that they need, in the right place and at the right time”.'

more at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/07/boris-johnson-unveils-12bn-a-year-tax-rise-to-pay-for-nhs-and-social-care

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
6 minutes ago, Genie said:

Not even in the same league. Southgate biggest crime is setting teams up a bit defensively (whilst generally getting results).

Boris has the blood of tens of thousands of people on his hands and the hunger of thousands of children on his conscience.

Oh I know, it’s just when you say that no one is doing a bad as job he instantly came to mind! 

Boris is just a horrid excuse of a human being. An odious slimeball of a man, I still don’t think he has any believes whatsoever, just whatever will make him continue in power and/or make him more money.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Tax on share dividends will also be increased by 1.25 percentage points, in a move expected to raise £600m.

Much of the revenue initially will be devoted to cutting waiting lists in the NHS, with social care receiving only £5.3bn of the £36bn expected to be raised over the next three years.

Wait, what?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies 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.

Â