I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people

Do you support our Prime Minister's tax increase?

Yes, I want our NHS to be better resourced
5
56%
No, I want people to die on trolleys
4
44%
 
Total votes: 9

User avatar
Sciolus
Catbabel
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Sciolus » Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:37 pm

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.
No, because "money" is just a surrogate for value added by labour. Unless we can improve individual productivity -- which we have done steadily since the industrial revolution, but which has stalled in the UK in the last decade -- then we only have a finite amount of labour value. So if we want more from the health and care sector, we have to have more people working in that sector, and if they are doing that then they aren't working somewhere else. Care is particularly labour-intensive and unamenable to automation or productivity improvements.

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by lpm » Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:41 pm

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.
I agree with this, except that it's completely wrong.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by discovolante » Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:42 pm

lpm wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:28 pm
discovolante wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:23 pm
lpm wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:42 pm

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.
What about pay (and benefits, pension)?
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
Sciolus
Catbabel
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Sciolus » Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:48 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:09 pm
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?
I don't think it's fair to describe investment income as unearned. If I've got a bit of cash left at the end of the month, and I lend it to a business to invest, I'm adding value and deserve a proportionate reward.

I would very much like a hefty windfall tax on anyone who sells property for more than they paid for it though.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 6861
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:05 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:48 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:09 pm
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?
I don't think it's fair to describe investment income as unearned. If I've got a bit of cash left at the end of the month, and I lend it to a business to invest, I'm adding value and deserve a proportionate reward.

I would very much like a hefty windfall tax on anyone who sells property for more than they paid for it though.
What's the fundamental difference between investing in a property vs investing in a business, from the investor's perspective? Most investors don't have much to do with running the business, whereas lots of property owners do a bit of maintenance at least?

That aside, it's clear that inheriting stuff is even less earned, so it seems mad to give it a tax break.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Millennie Al » Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:51 am

Sciolus wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:48 pm
I don't think it's fair to describe investment income as unearned. If I've got a bit of cash left at the end of the month, and I lend it to a business to invest, I'm adding value and deserve a proportionate reward.
Indeed.
I would very much like a hefty windfall tax on anyone who sells property for more than they paid for it though.
Why? It's a completely unworkable idea. Suppose you buy a house in one city, and it triples in price over two years. Then you want to move to a different city with a similar property market. You can only swap your house for another of the same type if you get the whole of the sale price. Effectively, you have gained nothing despite the paper profit. (In fact, you have lost out because when you move you have to pay more in stamp duty).
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

IvanV
Snowbonk
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by IvanV » Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:54 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:05 pm
What's the fundamental difference between investing in a property vs investing in a business, from the investor's perspective? Most investors don't have much to do with running the business, whereas lots of property owners do a bit of maintenance at least?

That aside, it's clear that inheriting stuff is even less earned, so it seems mad to give it a tax break.
These are difficult issues. The best solution to the housing issue is proper value-related annual property taxes during the period people own property, not taxes when a house is sold, be it stamp duty or capital gains.

When you own a property, you are implicitly purchasing property occupation services, what other people might pay rent to buy. The average person devotes about a third of their income to buying property occupation services in one way or another. But the local taxes we pay, especially in relation to higher value properties, are a small reflection of the taxable value of that consumption. I think you will find the Mirrlees review of taxation, a major study of what is wrong with taxation in this country and how to improve it, makes a similar point. It was commissioned from a team led by Nobel prize winner James Mirrlees (by good luck my tutor at university), and all the best people you'd want on such a study, by the Blair government just before it terminated, and allowed to complete under Cameron. However doing taxation properly was highly inconvenient to a government representing bought by the rich, so it was very, very quietly swept a long way under a very thick carpet.

As you correctly identify, the value increase in a property is in part property inflation, in part value gained through improvement. I have spent more on improving my present property than I spent in buying it. Moreover improvement expenses are VAT-able and new-build isn't, so I already paid tax on that part. And I'm only counting the money I explicitly paid to a builder. Like many people, we do a lot of improvement through our own labour, so its value is not transparent. We should probably avoid taxing people for the value of improvement they have already paid tax on, but that is quite difficult, albeit that people who rent out houses can claim tax allowances for maintenance expenses.

Another issue is inflation. When I bought a very tatty 3-bed semi in need of full renovation in dodgy part of town at the end of 1988 for £75k, and sold it as a fully renovated property (still in a dodgy part of town - gentrification had not happened there) for £115k in 2000, the price difference was purely inflation. £115k in 2000 was almost exactly the same, inflation corrected, as £75k in 1988. I had in fact, after deducting renovation costs, made a loss. In general, inflation corrected, the housing market did not return to its 1989 peak until around about 2000, though it seems the local market where I was living had peaked higher in 1988 than some other places.

Capital gains tax these days is charged on purely nominal gains, ie pounds before vs pounds after. Which is really confiscatory if the asset has been owned for an extended period, especially through a more inflationary period. I have no objection to explicity taxing wealth, but let's do it explicitly and properly, and not sneakily by failing to correct for inflation on what is supposed to be a capital gains tax. Inflation adjustment used to be allowed, as it really had to be at a time when highly inflationary times were present, but some chancellor in need of some money and trying to do it in a sneaky way most people wouldn't notice, got rid of it. It might have been Mr Brown, he did a lot of things like that. Our tax system was seriously a lot worse after he'd been at it.

Another issue is that people need to move house. Suppose you buy a house for say £200k, and the market moves it up to £300k, and you need to move house, to another house costing £300k. But if you are taxed at 40% on he £100k "gain", then you are £40k short. So that would result in a lot of people not moving house unless they really, really had to. It's bad enough that they pay stamp duty, another really stupid tax.

Inheritance taxes are another difficult issue. The best solution to inheritance tax is to tax recipients, not estates. Again, I think every sensible commentator on tax has been saying his for a long ime. But it is not convenient to a government representing bought by the rich to do it properly, as it would result in rich people paying more tax. Since most countries are run by governments representing bought by the rich, we can't even point to implementations elsewhere. Each inheritance recipient should be taxed on their inheritance receipts according to their own financial circumstances, and according to how much inheritance they receive. This encourages estates to distribute money to poorer people and to avoid concentrating inheritance receipts on a narrow range of lucky people. People can perhaps have an individual inheritance tax allowance, which they can spread over the years, so that if they receive multiple legacies, they are taxed overall together.

IvanV
Snowbonk
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by IvanV » Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:06 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:12 pm
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.
I was going to say that, being in the same position, I'd like to salute this and add my support to it.

But then I remembered I only work part time these days, and am rapidly heading down the income percentiles.

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by lpm » Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:33 pm

Yes to all that, but the issue of second homes and buy-to-let needs to be added.

Our actual home is a highly emotional asset, absorbing family memories into the brickwork. People spend time and money adjusting and furnishing it, planting the garden and redoing the kitchen. It's almost impossible to impose a rational tax system on homes because the electorate is so sensitive. Leaving a home for the children to inherit is irrational - a more liquid portfolio of shares would be more convenient - but it becomes a personal issue and politicians rightly take fright.

But second homes and other property investments don't have that. There's no reason why sensible tax policies can't be imposed on buy-to-let and holiday let investments, while a second home in Cornwall can be taxed till the granite squeaks - council tax per annum at many multiples of standard council tax for example. A lot of property represents a bad use of wealth, being used to store value and ride house price inflation in contrast to wealth being invested in business enterprises.

Wealth taxation is long overdue.

And it's an embarrassment that my marginal tax rate - 42% - is basically the same as a graduate earning £28k a year and paying the graduate tax. Labour should commit to raising the 2% NI rate for >£50k to the standard 12%.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

Allo V Psycho
Snowbonk
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Allo V Psycho » Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:49 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:33 pm
Yes to all that, but the issue of second homes and buy-to-let needs to be added.

Our actual home is a highly emotional asset, absorbing family memories into the brickwork. People spend time and money adjusting and furnishing it, planting the garden and redoing the kitchen. It's almost impossible to impose a rational tax system on homes because the electorate is so sensitive. Leaving a home for the children to inherit is irrational - a more liquid portfolio of shares would be more convenient - but it becomes a personal issue and politicians rightly take fright.

But second homes and other property investments don't have that. There's no reason why sensible tax policies can't be imposed on buy-to-let and holiday let investments, while a second home in Cornwall can be taxed till the granite squeaks - council tax per annum at many multiples of standard council tax for example. A lot of property represents a bad use of wealth, being used to store value and ride house price inflation in contrast to wealth being invested in business enterprises.

Wealth taxation is long overdue.

And it's an embarrassment that my marginal tax rate - 42% - is basically the same as a graduate earning £28k a year and paying the graduate tax. Labour should commit to raising the 2% NI rate for >£50k to the standard 12%.
Presumably if you were brought up in a nice terraced house in Stockton-on-Tees worth £86,000 though, it doesn't matter if you have to lose all the happy family memories in the brickwork. But perhaps it isn't so important for people like them.
“It's such a delight to know that, when the poor suffer, they don't feel! Sometimes I have been quite uneasy for that sort of people; but now I shall just dismiss the idea of them, altogether.”

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Cardinal Fang » Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:25 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.
Not to split hairs, but I wasn't aware he had untreated congenital hypothyroidism (this is what a Cretin is - someone suffering from this condition).

Perhaps a different adjective perhaps? Cockwomble, fucknugget, or twatting c*ntface for example?

CF
Image

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
After Pie
Posts: 2010
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:13 am

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:25 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.
Not to split hairs, but I wasn't aware he had untreated congenital hypothyroidism (this is what a Cretin is - someone suffering from this condition).

Perhaps a different adjective perhaps? Cockwomble, fucknugget, or twatting c*ntface for example?

CF
cretin
/ˈkrɛtɪn/

noun
1.
OFFENSIVE
a stupid person (used as a general term of abuse).
2.
DATED•MEDICINE
a person who is physically deformed and has learning difficulties because of congenital thyroid deficiency.
I'll go with the modern usage for a stupid person rather than the dated (ie nigh on unused) usage cheers.
Cinch?
Cinch!
Cinch?
Cinch?!
Cinch*
<Cinch>
-Cinch-
"Cinch"
Cinch.

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 5438
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by shpalman » Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:19 pm

molto tricky

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by discovolante » Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:29 pm

I've moved some discussion about buy to let and private renting to here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2737
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3989
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:02 pm

discovolante wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:29 pm
I've moved some discussion about buy to let and private renting to here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2737
Thanks Disco!

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by discovolante » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:47 pm

So, we need to make people in retail, service etc sectors unemployed so they will go work in the care sector. A nice big tax increase on low earners would achieve that because they would stop spending money in the retail and service sectors, and the tax money can also be spent on those new care jobs. Is the reason they can't be enticed over with excellent pay, benefits and pensions because of relatively low current unemployment meaning the additional spending would lead to inflation? Or is it just that the stick approach is better because nobody will take a care job unless they are forced?
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
bjn
Dorkwood
Posts: 1380
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by bjn » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:56 pm

lpm wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:41 pm
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.
I agree with this, except that it's completely wrong.
Care to elaborate? I would genuinely like to know why you think that, but I can’t read your mind.

nezumi
Catbabel
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by nezumi » Sat Sep 11, 2021 8:18 am

discovolante wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:47 pm
So, we need to make people in retail, service etc sectors unemployed so they will go work in the care sector. A nice big tax increase on low earners would achieve that because they would stop spending money in the retail and service sectors, and the tax money can also be spent on those new care jobs. Is the reason they can't be enticed over with excellent pay, benefits and pensions because of relatively low current unemployment meaning the additional spending would lead to inflation? Or is it just that the stick approach is better because nobody will take a care job unless they are forced?
Social Care absolutely can be demeaning and unpleasant for the staff (as well as the residents) but it is definitely low pay and crap conditions that keeps people away, same as it is for the HGV drivers discussed at length on other threads. However, while we have such a huge majority of privately owned care homes operated on a shoestring via tight council budgets leading to lowest-possible-cost contracts there's not a lot that can change. On this one, at least in my opinion, the answer is to "nationalise*" them.

Bringing care homes under local council control and direct budgeting means that a regional wage structure and path to seniority with national recognition becomes possible. We should treat care workers more like nurses. I appreciate we don't pay nurses enough but their situation is far more stable than the situation for care workers and they have the respect of the people around them, not just because of their job, but also because nurses have a professional education and a visible uniform and promotion track.

At one time, I used to teach literacy for students doing Health and Social Care diplomas (as well as supporting in the classroom in other sections of the course) and a few things struck me. Firstly, the quality of the students was quite dramatically poor. Aside from two students who stood out, the rest were basically doing the course as a way to get a job - any job - and they had no commitment or particular desire to work in social care. They were also academically extremely poor and totally demotivated. The course was not difficult at all. However, the students would never volunteer answers to questions - they were waiting to be told the answer so they could not write it down and instantly forget it. It wasn't the course or the tutor - it was the students. Compare and contrast to students on track to nursing (I met them in passing a few times) - nursing students were motivated, smart and the vast majority had a deep interest in nursing.

So step one would be to bring care homes under council control. Step two would be to establish a national wage structure allowing for regional variation and introducing a path to seniority - those wages obviously need to be substantially above minimum wage (I'd link them to the structure for nurses). Step three would be to institute new higher qualifications. Right now there is only a diploma and tangentially related degrees. There should be a level 4 degree in Health and Social Care, including modules on things like designing activities for elderly and disabled clients, counselling, medicine control and distribution and so on.

On a more general note, we need to do a lot better at careers advice on a national level. We should be introducing kids to a huge range of jobs at a far, far earlier age. Currently careers advice is a thing that schools start doing when kids are about 15. That is far too late. Kids need an idea of real jobs before they even set foot in a secondary school, imo. With proper supervision (and adorable little hard-hats) kids could be given tours of local workplaces and talks on what the jobs entail. This might counter the current culture of every kid wanting to be an Influencer or just rich for no obvious reason.

* Not nationalise like bring them under central government control, more like bring them back into local councils and fund the councils properly.
Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Cardinal Fang » Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:28 pm

nezumi wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 8:18 am
So step one would be to bring care homes under council control. Step two would be to establish a national wage structure allowing for regional variation and introducing a path to seniority - those wages obviously need to be substantially above minimum wage (I'd link them to the structure for nurses). Step three would be to institute new higher qualifications. Right now there is only a diploma and tangentially related degrees. There should be a level 4 degree in Health and Social Care, including modules on things like designing activities for elderly and disabled clients, counselling, medicine control and distribution and so on.
Not sure I necessarily agree with degrees.

I agree there should be qualifications, and they should be linked to higher progression in the career. It would also raise the status of the profession. However I think they need to be more vocational qualifications rather than degree qualifications. Part of the reason is that the qualification should be linked to being able to actually do the job rather than how to write essays on how to do the job, but also because making it academic qualifications would exclude people like sibling who is a carer. She's a fantastic carer - just the sort of person you want: smart, compassionate, hard working, not afraid to so the really dirty jobs if needed (there's a reason ssibling gets given all the neglect cases that get admitted to the home - they have a very good track record of getting people who might have been abused and starved back on their feet again, emotionally and mentally as well as physically). But sibling is not academic at all. She's not stupid - far from. But is dyslexic and isn't good at "book" learning.

I think something like they used to do with nurses training. You had 2 levels - the State Registered Nurse, which was basically a 3 year course equivalent t degree level training, but also a lower two-year more hands-on more practical training course become a State Enrolled Nurse. Grandmother was a nurse (eventually becoming a Matron, back when Matrons were scary AF) and always said that for management and leadership roles the SRNs were better, but for practical skills you couldn't beat the SENs. If you're going to have professional qualifications for social care staff, having a way in for the non-academically inclined who would still make great carers is a must (I might also say that the managers in the homes sibling has worked in are people who've hardly ever worked on the floor as a carer. They are people who've done degrees and the like and have no idea what the job actually is about. So on the job training to my mind has to be essential)

CF
Image

nezumi
Catbabel
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by nezumi » Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:56 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:28 pm
nezumi wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 8:18 am
So step one would be to bring care homes under council control. Step two would be to establish a national wage structure allowing for regional variation and introducing a path to seniority - those wages obviously need to be substantially above minimum wage (I'd link them to the structure for nurses). Step three would be to institute new higher qualifications. Right now there is only a diploma and tangentially related degrees. There should be a level 4 degree in Health and Social Care, including modules on things like designing activities for elderly and disabled clients, counselling, medicine control and distribution and so on.
Not sure I necessarily agree with degrees.

I agree there should be qualifications, and they should be linked to higher progression in the career. It would also raise the status of the profession. However I think they need to be more vocational qualifications rather than degree qualifications. Part of the reason is that the qualification should be linked to being able to actually do the job rather than how to write essays on how to do the job, but also because making it academic qualifications would exclude people like sibling who is a carer. She's a fantastic carer - just the sort of person you want: smart, compassionate, hard working, not afraid to so the really dirty jobs if needed (there's a reason ssibling gets given all the neglect cases that get admitted to the home - they have a very good track record of getting people who might have been abused and starved back on their feet again, emotionally and mentally as well as physically). But sibling is not academic at all. She's not stupid - far from. But is dyslexic and isn't good at "book" learning.

I think something like they used to do with nurses training. You had 2 levels - the State Registered Nurse, which was basically a 3 year course equivalent t degree level training, but also a lower two-year more hands-on more practical training course become a State Enrolled Nurse. Grandmother was a nurse (eventually becoming a Matron, back when Matrons were scary AF) and always said that for management and leadership roles the SRNs were better, but for practical skills you couldn't beat the SENs. If you're going to have professional qualifications for social care staff, having a way in for the non-academically inclined who would still make great carers is a must (I might also say that the managers in the homes sibling has worked in are people who've hardly ever worked on the floor as a carer. They are people who've done degrees and the like and have no idea what the job actually is about. So on the job training to my mind has to be essential)

CF
I use degree as shorthand for a level 4 qualification, a rigorous, examined qualification that one should have good knowledge, understanding and care to pass. Something with an essay component because I also want social care to be able to lead to academia. I want there to be such a thing as academic research specifically into the care of people for whom care workers care which could attract funding and lead to better, more efficient, safer, more sensitive* care for... erm, me, when I get old. I don't want social care to ultimately lead to academia. I confess I haven't thought it through. I'm mainly coming from a place where academia and practicality can work together as equals.



* could go on...
Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by Cardinal Fang » Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:07 pm

nezumi wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:56 pm
I use degree as shorthand for a level 4 qualification, a rigorous, examined qualification that one should have good knowledge, understanding and care to pass. Something with an essay component because I also want social care to be able to lead to academia. I want there to be such a thing as academic research specifically into the care of people for whom care workers care which could attract funding and lead to better, more efficient, safer, more sensitive* care for... erm, me, when I get old. I don't want social care to ultimately lead to academia. I confess I haven't thought it through. I'm mainly coming from a place where academia and practicality can work together as equals.
I concur - there should be research, and a "degree" level stream. And it would raise the esteem of the professions. On the continent being a carer is considered a profession and paid as such. Here it's considered a lowly unskilled job not worth anything, hence the poor pay etc. But as, at the end of the day, it's a practical profession, the training needs to be practical first and foremost.

I've always thought it a pity sibling is not academic in any way and struggles with it. She's just the sort of person that would have made an outstanding SEN back in the day, but with nursing entry all degree level, there's no way she'd manage a degree - and ultimately the profession and the health service suffer for not having people like her as nurses. Sibling would almost have been better off a couple of generations ago, when lack of "book learning" skills wasn't a bar to being a nurse.

CF
Image

User avatar
TopBadger
Clardic Fug
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by TopBadger » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:47 pm

bjn wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:24 pm

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.
Added stress on the could... in reality if employers NI was removed it would go to profit, like every other cost saving thing does. I really wouldn't think of it as a hidden tax on employees.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

sheldrake
Catbabel
Posts: 772
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by sheldrake » Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:26 am

Taking it from income tax (including dividend income) would've been better. Or giving more money to the NHS by scrapping HS2 instead of raising taxes (it's not like there aren't expensive bad ideas that could be defunded, we should always look at those first)

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 1701
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by plodder » Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:15 am

If you want to be wrong about HS2 there's a separate thread for that. The problem with reducing spending is that everything that isn't blue-rinse home-counties has been cut to the bone already. Look at the reaction when they try to maintain spending reductions on preventing water pollution, or bring in additional cuts to planning etc. They all kick off and it's back to square one. This is why they're trying to tax the poor, which is sufficient to repulse the decent people who fell for the Boris story.
Last edited by plodder on Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 1701
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: I support Boris Johnson's tax increase

Post by plodder » Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:16 am

dp

Post Reply