A further, immediate 10%.
What do you make of my other suggestions as compared to Johnson's scratching the surface?
A further, immediate 10%.
What do you make of my other suggestions as compared to Johnson's scratching the surface?
I'm not being facetious - genuinely confused about what you mean by the death tax. Do you just mean increasing IHT to 50% or am I missing something?
An immediate additional 10% on the value of the estate and before any IHT deductibles on behalf of the beneficiaries..
What do you make of the other suggestions? I have no real idea of how workable they are, but we need something more radical than Johnson's plans.
How much will these raise and what will it be spent on? I can’t see how these are any more progressive than what the government is suggesting, you’d have to increase the % paid by income to do that ie at £20k you pay 0.5% more, at £100k 2.5%. The current version isn’t entirely regressive though, I’ll still be paying 5 times more than my son, which I am totally fine with. The 10% death tax will take 10% of Granny’s £1000 legacy, which her kids could really do with, as well as Philip Green’s billions. Although it won’t, of course work with people like Green who will avoid this with ease. It could end up very regressive indeed.I have to say, I was surprised (and initially impressed) that Johnson had actually tried to tackle the social care issue. I suppose it's an indicator of how low expectations of Johnson and his government are that literally any initiative is welcome. On inspection, though, it's clear that this plan barely scratches the surface of the problem and that the tax increases that will pay for it are regressive and unfair.
What are the alternatives, though? Here's what I would propose....
Nationalise the care home industry, taking the profit motive out of people's misery and allowing staff to be properly paid. Care homes would either come under the NHS umbrella, or be run by a separate new state body. Care to be provided as needed and free of charge, paid for as follows:
Thoughts?
- Scrap National Insurance and incorporate it into Income Tax, a new employment tax to replace Ers NI.
- Increase Income Tax by 2.5%.
- A 10% 'Death Tax' on the estates of the deceased.
How much will these raise and what will it be spent on? I can’t see how these are any more progressive than what the government is suggesting, you’d have to increase the % paid by income to do that ie at £20k you pay 0.5% more, at £100k 2.5%. The current version isn’t entirely regressive though, I’ll still be paying 5 times more than my son, which I am totally fine with. The 10% death tax will take 10% of Granny’s £1000 legacy, which her kids could really do with, as well as Philip Green’s billions. Although it won’t, of course work with people like Green who will avoid this with ease. It could end up very regressive indeed.
Reform the services so they are worth paying for and ensure contribution into a ring fenced insurance system for health and a similar one for social care, with contributions rising progressively according to income - which should include shares, savings, rents received, private pensions ie wealth. Then watch the wealthy find ways around it.
The 3 years on NIC raises will bring in just 1 billion less than what was the reprted figure paid for test and trace to the private companies. Add in all the wasted millions spent on useless PPE, tax avoidence of major companies etc then its clear to see how poorly this has all been run by those in charge.I'm afraid I don't know how much they would raise, as I've already admitted. My main points were that private care homes should be nationalised and that no one should have to pay anything for their care at the time of need. I just offered up some ideas as to how this might be paid for.
Income Tax is much fairer tax than NI, which I would scrap entirely, but your wealth tax help too. Getting tech giants to pay proper levels of tax would be another idea - why can't we tax them on turnover rather than profits, which can be hidden? Perhaps diverting resources from clamping down on benefit cheats towards stopping the wealthy avoiding and evading tax would raise a bit more, too.
This stuff depresses me.
It’s capitalism mate. Ideally we’d tax the very wealthy out of existence and then ponder where this leaves the market economy.I'm afraid I don't know how much they would raise, as I've already admitted. My main points were that private care homes should be nationalised and that no one should have to pay anything for their care at the time of need. I just offered up some ideas as to how this might be paid for.
Income Tax is much fairer tax than NI, which I would scrap entirely, but your wealth tax help too. Getting tech giants to pay proper levels of tax would be another idea - why can't we tax them on turnover rather than profits, which can be hidden? Perhaps diverting resources from clamping down on benefit cheats towards stopping the wealthy avoiding and evading tax would raise a bit more, too.
This stuff depresses me.
It’s capitalism mate. Ideally we’d tax the very wealthy out of existence and then ponder where this leaves the market economy.
We’ve been a (relatively) low tax economy for a long time, and it’s been the ‘aspiration’ of all governments since Thatcher to reduce taxation. No one ever says ‘of course you will have **** services as a result, and have to spend the money we haven’t taken as tax on them as well’ and now there is a level of expectation baked in. The Telegraph has a leader today saying that this is ‘the death of conservatism’, the stupid idiots obviously hadn’t realised that it died when they became a populist party.
Nationalisation might bring about some standardisation of quality, but not necessarily high quality. The major issue is staffing, 112,000 vacancies and **** wages. Improve the training and wages, increase the tax.
Free care when you need it, including accommodation and food? I think it’s fair enough that at the very least your state pension should be taken, or most of it, to pay hotel costs. If I happen to have a private pension as well am I allowed to have perhaps better quality accommodation if I pay for it? Or are we levelling down?
Tax on turnover? Just for tech companies? Would work for some, would destroy others.
It is depressing, everything has a counter argument no matter how reluctant I am to deploy it. We need a government that is prepared to say, ‘this is a reasonable profit for a company, and this is a reasonable income for an individual, we are taking everything else and using it for those who haven’t achieved ‘reasonable’ yet’. A revolution in other words. Even then it leaves the superstructure intact….
How much will these raise and what will it be spent on? I can’t see how these are any more progressive than what the government is suggesting, you’d have to increase the % paid by income to do that ie at £20k you pay 0.5% more, at £100k 2.5%. The current version isn’t entirely regressive though, I’ll still be paying 5 times more than my son, which I am totally fine with. The 10% death tax will take 10% of Granny’s £1000 legacy, which her kids could really do with, as well as Philip Green’s billions. Although it won’t, of course work with people like Green who will avoid this with ease. It could end up very regressive indeed.
Reform the services so they are worth paying for and ensure contribution into a ring fenced insurance system for health and a similar one for social care, with contributions rising progressively according to income - which should include shares, savings, rents received, private pensions ie wealth. Then watch the wealthy find ways around it.
It’s capitalism mate. Ideally we’d tax the very wealthy out of existence and then ponder where this leaves the market economy.
We’ve been a (relatively) low tax economy for a long time, and it’s been the ‘aspiration’ of all governments since Thatcher to reduce taxation. No one ever says ‘of course you will have **** services as a result, and have to spend the money we haven’t taken as tax on them as well’ and now there is a level of expectation baked in. The Telegraph has a leader today saying that this is ‘the death of conservatism’, the stupid idiots obviously hadn’t realised that it died when they became a populist party.
Nationalisation might bring about some standardisation of quality, but not necessarily high quality. The major issue is staffing, 112,000 vacancies and **** wages. Improve the training and wages, increase the tax.
Free care when you need it, including accommodation and food? I think it’s fair enough that at the very least your state pension should be taken, or most of it, to pay hotel costs. If I happen to have a private pension as well am I allowed to have perhaps better quality accommodation if I pay for it? Or are we levelling down?
Tax on turnover? Just for tech companies? Would work for some, would destroy others.
It is depressing, everything has a counter argument no matter how reluctant I am to deploy it. We need a government that is prepared to say, ‘this is a reasonable profit for a company, and this is a reasonable income for an individual, we are taking everything else and using it for those who haven’t achieved ‘reasonable’ yet’. A revolution in other words. Even then it leaves the superstructure intact….
Not just big tech. But it’s not going to happen so no need to worry.you mean a war against big tech like china. I don't think we'd like that over here
A petition to make lying in parliament a criminal offence has hit the 100,000 signatures required to prompt a debate in parliament.
The petition was partly inspired by a viral video by lawyer and activist Peter Stefanovic which catalogues a number of lies told by Boris Johnson in parliament.
This should be the starting point to try make society improve