|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 6 Sep 10:03
What are folk's thoughts on the proposal to fund social care in England with a 1% increase in NI across the whole of the UK?
Is it reasonable that the burden of social care falls disproportionately on the young, who will be hardest hit by the increase, relatively speaking?
Why is NI, a reserved tax, being used rather than income tax which is devolved and so can be better targeted at those who can afford it and where the rise can be limited to taxpayers in England?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 6 Sep 10:48
Will there be `Barnett consequentials` so that the devolved governments get a proportionate share of the increased expenditure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 6 Sep 12:49
Scotland paying for England as usual 😉
I can see my benefits after paying in for 40+ years will be far less than what my parents got. For my kids it'll be less again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 6 Sep 13:14
People still seem to think that National Insurance is a contribution to some fund that determines their future benefits. It`s not; it`s just another form of taxation, probably less politically-sensitive than income tax. It`s also levied on employers as well as employees so that a percentage increase can raise around twice as much as the equivalent increase in income tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 6 Sep 13:57
The problem with raising NI as a form of taxation is that it`s not as progressive as income tax, so lower income PAYE payers are hit far harder than they would be be by an equivalent income tax increase whilst higher earning folk who pay PAYE are hit less hard.
Folk earning under £12750 wouldn`t even have to pay an increase in PAYE.
It also hits younger people disproportionately.
It`s taxing the young and poor so that the better off don`t have to sell their homes to pay for end of life care.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Mon 6 Sep 14:50
Think a lot of under 35s are getting reeeeealy sick of this nonsense. Time to eat the rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 6 Sep 16:48
I believe any assets over 16k are taken by the state to pay for any residential care an elderly person might need. The council will pick up about a quarter of the bill so at one thousand a week (which is what nursing care costs) if the person owns a house which they can sell for 150k then they can get about a few months over three years of care paid for before the state needs to pick up the full whack.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 6 Sep 23:36
Presumably there would be Barnett consequentials, in which case Scotland would be a net beneficiary as the amount of NICs raised in Scotland is marginally below the national average.
But to answer the original question, no I don`t think it`s fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 7 Sep 14:32
The younger generations really are getting a bad deal on many fronts.
Not sure Scotland will end up losing out on this will they? From what they said on the TV last night the devolved authorities will be getting (more than) their fair share to spend as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Tue 7 Sep 14:46
But I suppose the point is that Scotland appears to have no choice in this. No choice regarding if it wishes to raise these additional funds nor in how they are collected.
As it stands, Westminster had decided to introduce an English policy which is impacting all the four countries in the UK and not just where the policy is being introduced
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 7 Sep 15:40
Until the time if/when Scotland is fully independent then that's the rules isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 7 Sep 16:43
It's an example of Westminster spending on Scotland's behalf. On the balance sheet it'll look like Scotland has taken all this money whereas it could have been picked up through an alternative means such as increasing tax on the highest earners.
I'm sure Scotland would have a deficit but there does seem to be an awful lot of spending that is either not required or could be covered by a small increase in tax. No-one ever enjoys a tax rise but that's usually because they think they're funding the work shy whereas it's really because they're funding the building of warships and a military we don't really need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 7 Sep 19:06
If the SG spends the "extra" cash fairly they`ll add it to the welfare budget to mitigate the impact of the NI increase on less well off Scots.
Obviously, that`s going to create a damn sight more bureaucracy than not taking the money off them in the first place.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Tue 7 Sep 22:19
Honestly getting sick to death of my generation being bent over backward to fund the boomer generation for benefits that are guaranteed to never be available to us. I wish this country wasn't so full of absolute bed wetter and took a note from the French. Feck the Tories and feck westminster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Thu 9 Sep 11:21
Don't believe the hype!🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Thu 9 Sep 15:18
Quote:
wee eck, Mon 6 Sep 10:48
Will there be `Barnett consequentials` so that the devolved governments get a proportionate share of the increased expenditure?
The Tories are trying to package this social care spending so it will not give Barnett consequentials.
They are spinning it as a win for Scotland as there will be more for healthcare.
Already said it will be a dividend for Scotland and the additional money raised will be spent on the Scottish NHS by Westminster.
With healthcare being devolved it raise a huge issue of Westminster interference in our NHS.
Plus if it is not part of Barnett consequentials there is nothing to stop them removing the additional funding at any point.
From the way the Tories are talking it certainly looks like it will not be Barnett but some other fund.
This is definitely out of order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sun 12 Sep 09:32
This is about to become the biggest scam of the current Tory government.
87 of the top Tory donors have just recently registered companies to provide social care.
Every single one has been registered offshore.
This is about to make their exploitation of the pandemic with dodgy contracts look like chicken feed.
All funded by you and me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 12 Sep 12:49
Can you provide any links for information on that SIF?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sun 12 Sep 15:13
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sun 12 Sep 12:49
Can you provide any links for information on that SIF?
I believe I saw it on Irvine Welsh's twitter feed.
To be entirely honest I have not checked his sources but have never seen him post anything that turned out to be BS before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 17 Sep 08:35
Not surprised by that at all SF. Same thing already going on in England with schools and hospitals with many being run by these "Trusts", many of whom are owned/operated by Tory and Labour donors. Having worked down there, it still flabbergasts me how passive the English are towards the spectacular mess that is their public sector. Granted, it is definitely part of the Tory objective to promote the idea that the public sector doesn`t function which can in turn be used as justification for privatisation. In my experience though, the English were/are happy to moan about how broken the system is but unwilling to knuckle down and get something done to fix it. Funnily enough, I saw an article from the Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph the other day mocking how Sturgeon wants Scotland to emulate Denmark which was just ridiculously uninformed - I`d be surprised if Cochrane has even been to Denmark based on what he`s written - but it`s the insular mindset that has caused the UK`s decline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
