Stop voting for fucking Tories

[shaggy]

Tories breaking their manifesto promise not to raise tax by raising NI to pay for social care.

Smart policy, workers (majority of who do not vote Tory) paying a tax pensioners (majority of who do vote Tory) don't pay to pay for the pensioners care.

Could be really cheeky and ask where the self-employed who ‘pay’ tax come in this scale of Tory-Not Tory.

It appears we're getting a comparatively large tax break, but thanks for the insinuation. Prat

But then, quite a few of us managed to not qualify for any covid benefits, so fuck it

Bit sensitive there. Self employed means a different expectation on tax and there are people who cheat the system, some who make it work for themselves and many who follow it to the letter. The point raised was about ‘workers’ and where they lie on the political spectrum and that broad statements cannot be applied.

[Paddington Bear]

Bit of a weird own 'your manifesto which didn't know covid was a thing isn't reflected in your policies now covid is a thing'. Think there's pretty wide acceptance and has been throughout that we'd have to pay for the massive government intervention into the economy at some point.

[Insane_Homer]

Bit of a weird own 'your manifesto which didn't know covid was a thing isn't reflected in your policies now covid is a thing'. Think there's pretty wide acceptance and has been throughout that we'd have to pay for the massive government intervention into the economy at some point.

So you're saying it's actually a Covid tax?

[Paddington Bear]

Bit of a weird own 'your manifesto which didn't know covid was a thing isn't reflected in your policies now covid is a thing'. Think there's pretty wide acceptance and has been throughout that we'd have to pay for the massive government intervention into the economy at some point.

So you're saying it's actually a Covid tax?

I think it's fair to say that any economic promises made before covid can be thrown out the window legitimately and it's hard to pretend otherwise.

[Torquemada 1420]

But then, quite a few of us managed to not qualify for any covid benefits, so fuck it

I thought COVID benefits for SE were based on declared income (i.e. SA100s) and so there should have been no reason for anyone to have been worse of?

[Insane_Homer]

So you're saying it's actually a Covid tax?

I think it's fair to say that any economic promises made before covid can be thrown out the window legitimately and it's hard to pretend otherwise.

so you're saying this Government are clearly pretending otherwise?

[I like neeps]

Am I missing something here? Unless the derisory low asset protection (£23,500 in England) is to be ditched or massively increased then surely the houses of the wealthy are
not protected at all?

I'd also throw in a counter argument here:
- many elderly are asset rich and income poor primarily due to the insane rises in house prices caused by successive Govt policy. So stigmatising them for that is pretty disingenuous.
- most of them will have paid NI all their lives precisely to pay for the NHS, care etc only for successive Govts to p*ss it all up the wall in various f**k ups ranging from wars to the ERM debacle.
- there will be a reasonable resentment from those who have saved and paid off debts throughout their working lives being expected to hand it all over to the state whilst those who have
saddled themselves in debt (also encouraged by Govt policy) get the win: win i.e. the life of Riley and then when the credit cards are maxed, Joe Bloggs picks up the tab.

If you're asset rich and income poor just sell your assets to increase income? Seems fairly simple.

There are poor pensioners but 25% of pensioners have a house worth 1m+. Yes people paid taxes their whole live and there are no simple solutions. But if through nothing but pure chance in when and where you were born you've had an asset that had flown up in value exponentially it's fairer to tax that rather than the people who are currently working and won't have that same benefit.

1) That's not what it says. It says "households worth £1m" NOT houses worth £1m.
2) House prices are not that non uniform across the UK so your 2nd sentence is invalid unless you want to load all the taxes on to Londoners. In which case I'm all ears but suspect the likes of OS won't be happy.
3) And even if the house was worth £1m and you agree someone should sell/downsize something he has worked his whole life for, who do you think is going to be able to buy the £1m houses to facilitate this transfer of capital to cash?

1) most household wealth is assets, what are the largest assets - houses! Most of the millionaire households got there on housing wealth increase - not really good stock picks and expensive art.
2) house price growth in London and the SE has outpaced the country that is true. Not irrelevant though, house prices have grown everywhere. It creates problems in the NE/NW that's solvable by changing caps. Current proposal areas with slower growth subsidising areas with high growth.
3) he has not worked all his life for the value of the house. It has flown up because of what you identify in a later post as deliberate government policy. People sitting on huge asset wealth in terms of their houses did not earn it. The govt created it. So it's time they paid the govt back!

[I like neeps]

Without endorsing the actual policy the government gets some credit in my book for having the guts to tackle one of the big issues in the UK and making politically difficult decisions. Abolishing the triple lock on pensions is also well overdue (althiough the generational justice of this is undermined by raising tax on working adults).


Next is to deal with our dependency on foreign energy - its such an obvious strategic achilles heel. Lots of nuclear please.

They didn't abolish it. They suspended it for one year. It returns next year.

[Happyhooker]

But then, quite a few of us managed to not qualify for any covid benefits, so fuck it

I thought COVID benefits for SE were based on declared income (i.e. SA100s) and so there should have been no reason for anyone to have been worse of?

Not if you change how your company is set up in the year before covid. Or started the company in the year before. They went on 2019 numbers, at least for the first tranche which was the only time I had work cancelled. About 1.5m of us got hit by this.

Shaggy, your inference was clear. If you think the tax take from the 4-5m of us self employed is the issue with the treasury's bank balance, as opposed to corporations, you've been sucking diesel for too long

[Happyhooker]

Also, looking into this a bit more, does the %age of NI paid really drop from 12 to 2% when you earn over 50k?
If so, this is fucking outrageous

[I like neeps]

I wonder why young people can't buy houses and don't vote Tory. Nope, I don't understand.

[shaggy]

But then, quite a few of us managed to not qualify for any covid benefits, so fuck it

I thought COVID benefits for SE were based on declared income (i.e. SA100s) and so there should have been no reason for anyone to have been worse of?

Not if you change how your company is set up in the year before covid. Or started the company in the year before. They went on 2019 numbers, at least for the first tranche which was the only time I had work cancelled. About 1.5m of us got hit by this.

Shaggy, your inference was clear. If you think the tax take from the 4-5m of us self employed is the issue with the treasury's bank balance, as opposed to corporations, you've been sucking diesel for too long

We could do this for hours but the intent was about how they vote. Not going to apologise for the other bit, I know of many self employed who rob the system and pay almost no tax, and I am sure you also know some that don’t.

As my father, a 40yr self employed plumber, said to me you can choose to be self employed and take the benefits from that, but the risk is also there. You will benefit from paying less tax as a % of your income but you do lose some protections. That is life.

[Slick]

Bit of a weird own 'your manifesto which didn't know covid was a thing isn't reflected in your policies now covid is a thing'. Think there's pretty wide acceptance and has been throughout that we'd have to pay for the massive government intervention into the economy at some point.

So you're saying it's actually a Covid tax?

I think it's fair to say that any economic promises made before covid can be thrown out the window legitimately and it's hard to pretend otherwise.

I’m with Paddington on this, we couldn’t expect to come out of COVID without putting in a bit extra. Any tax rise is going to be unpopular and I actually think this is a pretty brave an justifiable move

[I like neeps]

So you're saying it's actually a Covid tax?

I think it's fair to say that any economic promises made before covid can be thrown out the window legitimately and it's hard to pretend otherwise.

I’m with Paddington on this, we couldn’t expect to come out of COVID without putting in a bit extra. Any tax rise is going to be unpopular and I actually think this is a pretty brave an justifiable move

It isn't justifiable. Taxing for covid is necessary. But salaries went down, asset wealth went up. And salary is being taxed? Assets went up to a large degree because of govt policy as well. As did salaries going down due to lockdowns. I don't see how a tax raise on income without a tax raise on wealth as well is justified.

[Biffer]

I think it's fair to say that any economic promises made before covid can be thrown out the window legitimately and it's hard to pretend otherwise.

I’m with Paddington on this, we couldn’t expect to come out of COVID without putting in a bit extra. Any tax rise is going to be unpopular and I actually think this is a pretty brave an justifiable move

It isn't justifiable. Taxing for covid is necessary. But salaries went down, asset wealth went up. And salary is being taxed? Assets went up to a large degree because of govt policy as well. As did salaries going down due to lockdowns. I don't see how a tax raise on income without a tax raise on wealth as well is justified.

Only the low part of salary is being taxed. It’s a continuation of a massive change in tax responsibility to the lower end of the pay scale over recent years. NI used to be 5-6%, income tax 32%. Now NI is going over 13% and income tax is 20%. More taxation in the tax which only applies at full rate to those not in the top tax bracket = benefits for the wealthy.

NI is a fucking scam.

[robmatic]

So you're saying it's actually a Covid tax?

I think it's fair to say that any economic promises made before covid can be thrown out the window legitimately and it's hard to pretend otherwise.

I’m with Paddington on this, we couldn’t expect to come out of COVID without putting in a bit extra. Any tax rise is going to be unpopular and I actually think this is a pretty brave an justifiable move

It's a fair point about promises being necessarily scuppered by covid, but applying the tax rise via NI is probably the least fair way that it could be done.

[tabascoboy]

All the expense for those wasteful unsafe PPE contracts handed to Tory donors and best mates have to be paid for somehow...

[tc27]

Without endorsing the actual policy the government gets some credit in my book for having the guts to tackle one of the big issues in the UK and making politically difficult decisions. Abolishing the triple lock on pensions is also well overdue (althiough the generational justice of this is undermined by raising tax on working adults).


Next is to deal with our dependency on foreign energy - its such an obvious strategic achilles heel. Lots of nuclear please.

They didn't abolish it. They suspended it for one year. It returns next year.

Ok whatever getting rid of it in a year the logic of TL would make it go up 8% is also good.

[I like neeps]

Without endorsing the actual policy the government gets some credit in my book for having the guts to tackle one of the big issues in the UK and making politically difficult decisions. Abolishing the triple lock on pensions is also well overdue (althiough the generational justice of this is undermined by raising tax on working adults).


Next is to deal with our dependency on foreign energy - its such an obvious strategic achilles heel. Lots of nuclear please.

They didn't abolish it. They suspended it for one year. It returns next year.

Ok whatever getting rid of it in a year the logic of TL would make it go up 8% is also good.

Yes it is also good, abolishing it permanently is better.

[Insane_Homer]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... n=sharebar

Tory donor’s £13million profit in PPE deals with 9,000% surge after 'VIP lane' help


A firm owned by a major Tory donor made £13million in profits in 2020 – up more than 9,000% – after securing a string of PPE contracts during the pandemic.

Meller Designs, a fashion accessories wholesaler which sold less then £13m of goods in 2019, was awarded £160m in Government contracts by the Department of Health, under Health Minister Matt Hancock, to supply PPE last year.

These contracts were controversially awarded without the usual competitive tendering process due to the shortage of masks.

It won the first £65m order in May, weeks after the owner of its parent company, David Meller, directly lobbied Health Minister Lord Bethell via the “VIP lane” for Covid contracts

Mr Meller, 61, has given nearly £60,000 to the Tories since 2009. He was a director of Meller Designs until 2013 and co-owned it with his brother until January via a Jersey-based offshore company.

Accounts show it had a £170m turnover in 2020, up from £12.8m in 2019 and made a profit after tax of £13.2m, up from £144,000 in 2019.

The firm previously specialised in “wholesaling own label fashion accessories to retailers”.

[JM2K6]

What climate change

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-mi ... a-12401988

Ministers agreed to bow to pressure from Australia to drop binding commitments to the Paris climate change agreement from the UK-Australian trade deal, a leaked government email obtained by Sky News has revealed.

Liz Truss, the trade secretary, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, decided the government could "drop both of the climate asks" from the text of the trade deal, according to the email from a senior official.

Among the areas to be removed was "a reference to Paris Agreement temperature goals".

[I like neeps]

What climate change

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-mi ... a-12401988

Ministers agreed to bow to pressure from Australia to drop binding commitments to the Paris climate change agreement from the UK-Australian trade deal, a leaked government email obtained by Sky News has revealed.

Liz Truss, the trade secretary, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, decided the government could "drop both of the climate asks" from the text of the trade deal, according to the email from a senior official.

Among the areas to be removed was "a reference to Paris Agreement temperature goals".

Negotiation British govt style - you have everything you want, don't accept anything we want and we'll reneg on the agreement if it doesn't work for us.

You'd think any Tory supporter would be embarrassed with this govt. How they get away with it is incredible.

[Torquemada 1420]

But then, quite a few of us managed to not qualify for any covid benefits, so fuck it

I thought COVID benefits for SE were based on declared income (i.e. SA100s) and so there should have been no reason for anyone to have been worse of?

Not if you change how your company is set up in the year before covid. Or started the company in the year before. They went on 2019 numbers, at least for the first tranche which was the only time I had work cancelled. About 1.5m of us got hit by this.

That's a joke. Would have expected either some period of averaging for businesses (the option to elect for) and a recognition where it was a clear continuance of trade. We changed from LLP to Ltd some years ago and presumably would have been screwed in the same manner if I'd needed to make the support claim during COVID.

[Torquemada 1420]

What climate change

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-mi ... a-12401988

Ministers agreed to bow to pressure from Australia to drop binding commitments to the Paris climate change agreement from the UK-Australian trade deal, a leaked government email obtained by Sky News has revealed.

Liz Truss, the trade secretary, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, decided the government could "drop both of the climate asks" from the text of the trade deal, according to the email from a senior official.

Among the areas to be removed was "a reference to Paris Agreement temperature goals".

I expect to hear no more whining for sympathy or support requests from Aussies next time their country burns.

[I like neeps]

Woopsie

[tabascoboy]

Woopsie

This is a guy who said: “I don't very much believe in the stick, but it's amazing what can be achieved with a sharpened carrot.”, has trouble remembering his own 'A' level results and his Department's policies. He's a walking talking brainfart

[Insane_Homer]

Bojo's cabinet is a veritable who's who of fucking idiots, each hell bent on out doing the other when it comes to saying and doing utterly stupid shit. Of course the other thing they all have in common is a undying devotion to Brexshit.

[SaintK]

Woopsie

Pig ignorant, thick cunt getting absolutely hammered............again!
Loved Rashford's reply

Accent could have been a giveaway Rolling on the floor laughing

[Torquemada 1420]

1) most household wealth is assets, what are the largest assets - houses! Most of the millionaire households got there on housing wealth increase - not really good stock picks and expensive art.
2) house price growth in London and the SE has outpaced the country that is true. Not irrelevant though, house prices have grown everywhere. It creates problems in the NE/NW that's solvable by changing caps. Current proposal areas with slower growth subsidising areas with high growth.
3) he has not worked all his life for the value of the house. It has flown up because of what you identify in a later post as deliberate government policy. People sitting on huge asset wealth in terms of their houses did not earn it. The govt created it. So it's time they paid the govt back!

3) Seriously? Govt policy creates artificial and questionably realisable (because house prices are relative and you can't cash in your chips unless you plan to go live under the arches in Cardboard City) wealth, and having done so, they then get to draw down on this at the public's expense and risk.

And this still fails to address the inequity of the prudent subsiding the p*ssers up the wall.

[tabascoboy]

[Insane_Homer]

[Rinkals]

What climate change

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-mi ... a-12401988

Ministers agreed to bow to pressure from Australia to drop binding commitments to the Paris climate change agreement from the UK-Australian trade deal, a leaked government email obtained by Sky News has revealed.

Liz Truss, the trade secretary, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, decided the government could "drop both of the climate asks" from the text of the trade deal, according to the email from a senior official.

Among the areas to be removed was "a reference to Paris Agreement temperature goals".

Negotiating trade deals to replace EU trade was always going to be difficult because they have you over a barrel.

Mind you, if some of my Brexit-supporting family members are anything to go by, climate change is an elaborate hoax specifically designed to deny Britain its rightful place at the forefront of the World Economy, so any concession made in regard to it wouldn't be popular anyway.

[Hal Jordan]

On the climate change front, I note that there are a load of reports embargoed until tomorrow morning about the Government's plans. I'm willing to bet the words "hydrogen" and "carbon capture and storage" (a.k.a. more subsidies for the sadly impoverished fossil fuels sector) will feature.

The BEIS is also in a consultation period about what to do about regulations in the new "common law" approach we have now we're out of the EU. I might also hazard a guess at the foregone conclusion...

[Insane_Homer]

[Insane_Homer]

[fishfoodie]

Another day; another bumblecunt lie to Parliament; & another; big fat nothing from the Speaker to stop his contempt for the House.

Boris Johnson has incorrectly stated his proposals to fix the social care system will mean “nobody has to pay anything” for means-tested care of up to £100,000.

It comes after the prime minister announced a manifesto-busting hike in national insurance contributions from April 2022, in an effort to tackle the NHS backlog and social care crisis.

During prime minister’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly asked whether he had broken his promise made to the British people to guarantee that no-one needing care will have to sell their home.

“What we’re actually doing is lifting the floor, lifting the guaranteed floor by up to £100,000 where nobody has to pay anything across the country,” the prime minister insisted.

However, while the government document stated those with assets below £20,000 from October 2023 will not have to make any contribution for their care from savings, those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will only receive state support on sliding scale.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Another day; another bumblecunt lie to Parliament; & another; big fat nothing from the Speaker to stop his contempt for the House.

Boris Johnson has incorrectly stated his proposals to fix the social care system will mean “nobody has to pay anything” for means-tested care of up to £100,000.

It comes after the prime minister announced a manifesto-busting hike in national insurance contributions from April 2022, in an effort to tackle the NHS backlog and social care crisis.

During prime minister’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly asked whether he had broken his promise made to the British people to guarantee that no-one needing care will have to sell their home.

“What we’re actually doing is lifting the floor, lifting the guaranteed floor by up to £100,000 where nobody has to pay anything across the country,” the prime minister insisted.

However, while the government document stated those with assets below £20,000 from October 2023 will not have to make any contribution for their care from savings, those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will only receive state support on sliding scale.

I think it's actually much worse than that because unless I've totally misunderstood that's only for addressing care costs. You remain liable for all the hotel costs, so you'll be in care an awfully long time paying the vast whack yourself before you even get close to the care cap.

Basically it'd be more honest to say we've had a pandemic, we're raising taxes as a result, and it's got little to nothing to do with social care.

[Torquemada 1420]

Another day; another bumblecunt lie to Parliament; & another; big fat nothing from the Speaker to stop his contempt for the House.

Boris Johnson has incorrectly stated his proposals to fix the social care system will mean “nobody has to pay anything” for means-tested care of up to £100,000.

It comes after the prime minister announced a manifesto-busting hike in national insurance contributions from April 2022, in an effort to tackle the NHS backlog and social care crisis.

During prime minister’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly asked whether he had broken his promise made to the British people to guarantee that no-one needing care will have to sell their home.

“What we’re actually doing is lifting the floor, lifting the guaranteed floor by up to £100,000 where nobody has to pay anything across the country,” the prime minister insisted.

However, while the government document stated those with assets below £20,000 from October 2023 will not have to make any contribution for their care from savings, those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will only receive state support on sliding scale.

I'm never sure whether he is wilfully lying or is just so f**king thick he genuinely has no idea WTF he is talking about. A la Trump, he just thinks he can spout any sh*t and people will believe it.

[Biffer]

[SaintK]

You just know they are going to go ahead with this!!

A well-placed Whitehall official said the government’s own analysis highlighted the deep impact of reversing the change. “The internal modelling of ending the UC uplift is catastrophic. Homelessness and poverty are likely to rise, and food banks usage will soar. It could be the real disaster of the autumn.”

One minister warned that the political backlash over universal credit, which is claimed by 6m people, was likely to be more serious for prime minister Boris Johnson than the debate about social care.

“There’s no doubt that this is going to have a serious impact on thousands of people and colleagues are really worried, I think it will definitely eclipse social care as a political problem. It’s not just red wall MPs who are fearing a major backlash from the public.”