Page 1 of 3
I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:32 pm
by lpm
... and it's many years overdue.
Even pre-Covid we needed to redirect our society's resources from consumer luxuries to healthcare. Demographics cannot be waved away.
The tax increase is insufficient. The best way to extend it would be to reduce the drop in NI to 2%. Currently this tax break kicks in at around £50k a year, in an amazingly regressive tax step. End it would raise the same again.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:42 pm
by Sciolus
Johnson's framed this brilliantly, hasn't he? Loathe him or detest him, you have to admire his low cunning. He's pissed off a few backbenchers but steamrollered them into voting for it anyway.
One measure to fund this is to remove the 86k cap on care contributions. Otherwise this a transfer of wealth from the young and poorish to the middle aged and middle class, protecting their inheritance of their parents' £500k houses which was unearned either by the parents or the children. But of course that will never happen.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:54 pm
by El Pollo Diablo
The overall idea of tax rises to support social care is sound, but I'd prefer it to come from income tax (I'd prefer national insurance to be wound up and combined into income tax to be fair). Also to be fair, there's a lot more we need to fund besides this, so yes more tax rises are needed.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:58 pm
by El Pollo Diablo
Ah, I see Margaret Hodge has similar thoughts to me. Let's just analyse the depths of Johnson's intelligence, shall we?
Guardian wrote:Dame Margaret Hodge (Lab) says this is the least progressive option available for raising the money. It is unfair between individuals, unfair between generations and unfair between assets and income. Why did the PM not raise income tax or capital gains tax, or try a dividend tax?
Johnson says other taxes would not have raised enough
Oh dear.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:22 pm
by IvanV
If you limit "other taxes" to those that won't annoy his own MPs too much, (by his own understanding of "too much"): then yes, I have to agree, the one that taxes the poor the hardest is the one that raises the most revenue.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:27 pm
by El Pollo Diablo
I'm sure you can constrain reality in many needless ways to make otherwise cretinous statements more justifiable. Doesn't mean he isn't a cretin.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:33 pm
by shpalman
What's on the side of the bus this time?
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:44 pm
by IvanV
El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:27 pm
I'm sure you can constrain reality in many needless ways to make otherwise cretinous statements more justifiable. Doesn't mean he isn't a cretin.
Let us try to understand our enemy, who is unfortunately a clever cretin. For if we fail to understand our enemy, then we may suffer even more damage from him.
From the cretin's perspective, constraining the universe of taxes to those that won't get you strung up by the right-wing fuckwits who comprise most of the parliamentary
Tory Cakeist Party these days, is not at all needless. It is in fact utterly necessary, from his own narrow, selfish, narcissistic perspective.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:39 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Sciolus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:42 pm
Otherwise this a transfer of wealth from the young and poorish to the middle aged and middle class
By design.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:00 pm
by dyqik
IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:44 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:27 pm
I'm sure you can constrain reality in many needless ways to make otherwise cretinous statements more justifiable. Doesn't mean he isn't a cretin.
Let us try to understand our enemy, who is unfortunately a clever cretin. For if we fail to understand our enemy, then we may suffer even more damage from him.
From the cretin's perspective, constraining the universe of taxes to those that won't get you strung up by the right-wing fuckwits who comprise most of the parliamentary
Tory Cakeist Party these days, is not at all needless. It is in fact utterly necessary, from his own narrow, selfish, narcissistic perspective.
There's also a possible ploy available from a future left government* available from it - "income tax has remained the same for decades, and a rise is necessary to balance the books and make taxation less regressive".
*haha
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:23 pm
by Opti
" I paid my taxes for years and my house I bought for £10k in 19 god-knows-when is worth £500k now, you can't take that away from me."
Not sure if that argument goes down too well with the younger generation. Unless, of course, they're the lucky ones waiting for their inheritance.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:45 pm
by Little waster
shpalman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:33 pm
What's on the side of the bus this time?
I am shocked that Johnson lied, shocked I say!
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:55 pm
by discovolante
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:32 pm
... and it's many years overdue.
Even pre-Covid we needed to redirect our society's resources from consumer luxuries to healthcare. Demographics cannot be waved away.
The tax increase is insufficient. The best way to extend it would be to reduce the drop in NI to 2%. Currently this tax break kicks in at around £50k a year, in an amazingly regressive tax step. End it would raise the same again.
What do you mean by society's resources and why do they need redirecting, as opposed to just say, making care homes free without a tax/NI rise?
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:12 pm
by Allo V Psycho
From the BBC figures
Earnings p.a. Proportion paid in NI
30000 9.02
50000 10.71
80000 7.95
100000 7.01
So I can't understand why social sensible politicians aren't going ballistic over this, describing it in simple terms that explain to the poor sods in Hartlepool exactly how screwed they are being by this bunch of c.nts. Them and their £70,000 house, while a very ordinary house in Kent might be £400,000.
May be the first time I have sworn on this forum.
Just to be clear: I support increased taxes in these circumstances: I personally benefit from this disgraceful state of affairs: I favour an Income Tax increase which would cost me far more, but would not screw the disadvantaged in the same way.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:18 pm
by lpm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:55 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:32 pm
... and it's many years overdue.
Even pre-Covid we needed to redirect our society's resources from consumer luxuries to healthcare. Demographics cannot be waved away.
The tax increase is insufficient. The best way to extend it would be to reduce the drop in NI to 2%. Currently this tax break kicks in at around £50k a year, in an amazingly regressive tax step. End it would raise the same again.
What do you mean by society's resources and why do they need redirecting, as opposed to just say, making care homes free without a tax/NI rise?
Resources are limited, particularly in a crappy country that drove away hard-working immigrants. And without significant unemployment.
We need more and more people working as carers and nurses and other healthcare, due to the ageing population.
Which means fewer people working on other things we'd like.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:23 pm
by discovolante
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:18 pm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:55 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:32 pm
... and it's many years overdue.
Even pre-Covid we needed to redirect our society's resources from consumer luxuries to healthcare. Demographics cannot be waved away.
The tax increase is insufficient. The best way to extend it would be to reduce the drop in NI to 2%. Currently this tax break kicks in at around £50k a year, in an amazingly regressive tax step. End it would raise the same again.
What do you mean by society's resources and why do they need redirecting, as opposed to just say, making care homes free without a tax/NI rise?
Resources are limited, particularly in a crappy country that drove away hard-working immigrants. And without significant unemployment.
We need more and more people working as carers and nurses and other healthcare, due to the ageing population.
Which means fewer people working on other things we'd like.
Why is a tax increase needed for that?
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:34 pm
by monkey
El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:54 pm
The overall idea of tax rises to support social care is sound, but I'd prefer it to come from income tax (I'd prefer national insurance to be wound up and combined into income tax to be fair). Also to be fair, there's a lot more we need to fund besides this, so yes more tax rises are needed.
I'd do it with a wealth tax. Here's a calculator to play with and see how much you could raise -
clicky. It's pretty easy to get plenty of money, according to that. The peeps at the LSE who put that together don't think an annual tax should be done before reforming exisiting wealth taxes though, which seems fair enough.
I agree with just lumping NI in with income tax, but there's the employers bit to consider too - which tax to you lump that on to?
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:42 pm
by lpm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:23 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:18 pm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:55 pm
What do you mean by society's resources and why do they need redirecting, as opposed to just say, making care homes free without a tax/NI rise?
Resources are limited, particularly in a crappy country that drove away hard-working immigrants. And without significant unemployment.
We need more and more people working as carers and nurses and other healthcare, due to the ageing population.
Which means fewer people working on other things we'd like.
Why is a tax increase needed for that?
To reduce the amount of money people spend on cars, phones, holidays, nights out, and other nice things.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:23 pm
by discovolante
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:42 pm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:23 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:18 pm
Resources are limited, particularly in a crappy country that drove away hard-working immigrants. And without significant unemployment.
We need more and more people working as carers and nurses and other healthcare, due to the ageing population.
Which means fewer people working on other things we'd like.
Why is a tax increase needed for that?
To reduce the amount of money people spend on cars, phones, holidays, nights out, and other nice things.
Which people working in retail and leisure do you think would or should be made unemployed and what do you think they should get paid as care workers and nurses?
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:24 pm
by bjn
monkey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:34 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:54 pm
The overall idea of tax rises to support social care is sound, but I'd prefer it to come from income tax (I'd prefer national insurance to be wound up and combined into income tax to be fair). Also to be fair, there's a lot more we need to fund besides this, so yes more tax rises are needed.
I'd do it with a wealth tax. Here's a calculator to play with and see how much you could raise -
clicky. It's pretty easy to get plenty of money, according to that. The peeps at the LSE who put that together don't think an annual tax should be done before reforming exisiting wealth taxes though, which seems fair enough.
I agree with just lumping NI in with income tax, but there's the employers bit to consider too - which tax to you lump that on to?
Employers NI is a cost to the employer from their payroll budget, that could otherwise have gone to employees. It’s effectively a hidden tax that employees pay.
I’m all for scrapping NI, reforming income tax and increasing capital gains and other taxes on unearned income. I would personally pay more tax if that happened.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:09 pm
by Bird on a Fire
I think inheritances should be taxed like any other capital gains. The focus should be on the recipient, who's getting a big wodge of unearned wealth, not the estate-holder is who deceased anyway.
Split up a massive estate between 20 people and you're at least counteracting the concentration of capital in elite lineages. You'd have to be careful about quid pro quo arrangements, but I don't know if rich people trust each other enough for that (after all, they are all a bunch of bastards).
Why should getting a wodge of unearned capital from your dead parent have a higher threshold than a massive unearned wodge from investments in business or property?
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:52 pm
by bolo
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:55 pm
What do you mean by society's resources and why do they need redirecting, as opposed to just say, making care homes free without a tax/NI rise?
LPM's insistence on talking about "resources" rather than money makes this unnecessarily complicated. If the government provides something free, that it used to charge for, then government revenues are reduced. To make the books add up, choose from the following:
(a) The government increases other revenues, usually through taxation. This redirects money away from whatever the taxpayers would have spent it on if they had been allowed to keep it. Ditto if it's a "fee" or an "insurance premium" or some other euphemism rather than just a tax.
(b) The government spends less on something else. This redirects money away from whatever that other thing is.
(c) The government borrows more money, usually by selling more bonds. This redirects money in the future away from whatever a future government might otherwise have spent it on, to interest payments that bondholders get to spend.
(d) The government prints more money. Eventually, in some complicated and difficult to predict way, this probably results in inflation, so in real terms it redirects money away from everyone who has money. Unless you believe in MMT, which most economists and policymakers don't.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:10 pm
by Opti
Conservatives ultimately now truly shits.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:28 pm
by lpm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:23 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:42 pm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:23 pm
Why is a tax increase needed for that?
To reduce the amount of money people spend on cars, phones, holidays, nights out, and other nice things.
Which people working in retail and leisure do you think would or should be made unemployed and what do you think they should get paid as care workers and nurses?
A few hundred thousand people. A million maybe. Over the decades. Not just for health, for education and other long term investment.
Means less leisure and hospitality. Everybody spending £5 a week less on nice things, which is what this tax rise represents, isn't going to get it done. Needs a much bigger switch at the top income end of consumption.
Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:32 pm
by discovolante
bolo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:52 pm
discovolante wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:55 pm
What do you mean by society's resources and why do they need redirecting, as opposed to just say, making care homes free without a tax/NI rise?
LPM's insistence on talking about "resources" rather than money makes this unnecessarily complicated. If the government provides something free, that it used to charge for, then government revenues are reduced. To make the books add up, choose from the following:
(a) The government increases other revenues, usually through taxation. This redirects money away from whatever the taxpayers would have spent it on if they had been allowed to keep it. Ditto if it's a "fee" or an "insurance premium" or some other euphemism rather than just a tax.
(b) The government spends less on something else. This redirects money away from whatever that other thing is.
(c) The government borrows more money, usually by selling more bonds. This redirects money in the future away from whatever a future government might otherwise have spent it on, to interest payments that bondholders get to spend.
(d) The government prints more money. Eventually, in some complicated and difficult to predict way, this probably results in inflation, so in real terms it redirects money away from everyone who has money. Unless you believe in MMT, which most economists and policymakers don't.
But I don't think lpm is particularly concerned with raising revenue, which is why they are posting about resources not money.
(Oh see post which appeared just as I clicked reply to your post)
ETA: the MMT thread is elsewhere and I'm not leaping to its defence but I think you are misrepresenting it a bit. MMTers don't think inflation won't happen, they are just a bit woolly about how it can be reliably kept under control.