Options
Labour propose increased 'workers tax' to fund NHS for pensioners
Turnbull2000
Posts: 7,588 Forum Member
✭
www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/17/labour-national-insurance-increase-save-nhs-mp-demands
Not entirely unexpected. Seems very likely to me that both Labour and Tories will hike NI within the next parliament, to ensure NI exempt pensioners get a better service.
Not entirely unexpected. Seems very likely to me that both Labour and Tories will hike NI within the next parliament, to ensure NI exempt pensioners get a better service.
0
Comments
Nah it will be George Osborne's £360bn personal unsecured lending tree that will be paying for everything.
Pensioners are only exempt from NI contributions as their pensions entitlement is based on the amount of years that paid in up to the point of state pension age , if working pensioners paid NI for every year they work after their pension then they would have every right to expect their pensions to increase to reflect the extra they have paid in.
My Dad worked (and paid tax) for 70 years, yet his pension is based only on the 51 years that he paid NI on, if he wasn't exempt from paying NI after his 51 years and continued to pay in for the extra 19 years then he would have every right to expect a higher state pension based on 70 years of contributions.
Do hope this is not going to be one of those boring threads about entitled pensioners getting freebies that young people have to pay for
What happened to the mantra of, "we are all in this together?" I shall be making many more years worth of contributions than your father did, but I won't be getting any more of a pension that he has.
Counting this new one, Labour has already announced 9 new taxes.
And the campaign has hardly started yet.
Glad to see someone's serious about reducing the deficit.
Wrong.
These new taxes are not to reduce the deficit
They are all about new spending
And if Ed brings up his "plan-B" again we'll be borrowing even more.
Indeed Andy, the Tories' obsession with working age benefit cuts and tax cuts for the better off are some of the main reasons why Osborne has failed so spectacularly with his deficit promise. We need a balance of cuts and increased taxes for those that can afford them imo. In this area of policy I think the Lib Dems are possibly the least bad of the 3 main parties.
You are joking! On the day a further fall in unemployment is announced and wages again outstripped inflation (which is itself at a record low) - the Labour Party think it is a good idea to make employing people more expensive.
You seem to have fallen for the OP's con. It's only a proposal from one MP, not the whole Labour Party.
You have to stop believing what right wingers tell you, they're not very honest.
Plenty of money for the NHS then.
Never seemed to stop those on the left claiming that comments by a Conservative MP is potential Conservative Party policy
I'm not very honest?
Thanks a lot
And doubly wrong because taxing people will take money out the economy, leading to lower growth, lower spending, higher unemployment - and all the costs that come along with that.
But Labour never learn...
I've only glanced through that, but will take a better look later. However, I'll take a guess and suggest those stats tell far from the full picture and take very few not exactly positive influences into account. I'm referring to the inflation not taking into account housing/mortgages, zero hour contracts, underemployment, high earners increasing the average salary rise and the huge amount of job centre sanctions.
They must be good because I've just seen the Labour spokesman for employment on TV welcoming the further drop in unemployment numbers.
Yup, but he's just one MP, not the whole Labour Party.
For the gazzilionth time sanctions do not decrease unemployment - just the claimant count and this seems a standard reply from those on the left when unemployment goes down under a Conservative led government.
However the last NI increase was originally announced when Labour were in power and they even admitted it would increase unemployment to the Treasury Select Committee.
His quote has just made the BBC news
"Labour's shadow employment minister Stephen Timms said the fall in overall unemployment was welcome,"
I realise this and agree. But what sort of 'knock on' effect does it have?
Does the threat of sanctions lead to people taking zero hour contracts, which have increased exponentially in recent years.
"spokesman" mean something different in your world?
Well equating the OP's false "Labour propose..." with "potential...policy" isn't a terribly honest comparison.
I see you are in denial of the facts
"The ONS said the employment rate, or level of people in work, was 73.2%, its joint highest rate.
Average earnings including bonuses were up 2.1% in the quarter compared with a year earlier.
CPI inflation was 0.5% in December, and new data released on Tuesday showed the rate fell to 0.3% in January, its lowest level since records began.
James Sproule, chief economist at the Institute of Directors (IoD), said wages would continue to rise as competition for talent intensified. "Two-thirds of IoD members [are] planning pay rises at least in line with inflation over the coming months," he added."
Nope, just quietly pulling your leg after you came over all high and mighty about right wingers not being very honest.
ZHC only account for about 4% of all of those employed so hardly the kind of increase indicated by what you say. but even here the person is still working. That said any knock on effect would rather depend on why they were sanctioned in the first place.
There are two reasons why the increase in income tax receipts have not met expectations the first is the increase in the lower tax rate and the other is that wages have (until 4 months ago) kept up with inflation.
You make an excellent point.
In my view, all benefits should be means tested.
It's ridiculous that average and above income earners get stuff like child allowance and winter fuel payments.