NPR

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:30 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:23 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:03 am 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

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:56 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:14 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:56 pm 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?

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:30 pm
But then, quite a few of us managed to not qualify for any covid benefits, so fuck it

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:17 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:14 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:24 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:14 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:26 am
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?

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:37 pm 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.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:58 pm

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:30 pm
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?

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:50 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:58 pm

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:30 pm
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

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:17 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:14 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:56 pm 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.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:49 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:17 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:14 pm

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 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:52 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:49 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:17 pm
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.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:49 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:17 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:14 pm

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 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:36 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:37 pm 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.

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:18 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:36 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:37 pm 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.

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”.

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".

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:22 am 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".

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:50 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:58 pm

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:30 pm
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.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:22 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:26 am
Woopsie

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:26 am

Woopsie

Accent could have been a giveaway Rolling on the floor laughing

I like neeps wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:29 pm
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!

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:22 am 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".

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.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:02 pm 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.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:02 pm 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.

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.”