LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
It's 2.5% though.Dorset_Boy said:
I don't think you have understood.sungod said:
more to the point, as the chart below shows, the rise in ni ranges from c. 10% to c. 20% over the included rangekingstongraham said:Isn't calling it a 1.25% rise a bit disingenuous when it's a 1.25% rise for both employers and employees?
claiming it to be 1.25% is deliberate deception, as to be expected from johnson the liar and his cabal
It is a new 1.25% levy. There is nothing at all disingenious in stating it as that, because that is what it is. It is the way all tax changes are ever stated.
You don't say the basic rate of tax is 20% and the higher rate is a 100% increase.0 -
Businesses don't choose profits - it is what is left over. It is true that additional costs of employment will affect the supply/demand curves. I'm sure Rick has a graph and it is harder with taxes/subsidies, but the new market salary will be somewhere between 0% and 1.25% change.kingstongraham said:
If a business is to hit the same profit targets, there will need to be cuts somewhere. Any expected pay rises for next year will take this into account.TheBigBean said:
Yes, they would, but that is not how it currently works. Is anyone expecting a pay cut due to the employer's increase?kingstongraham said:
They would get the same reduction if they paid it to the employee in the absence of employer's ni. Even if it were then taxed.TheBigBean said:
No view at all, but the employer's NI is tax deductible, so a profit making company would get a reduced CT bill from the increase.kingstongraham said:
How should it be expressed so the "tax due because of employing someone each month" calculations are not distorted by it being a bit hidden?TheBigBean said:
Whilst employer's NI is a ridiculous concept, it is not really sensible to include it in the employee's calculations as the employee has no right to receive that money. The "on costs" associated with employment are higher than people think.rick_chasey said:
I do think the idea of just being the smartest and/or the hardest working being enough to make you successful is now a dream and not reality, nowadays.0 -
...after the effect of the decisions they have taken. Companies have profit targets.TheBigBean said:
Businesses don't choose profits - it is what is left over. It is true that additional costs of employment will affect the supply/demand curves. I'm sure Rick has a graph and it is harder with taxes/subsidies, but the new market salary will be somewhere between 0% and 1.25% change.kingstongraham said:
If a business is to hit the same profit targets, there will need to be cuts somewhere. Any expected pay rises for next year will take this into account.TheBigBean said:
Yes, they would, but that is not how it currently works. Is anyone expecting a pay cut due to the employer's increase?kingstongraham said:
They would get the same reduction if they paid it to the employee in the absence of employer's ni. Even if it were then taxed.TheBigBean said:
No view at all, but the employer's NI is tax deductible, so a profit making company would get a reduced CT bill from the increase.kingstongraham said:
How should it be expressed so the "tax due because of employing someone each month" calculations are not distorted by it being a bit hidden?TheBigBean said:
Whilst employer's NI is a ridiculous concept, it is not really sensible to include it in the employee's calculations as the employee has no right to receive that money. The "on costs" associated with employment are higher than people think.rick_chasey said:
I do think the idea of just being the smartest and/or the hardest working being enough to make you successful is now a dream and not reality, nowadays.0 -
I heard her on the radio and was struggling to understand her argument, it certainly came across as "why should I pay anything".john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
I'm happy to pay the extra to help get improvements in social care, especially the bit that gets ignored that isn't age related, but at the same time I'm a bit uncomfortable with working people paying so that some retiree with a large asset in the form of a mortgage free property gets free / cheaper care.
The whole system needs a review though. My wife manages supported living schemes for adults with learning disabilities. The service users get different levels of funding theoretically based on their needs. Some end up with more money than they can spend whilst others don't have enough to be able to go on breaks or, since Councils realised how much they can save by not funding the services during lockdown, even attending day activities / clubs that are supposedly part of the benefit of being in supported living rather than a care home. She has also experienced a relative of one of the service users that died comlaining that they had been allowed to spend their benefits on doing things they liked or buying their own clothes which was seemingly down to the fact that they were expecting to inherit more upon his death. It seems a ludicrous system where tax funded benefits that haven't been used by the intended recipient can be inherited by a relative.0 -
usual tory boy brexiter excusesDorset_Boy said:
I don't think you have understood.sungod said:
more to the point, as the chart below shows, the rise in ni ranges from c. 10% to c. 20% over the included rangekingstongraham said:Isn't calling it a 1.25% rise a bit disingenuous when it's a 1.25% rise for both employers and employees?
claiming it to be 1.25% is deliberate deception, as to be expected from johnson the liar and his cabal
It is a new 1.25% levy. There is nothing at all disingenious in stating it as that, because that is what it is. It is the way all tax changes are ever stated.
You don't say the basic rate of tax is 20% and the higher rate is a 100% increase.
if one is paying 20% more ni, thats a 20% increase
clearly you do not understand basic arithmetic
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I see the expression 'Cobalt Corbyn' has been coined. 😂1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
are they using it as a posh way of saying blue or is there another angle to it?rjsterry said:I see the expression 'Cobalt Corbyn' has been coined. 😂
I see Chope asked him how he would have funded his plans if Covid had not happened.
You may not approve of his hobbies but that is a very good question that should continue to be asked0 -
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
0 -
Starmer being as coherent as ever. Pressing the prime minister to confirm that no-one should need to sell there house for care costs whilst saying that the NI increase is unfairly targeting working people. I am confused as to what if anything the opposition would come up with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-584830360 -
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
2 -
Are you a f@cking idiot?john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
0 -
so NHS thinks Alzheimers is a diseasejohn80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alzheimers-disease/
does that mean you think all associated care should be free at point of use?0 -
I'm happy for the state to pay for all medically required care. I also think inheritance tax should be increased substantially. The impact is probably much the same as not paying for the care, but it is more consistent.0
-
with inheritance tax, how about dropping the % and widening the net so that more people actually pay it?TheBigBean said:I'm happy for the state to pay for all medically required care. I also think inheritance tax should be increased substantially. The impact is probably much the same as not paying for the care, but it is more consistent.
0 -
I'd just tax it like income throughout someone's life. Might need a few de minimus thresholds, but a car from your parents or a car from a company would both be taxed. I wouldn't be elected though.surrey_commuter said:
with inheritance tax, how about dropping the % and widening the net so that more people actually pay it?TheBigBean said:I'm happy for the state to pay for all medically required care. I also think inheritance tax should be increased substantially. The impact is probably much the same as not paying for the care, but it is more consistent.
0 -
So, following the removal of the price cap, my energy bill will be going up by just over £200 per annum from October. Just got the estimate from my provider.0
-
https://clubs.moneysavingexpert.com/cheapenergyclubelbowloh said:So, following the removal of the price cap, my energy bill will be going up by just over £200 per annum from October. Just got the estimate from my provider.
Useful and simple to use price comparison site.0 -
Indeed, but they are all putting the price up as the cap has been removed.orraloon said:
https://clubs.moneysavingexpert.com/cheapenergyclubelbowloh said:So, following the removal of the price cap, my energy bill will be going up by just over £200 per annum from October. Just got the estimate from my provider.
Useful and simple to use price comparison site.0 -
What a surprise. All but 5 folded like a cheap suit. Cobalt Corbyn indeed.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Glad I signed a new fixed deal last month. Lucky I guess as I thought it was too high at the time (+10% from 24 months ago), and sorry for you.elbowloh said:So, following the removal of the price cap, my energy bill will be going up by just over £200 per annum from October. Just got the estimate from my provider.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.0 -
In life those quickest to question the intelligence of others are often the thickest and least secure. You sure you don't fall into this trap.rick_chasey said:
Are you a f@cking idiot?john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
0 -
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
Is this even legal? Imagine this will just trigger the migrants to put a hole in the boat when they see border force approaching.
Channel crossings: Priti Patel authorises turning back of migrant boats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948
0 -
Doesn't really work when your response is a slightly dressed up "no you are"john80 said:
In life those quickest to question the intelligence of others are often the thickest and least secure. You sure you don't fall into this trap.rick_chasey said:
Are you a f@cking idiot?john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
So one should be free at point of use whilst the other should be means tested... because they are in different buildings?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Indeed. As you say: zero chance of NI being reduced again when/if they have cleared the NHS backlog and little of the money likely to actually get to care providers for at least the first few years. He really is just Corbyn in a blonde wig.surrey_commuter said:
are they using it as a posh way of saying blue or is there another angle to it?rjsterry said:I see the expression 'Cobalt Corbyn' has been coined. 😂
I see Chope asked him how he would have funded his plans if Covid had not happened.
You may not approve of his hobbies but that is a very good question that should continue to be asked1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm sure I heard him say that Labour had ignored social care "for decades" while in power.0
-
Whilst I have never been in hospital long enough to require feeding that does surprise me that patients have to pay for their meals and if they don’t are left to die I can confirm that I have never paid to visit a patient.john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.1 -
Yep. He really can't do thinking on his feet.kingstongraham said:I'm sure I heard him say that Labour had ignored social care "for decades" while in power.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
