DS Forums

 
 

Vote for a 16% tax rise


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-12-2016, 15:48
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,588
The chit is going to hit the fan when the public accounts committee reports on the cost of administering Brexit to government coffers.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-12-2016, 15:56
TeeGee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dark Satanic Mills
Posts: 4,809
I would much rather elect a progressive central government that doesn't starve councils of much-needed cash in the first place.
I am sure that is a very good idea but the government has to have the money (via taxation) in the first place before it can be allocated to Councils for funding care.

The chit is going to hit the fan when the public accounts committee reports on the cost of administering Brexit to government coffers.
I think you are in the wrong topic.
TeeGee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:57
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,588




I think you are in the wrong topic.
Err.. no. Billions on administering Brexit or on Social Care. That is the decision that is looming in 2017.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 17:16
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
Vote for a 16% tax rise

That should all now be funded by the extra £340 million a day that we were promised by Boris and Gove. Oh, wait a minute, that was just one huge great Brexit lie.
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 17:17
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
I am sure that is a very good idea but the government has to have the money (via taxation) in the first place before it can be allocated to Councils for funding care.



I think you are in the wrong topic.
Obviously. I would prefer the government to spend money on social care than nukes to be honest.
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 18:14
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
If you want to fund care. Give family carers a wage. It would be a lot cheaper.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 19:57
Brigon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,482
I am sure that is a very good idea but the government has to have the money (via taxation) in the first place before it can be allocated to Councils for funding care.
I was of the impression that or Government were actually reducing our deficit. Wouldn't that suggest they are running an annual surplus currently?
Brigon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 20:44
The Exiled Dub
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,045
I am totally opposed to funding social care from an increase in council tax. I believe it should come from central government. Any increase in council tax will hit poorest hard, as those on benefits are still forced to pay a percentage of the council tax. To increase this burden on them, when they are already suffering from cuts to benefits, would be wholly unjust.
The Exiled Dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 01:13
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
I am totally opposed to funding social care from an increase in council tax. I believe it should come from central government. Any increase in council tax will hit poorest hard, as those on benefits are still forced to pay a percentage of the council tax.
Well it will hit those that are property rich but income poor the hardest. The wealth hoarders as it were. Of course as with any social need it's always better if "the rich" pick up the burden instead. Hey if we can get the 0.01% to pick up the bill for everything for all of us - why not? If that solution is not on offer however what do we do instead?

We're not talking poll tax here, council tax is proportional at least in some way pegged to wealth. If you're not willing to put in the 16% extra fair enough. Lets leave things as they are. "The rich" can happily pay for their own care and "the poor" can be happy they didn't have to chip in. That's essentially what the OP was asking

The underlying problem I suspect with council tax as a solution is it localises the benefit. You can't leech off the wealth of another county, city, town. You have to live within your local means for local people instead. That's not so great if you live under a cash poor northern Labour council - but the Tory Surrey County Council may just find support for it
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 01:52
lemoncurd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,964
I believe this is being considered to fund social care for the disabled and frail elderly.

Maybe it doesn't affect you now - but it could be your mum or gran that is left without any support due to cuts. A week in a care home these days is more than most people pay in council tax in a year and home helps can cost £500 a month in some areas.

This is not the best way to fund this vital service - but there before the grace of God go I. Cos you might need care one day.

No one likes paying taxes - but when it's too support some of the most vulnerable and frail people who paid in all their lives and possibly fought for this country maybe it's morally right and possibly a bit mean to moan.
Agreed. Though I suspect the government could cover it more efficiently by topping up the basic rate of income tax by a penny or two. Everyone is saying that they'd be happy to pay a bit more to ensure social care is better.
lemoncurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 01:59
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
Agreed. Though I suspect the government could cover it more efficiently by topping up the basic rate of income tax by a penny or two. Everyone is saying that they'd be happy to pay a bit more to ensure social care is better.
Not quite the same thing though is it? All those earning less than £11K would not be paying a bit more, those earning £12 or £15K would be paying nowhere near a penny more.

If it's really true that "Everyone is saying that they'd be happy to pay a bit more" then council tax or some sort of national levy seems to be the way.

I suspect the reality however (at least judged from this forum) is "Everyone is saying that they'd be happy to have others pay a bit more" I've seen one or two exceptions - willing to put their hands in their pockets regardless of their income, but they do seem to be exceptions
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 02:06
lemoncurd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,964
Not quite the same thing though is it? All those earning less than £11K would not be paying a bit more, those earning £12 or £15K would be paying nowhere near a penny more.

If it's really true that "Everyone is saying that they'd be happy to pay a bit more" then council tax or some sort of national levy seems to be the way.

I suspect the reality however (at least judged from this forum) is "Everyone is saying that they'd be happy to have others pay a bit more"
Surely income tax is a national levy to pay for this sort of thing?
lemoncurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 02:21
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
Surely income tax is a national levy to pay for this sort of thing?
Get rid of the tax free allowances, and the higher rate banding and yep everyone could be chipping in 1 or 2% more. As long as they remain however the "progressive" nature of the tax means that not everyone is chipping in the same percentage

Heck eliminate the tax free allowances and you're probably a good way to funding it without a rise in the rates at all - that way everyone really would chip in
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 10:57
chavet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,344
Err.. no. Billions on administering Brexit or on Social Care. That is the decision that is looming in 2017.
The reason it's not going on Social Care is because it's being siphoned off as a result, directly or indirectly, of the leadership cult. Why does the money always disappear once they're involved? Have you seen the story about the foreign aid being given to supermarkets for training Emerging Leaders? This is the unrelenting pattern. Maybe it would be okay if the audit committees hadn't been trained. Obviously, that's what you want from a good audit -- not someone who'll deal with the impending oblivion, but someone who'll say that the most important thing is that the leadership skills were, like, totally awesome.

There is money. Why is it being bled out?
chavet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:03
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
Get rid of the tax free allowances, and the higher rate banding and yep everyone could be chipping in 1 or 2% more. As long as they remain however the "progressive" nature of the tax means that not everyone is chipping in the same percentage

Heck eliminate the tax free allowances and you're probably a good way to funding it without a rise in the rates at all - that way everyone really would chip in
Sorry, are you saying get free of the Income Tax personal allowance here? So a zero hours contract worker currently on £10k which is currently tax free would have to pay £2k of that in tax?

And have higher earners pay less tax?

How does that equate to all paying 1 or 2% more?

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:04
lemoncurd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,964
Get rid of the tax free allowances, and the higher rate banding and yep everyone could be chipping in 1 or 2% more. As long as they remain however the "progressive" nature of the tax means that not everyone is chipping in the same percentage

Heck eliminate the tax free allowances and you're probably a good way to funding it without a rise in the rates at all - that way everyone really would chip in
Is there an issue with progressive tax? I thought the whole idea was that it was fairer; didn't unduly impact the lowest earners?
lemoncurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:47
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
Is there an issue with progressive tax? I thought the whole idea was that it was fairer; didn't unduly impact the lowest earners?
No personally I have no issue with progressive tax.

I'd quibble about calling it "fair" when manifestly some are paying more than their fair share. I'd prefer to say it's reasonable rather than fair.

My argument here (and I'll admit it was very pedantic) is simply with the idea that if "everyone" is happy to chip in more putting on income tax is not the way to do it.
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:49
Ads
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pimlico, central London, UK
Posts: 14,870
Wages for carers are very low - meaning most jobs are done by foreigners.

If Brexiteers get their way and immigration from the EU becomes much more difficult, then we will likely have a staff shortage in the care sector, meaning costs will spiral.
Ads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:55
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
Sorry, are you saying get free of the Income Tax personal allowance here? So a zero hours contract worker currently on £10k which is currently tax free would have to pay £2k of that in tax?

And have higher earners pay less tax?

How does that equate to all paying 1 or 2% more?

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?
Sorry I was not seriously proposing that at all - I was just attempting using it as an example of what you would need to change to remove the progression so "everyone" could chip in their equal cut by a simple 2% rise. In my "defence" I was very, very drunk

Nope. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather go with a council tax hike than see it put on income tax and disappear into the bowels of 11 Downing St. Not a perfect solution by any means - but the best of a bad lot
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:00
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,914
Wages for carers are very low - meaning most jobs are done by foreigners.

If Brexiteers get their way and immigration from the EU becomes much more difficult, then we will likely have a staff shortage in the care sector, meaning costs will spiral.
Everyone has to be paid the minimum wage - foreign or not. Of course foreigners might be happy with just that - and UK workers want more (and if they do the job properly, all deserve more).

A question of sums, would it be cheaper for the state to pay daughter £25k/year (taxed) as a sole carer for mother and keep at home, or the state pay for mother to be in a nursing home? *Added benefit that if mother went into hospital, on release there would be somewhere immediate to go to rather than rehab thus sparing up and nHS bed*
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 15:14
TeeGee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dark Satanic Mills
Posts: 4,809
I was of the impression that or Government were actually reducing our deficit. Wouldn't that suggest they are running an annual surplus currently?
The annual deficit is still a deficit but it is a smaller deficit than it once was! As well as interest payments the total national debt is increasing at a rate in the region of £5,000 per second. We should be grateful that we have any public services at all!
TeeGee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 15:40
Gordon g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 443
This is just the start. By 2050. Upto 50p in every pound collected for council tax will be spent on pensions.
Gordon g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 15:42
Gordon g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 443
Wages for carers are very low - meaning most jobs are done by foreigners.

If Brexiteers get their way and immigration from the EU becomes much more difficult, then we will likely have a staff shortage in the care sector, meaning costs will spiral.
Depends where you live. Here in Cornwall. 90% of carers are British. Mainly because of the fact there aren't any other jobs out there.
Gordon g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 16:09
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
Sorry I was not seriously proposing that at all - I was just attempting using it as an example of what you would need to change to remove the progression so "everyone" could chip in their equal cut by a simple 2% rise. In my "defence" I was very, very drunk

Nope. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather go with a council tax hike than see it put on income tax and disappear into the bowels of 11 Downing St. Not a perfect solution by any means - but the best of a bad lot


Ah! You are excused!
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 14:09
LakieLady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,157
If you want to fund care. Give family carers a wage. It would be a lot cheaper.
Probably not, because a most of them are currently doing it for nothing, or for the pittance that is carer's allowance.
LakieLady is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34.