Digressing slightly but, in my view, relevantly 'social care' is a racket.
Two weasel words to justify making sick people pay for their own care despite working hard and paying taxes for 40 plus years in the majority of cases.
How is it that individual recipients of 'social care' are charged hundreds of pounds a week for a fleeting visit or two if they are lucky a day from a carer or carers paid the minimum wage? Where does the rest of the money go because there is sure as hell a massive dichotomy between what the vulnerable sick person who isn't sick so they can be legally mugged pays and what the carers get!
Solve that one and social care costs can come down which in turn might allow money to be diverted towards addressing some of the housing issues.
In short who is coining it in?
Have a wild guess.
You're going to say pensioners. I'm going to say private care providers and local authorities.
I was going to say private care providers. And those who own shares in them. Guess who owns those?
Digressing slightly but, in my view, relevantly 'social care' is a racket.
Two weasel words to justify making sick people pay for their own care despite working hard and paying taxes for 40 plus years in the majority of cases.
How is it that individual recipients of 'social care' are charged hundreds of pounds a week for a fleeting visit or two if they are lucky a day from a carer or carers paid the minimum wage? Where does the rest of the money go because there is sure as hell a massive dichotomy between what the vulnerable sick person who isn't sick so they can be legally mugged pays and what the carers get!
Solve that one and social care costs can come down which in turn might allow money to be diverted towards addressing some of the housing issues.
In short who is coining it in?
Have a wild guess.
Ok i will I'm going to say the top five %of our population who pay fuck all tax because of the way tax avoidance is set up in their favour and successive governments do fcuk all about it. This should not be an argument about young and old it should be about tax avoidance at the highest level
I'll give one example of how rubbish and unfair social care is. Say somebody gets dementia and it is so bad they have to go into a home for their own security. If they have money - in savings or the value of their house, they have to pay for their care and it isn't cheap. A quite modest residential home can cost over 3.5k a week. Now lets imagine this home has a combination of people who have money and others who don't. The council will pay if you don't have any money but they pay a fair bit less than the residents who pay out of their own pockets. Basically, it is all councils can afford to pay! So the system, and the rest of us are more than happy that the person who is unfortunate enough to become ill with demetia, is effectively not only paying for themself but subsidising others too. And the reason they have to pay for others is that they have become old and ill and have no choice.
Governments of all colours know this is unfair. The conservatives actually brought in legislation to put a limit to how much of a person's savings is spent on social care. It was supposed to come in in 2015 I think but they deferred it because they didn't have the money! There was a solution as I explained in an earlier post and because politicians thought it would be unpopular, because it was a death tax, it was voted out. This isn't a critique of one party, in fact it is a critique of all of them, as they could get together and agreesocial care has to be sorted and all agree not to make political capital on an unpopular policy.
By the way - do you know that demetia isn't classed as an illness for the purposes of above. Not because it isn't, but because the country can't afford for it to be!
Agree with this ^
My father has dementia and has been in a home for 2 years, he can't talk (any sense i.e. string a sentence together), wears nappies and needs help with everything. Yet he doesn't get 'continuing care' as basically he's very placid and not aggressive.
Therefore he's paying in the region of £55k a year to the home, fortunately he has a reasonably good pension, not enough to pay it in full but 80% of it so the rest comes out of savings and then his house........ he still pays tax though on his pension income....
Don't think it's Local authorities - they may be wasting lots but wouldn't say they're coining in. Private care providers however....
They aren't coining it in, they are paying what they can afford - or more realistically more than they can afford. It happens to be less per person that what individuals who have savings pay though! I wasn't blaming the councils, but making the point that somebody has to pay.
I am a self employed business owner and I won't jump up and down about the budget. But a lot of MPs are doing so on my behalf. Somebody has to pay - my view is to make it as fair as you can. But if paying is always unpopular and MPS kick up a stink, what is Hammond supposed to do?
I'll give one example of how rubbish and unfair social care is. Say somebody gets dementia and it is so bad they have to go into a home for their own security. If they have money - in savings or the value of their house, they have to pay for their care and it isn't cheap. A quite modest residential home can cost over 3.5k a week. Now lets imagine this home has a combination of people who have money and others who don't. The council will pay if you don't have any money but they pay a fair bit less than the residents who pay out of their own pockets. Basically, it is all councils can afford to pay! So the system, and the rest of us are more than happy that the person who is unfortunate enough to become ill with demetia, is effectively not only paying for themself but subsidising others too. And the reason they have to pay for others is that they have become old and ill and have no choice.
Governments of all colours know this is unfair. The conservatives actually brought in legislation to put a limit to how much of a person's savings is spent on social care. It was supposed to come in in 2015 I think but they deferred it because they didn't have the money! There was a solution as I explained in an earlier post and because politicians thought it would be unpopular, because it was a death tax, it was voted out. This isn't a critique of one party, in fact it is a critique of all of them, as they could get together and agreesocial care has to be sorted and all agree not to make political capital on an unpopular policy.
By the way - do you know that demetia isn't classed as an illness for the purposes of above. Not because it isn't, but because the country can't afford for it to be!
Agree with this ^
My father has dementia and has been in a home for 2 years, he can't talk (any sense i.e. string a sentence together), wears nappies and needs help with everything. Yet he doesn't get 'continuing care' as basically he's very placid and not aggressive.
Therefore he's paying in the region of £55k a year to the home, fortunately he has a reasonably good pension, not enough to pay it in full but 80% of it so the rest comes out of savings and then his house........ he still pays tax though on his pension income....
Exactly where I was coming from re my 'social care' posts.
Nobody in authority gives a toss about people with dementia and because they are unable to defend themselves, unless they have bloody minded relatives who fight on their behalf, fleecing them to bankruptcy is considered acceptable.
I'll give one example of how rubbish and unfair social care is. Say somebody gets dementia and it is so bad they have to go into a home for their own security. If they have money - in savings or the value of their house, they have to pay for their care and it isn't cheap. A quite modest residential home can cost over 3.5k a week. Now lets imagine this home has a combination of people who have money and others who don't. The council will pay if you don't have any money but they pay a fair bit less than the residents who pay out of their own pockets. Basically, it is all councils can afford to pay! So the system, and the rest of us are more than happy that the person who is unfortunate enough to become ill with demetia, is effectively not only paying for themself but subsidising others too. And the reason they have to pay for others is that they have become old and ill and have no choice.
Governments of all colours know this is unfair. The conservatives actually brought in legislation to put a limit to how much of a person's savings is spent on social care. It was supposed to come in in 2015 I think but they deferred it because they didn't have the money! There was a solution as I explained in an earlier post and because politicians thought it would be unpopular, because it was a death tax, it was voted out. This isn't a critique of one party, in fact it is a critique of all of them, as they could get together and agreesocial care has to be sorted and all agree not to make political capital on an unpopular policy.
By the way - do you know that demetia isn't classed as an illness for the purposes of above. Not because it isn't, but because the country can't afford for it to be!
Agree with this ^
My father has dementia and has been in a home for 2 years, he can't talk (any sense i.e. string a sentence together), wears nappies and needs help with everything. Yet he doesn't get 'continuing care' as basically he's very placid and not aggressive.
Therefore he's paying in the region of £55k a year to the home, fortunately he has a reasonably good pension, not enough to pay it in full but 80% of it so the rest comes out of savings and then his house........ he still pays tax though on his pension income....
To me it is a scandal - so I'm not going to have a go about having to pay a couple of hundred quid more a year - but of course that in itself isn't going to solve the problem. A radical policy is needed and a death tax is the best fit. Not great, but great doesn't exist.
And all the major parties have to get round a table and agree a solution amd promise not to use against each other in elections.
BTW - I meant £3.5k a month for a modest residential home - not week in my previous post - it isn't quite that bad yet!
It's the inequality of it. My dad just because he was extremely careful with money and saved and saved and saved means he has to pay. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who chose to just spend spend spend and therefore will get their care home fee's paid, thats not right.
The rules for who gets continuing care is ridiculous as well. My dad is all but a 2 year old in an adults body yet isn't deemed to need continuing care...... yer right........ then in the same breath every 18 months they go into the home and check on him that he isn't being held unnecessarily against his will (as ultimately it was me that decided to put him into a home as he couldn't make the decision!).........
Don't get me started on Dementia..... when my dad was hospitalised (urine infection) they stuck him on a normal ward so I get a call at 3am from the police to say my dad had 'absconded' from the hospital sometime after 11pm (the last time they checked on him). It was a February, -3 and snowing! He somehow despite not even knowing his own name had managed to walk the 3 miles to his house (and find it!).
Once you are past a certain point they just wash their hands of you, Dr's are useless as well, like the one who'd given my dad 7 repeat prescriptions in 10 days (a months worth at a time!)
Good luck finding a dementia home for 3.5k a month in the South East. I looked at 1 that was £1600 a week! Most are £4k+
There you go -I might have been right first time by mistake. Dementia is a NHS cost for me - and the NHS needs to be funded. If your dad was scottish - he wouldn't have to pay! It is a complete mess - and it needs responsibility - not Tory MPs rounding on their own chancellor every time he tries to pay for something he needs to! Or Labour MPS voting against their own government when it had the closest to a solution to the problem there has been. They do it of course because they don't want to upset the voters!
It's the inequality of it. My dad just because he was extremely careful with money and saved and saved and saved means he has to pay. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who chose to just spend spend spend and therefore will get their care home fee's paid, thats not right.
This exactly - punished for having done things the 'right' way all his life.
Unless a cure for dementia is found, more and more people will need residential homes. We know the problem, but don't have any solutions other than a band aid - which is basically what the budget social care figure was. But even that band aid has been attacked - Hammond can't magic the figure out of nowhere, although I do agree - tax avoidance needs to be clamped down on more.
Who should pay for care of the elderly then? Maybe a fund should have been set up decades ago to prepare for the ageing population. Except it wasn't, it was squirreled away instead of a small amount of tax being taken each year. Now those who should have been taxed over those years now face paying a large sum if they are capable of doing so in lieu of paying those taxes. Those who cannot pay are funded by those who can, like every other part of public spending.
I'm not saying it's right but who else should pay these taxes? The young have already had their funding, social housing, education support, tuition fees and everything else apart from the shirt on their backs ripped away from them by the greedy rich already. No doubt some people on here think there should be an iPhone and Starbucks tax since they think all young people are rich yuppies who don't know how to spend. Such condescending drivel from a bunch of people who seem to think the growing number of young homeless are invisible.
Of course we could fund HMRC so they could collect the taxes that are being evaded, as well as closing loopholes that millions use every year to squirrel away their cash. Ain't gonna happen though.
At least I now have the foresight that if I can afford it, I can start saving for the treatments and care I may need when I am a pensioner.
I think as a matter of principle that if you got dementia and I didn't, that you shouldn't have to pay for/subsidise others with dementia when I don't. The burden has to be fair. But somebody does have to pay - and that has to be the starting point on any debate. It hasn't been which is criminal.
Who should pay for care of the elderly then? Maybe a fund should have been set up decades ago to prepare for the ageing population. Except it wasn't, it was squirreled away instead of a small amount of tax being taken each year. Now those who should have been taxed over those years now face paying a large sum if they are capable of doing so in lieu of paying those taxes. Those who cannot pay are funded by those who can, like every other part of public spending.
I'm not saying it's right but who else should pay these taxes? The young have already had their funding, social housing, education support, tuition fees and everything else apart from the shirt on their backs ripped away from them by the greedy rich already. No doubt some people on here think there should be an iPhone and Starbucks tax since they think all young people are rich yuppies who don't know how to spend. Such condescending drivel from a bunch of people who seem to think the growing number of young homeless are invisible.
Of course we could fund HMRC so they could collect the taxes that are being evaded, as well as closing loopholes that millions use every year to squirrel away their cash. Ain't gonna happen though.
At least I now have the foresight that if I can afford it, I can start saving for the treatments and care I may need when I am a pensioner.
In the main I agree, but having a system like we do now what is the incentive to those maybe under 50 to put away money for their old age/home cost if the system says 'spend it all and we'll pay anyway'? You may be the sensible one who does but many won't and so the cycle continues. I know many people earning 6 figure salaries who aren't putting anywhere near enough into a pension as they'd rather have a £60k car every two-three years or a bigger house.
Over the last 20 years we've mad a rod for our own backs and some won't like this but I blame the government at the time (Labour although conservatives aren't innocent in all this either). Bringing in all these 'working/child tax credits' all it has done is let employers pay (in real terms) lower wages as they know the state will top them up to a sensible level. This has led to companies making more money which only benefits the shareholders which are generally the richer side of society.
Make employers pay proper wages that give everyone a decent living, pay shop assistants, cleaners etc £10-12 an hour not £7 something.
So get the minimum wage up considerably and slowly reduce the tax credits. Raise the tax allowance to a more sensible cost of living level (£18k?) and add 1p or whatever is needed to the income tax rates for all.
On education (Uni) I don't have an issue that you have pay with the way the system is set up, it's simply sign of the world we live in, pay tomorrow for what you get today, I can't think of a better system TBH with the numbers that now go to. And before anyone says/asks, I didn't go to Uni but have two daughters that likely will in the next 5 years.
We are paying for not having collected enough tax in the past but hindsight is a wonderful thing......... we need to sort it out now or it'll only get progressively worse. The higher earners pay proportionately more tax than 20 years ago but lumping it all on the individual tax payer is never going to be enough, business needs to start paying a little more in my view, that won't help me personally but it needs to be done.
As an example, the 40% band in 2009 came in at £37,400 it's now £32,000, plus the 45p band at 150k.
The problem is that it isn't hindsight - politicians knew what was coming. It is the same with global warming. If trying to prevent it was free, everybody would be doing it! As it is expensive, they get around it or even deny it!
The problem is that it isn't hindsight - politicians knew what was coming. It is the same with global warming. If trying to prevent it was free, everybody would be doing it! As it is expensive, they get around it or even deny it!
In recent years yes, but who in their 80/90's now, thought when they were 25 they'd live to their 80's/90's? 3 score and 10?
Can't believe I'm saying it but up taxes! That will effect the higher earning pensioners as well so it wouldn't just be 'the youngsters'.
A few have said it already my take on it is as follows
The government, at some point made it a choice for those at the unskilled, lower end of the labour market to have a choice whether to work or not as wages can be so pitiful they would be out of pocket by going to work. That is mental. Now you have hundreds of thousands, more likely millions working full time yet still needing subsidised support from the welfare. In one of the largest economies on the planet! At the same time you have a biblical amount of wealth held by about 4% of the population. That gives them the power and money to say 'I'm all right Jack'.
Now this ain't happened overnight and I don't hold wealth generators and corporations wholly responsible but at some point the scales were tipped so big, big firms could basically outright take the piss out of their workforces. The company I work for have just announced some incredible financial to the city yet those of us that have actually done the work to create these financial figures the city and shareholders so love are seeing none of it. And we aren't alone, year on year our terms and conditions are eroded, we haven't had a pay increase in line with inflation despite some astounding end of year reports all achieved by us. Yet the boys and girls at the top table have had, amd I don't like the term but I'll use it, eye watering bonuses and rewards. Yet again at the time to negotiate pay we are being told we need to be mindful of the need to be frugal! Dafuq!!!
Anyway, housing. I will hold court who anyone who calls me lucky to have a mortgage. I'm 35, bought my first place at 24 at the worst time to buy but did so by working my bollocks off and going without like I'm sure most 'lucky' mortgage holders have. But I was in a position where I could earn over and above from OT and call outs and put my hand up for everything to thump my salary and deposit up. I could only do that of call outs and OT are there, fucking loads of people don't have that option amd I genuinely don't see a solution, it isn't simply a case of just going without or living with mum and dad. It's mathematics that don't work!
Then we get to the social care problem and fuck me is it a problem; one not helped by farming out care of HUMAN BEINGS to private, shareholder-reporting contractor's. Ones who will undercut one another to won these local authority and NHS contracts then realise half way in they cannot possibly make a coin out of them because looking after vulnerable humans costs a lot. So they basically abandon them and end up relying on the goodwill of the poor bastards earning 7.50 an hour, to prop it all up until they cut and run and the next contractor does the same. Things like health care, the armed forces, the police, infrastructure, the rail network cannot be privatised because they are never going to make anyone money unless they asset strip and cut them to the bone just to balance a spreadsheet and to hell with the employees and customers.
What is needed is some honesty from out leaders about where they want to take us and some collective honesty from us minions about what we want.
And whoever said the inland revenue employing a thousand special investigators to go after the big fuckers dodging tax is spot on. Firms like apple, amazon won't just up and leave if governments collectively did something solid about their criminal tax avoidance. Then all of a sudden a surplus will begin to appear but that won't suit those who currently slither along the real corridors of power.
I'm off to evacuate my bowels in misery at what I've just written
60% drop in tax allowance for those set up as a limited company. Rise in NIC contributions for self employed even though we don't get holiday or sick pay and can't claim benefits.
Absolute joke, self employed and small business owners another couple of groups on the long list of people the tories screw over.
Look who's untouched again? Ah yes, pensioners, the ones who got us into this mess.
Quite a good rant until you got to that point.
Are pensioners to blame because they are not dying fast enough for your liking?
Nope, they're to blame, or rather successive governments that they voted for are to blame for esssentially mortgaging the future of younger people so they can have a cushty life relative to young people from the same background.
Which of the two is it - pensioners or successive governments?
I do believe (I am a pensioner and not planning to kick the proverbial bucket just yet) that my generation had it slightly easier that the current generation; that is not to say we had it easy. Being born just after the second World War was very difficult for many people like me; never had a holiday, largely wearing 2nd hand clothes, no family car etc etc. When I left school in 1962, I recall there being a whole range of unskilled jobs available for people (which is perhaps not the case today). Furthermore, buying a house in the 70s was easier than today (size of deposit needed) but at some point therafter I recall house interest rates rising to 15% or thereabouts. I had to move out of London to afford my first house. I also enjoyed an advantage that the current generation wont receive, which is that of a "Golden Handshake" pension.
So, on balance, given the factors above, I would judge that many of the current pensioners, NOW, and only NOW enjoy the fruits of their life. It remains to be seen how our lifestyle/quality of life will compare with that of the current generation when they reach pension life.
From what I can tell (and don't quote me on this, I wasn't alive then) governments are made up of people, who are voted for by people. Baby boomers were and remain the largest block of voters, thus if the majority vote a specific way, the extreme likelihood is that party would form a government.
As for reaching pension life... to be honest I doubt we'd be able to get a pension at this rate, or at least reach pension age as it would have to be pushed up considerably at this rate.
Money has to be put away for pensions today, as much as they were in my day. Nothing changed there, except the potential size of the pot.
I find it difficult to compare quality of life between different generations. There are pros and cons on both sides. I mentioned in my previous post the advantage that current pensioners had when they were younger in terms of house buying opportunities and today with enhanced pensions. On the other side, disposable income available to today's generation is far far greater than in mine, which can be measured by the number of social activites on tap and peoples' use of them. Many of my generation, as young people, could not afford to eat out, run a car, go on holiday. I guess the quality of life "experience" is different for differing generations.
Where on earth are the young people with disposable income?!i can't afford to do any of the things you mention.
Going back many of the people that you refer to (pensioners) had to do 2 years of national service, and earlier than that they had to fight a bloody war to give some people your age the freedom to bitch and moan that life hasn't handed everything on a plate to you....oh yes and no one my age had a 'gap year' whereby they could ponce of their parents for a year or so, after partying at university for 2-3 years........in the world we live in now, everything is always someone else's fault, do me favour! Life is out there, go out and grab which ever part of it you want.......or sit and wallow in self pity......you choose.
The vast majority of people who are of pension age have never been near a firearm.
Many people who are of pension age did have the opportunity to go to university free of charge, a luxury no longer afforded to today's youngsters.
What utter garbage. I went to Dartford Technical high school for boys left in 1973 at 16, it was a Friday, started work on the Monday, an been lucky an healthy enough to have not had more than two weeks off in the 43 years since. As for Uni being free, no one but the elite went to Uni. I reckon 90% of us left at 16, and of the 10% that did A levels 3 % went to Uni. Now, you all bloody go for the 3 year fun fest !
I'm 59 an most 25 year olds have seen more of this world than I ever will. Because I went to work at 16, and was paying in to a pension at 20.
Sorry can you actually point to me which part of my post was inaccurate? I said many, not all. Just because you didn't go to uni doesn't mean no one else did. It's really not that hard to understand.
Maybe read posts properly before you write it off as utter garbage, you might save yourself the embarrasment.
My embarrassment ? you obviously have a very high opinion of yourself. I hardly think your reply renders me in anyway embarresed. Many may have had the opportunity, few were in a position to avail themselves of it. An in those times, getting the required A levels was quite a challenge, the exams were actually difficult. Unlike today, where no one is allowed to fail, an even a very moderate student can reach the standard required to get accept a Uni.
One little thing in the Budget Report that I haven't see anyone pick up on - especially the so called Leader of the Opposition is that last year business investment shrunk by 1.6% compared with growing 5.6% the previous year. How that can be good for the future growth of the economy? Also nails conclusively the lie that Brexit is having no effect.
self employed to pay more in NI contributions as they are "better off" than those who are employed - someone had better tell the chancellor that they don't have access to a work place pension (which by law an employer HAS to pay into),sick pay, paid maternity/paternity leave.....Just wonder what these "benefits" are worth ???
Apart from that a very bland & non-descript budget. No usual changes in allowances (I know some were already announced previously & will take effect in April) or duties and nothing at all re pension contributions or allowances.
Lot of self employed don't take advantage of a personal pension, as you have to pay tax to get tax relief, an lots of them don't pay much, or any !
WRONG. Everybody gets tax relief when paying into a personal pension no matter how much or how little they earn - even non workers can pay into a pension & get tax relief (up to £300pm). This is one of the best ways of saving as many people can get 20% relief on the money going in & pay no tax on the income later as they will be able to use their personal allowance (£11,500 pa as from next month) to offset this. Someone retiring next month could get a state pension of around £8,300 pa so could access another £3,200 pa from a pension tax free.
Will admit I haven't read all of this thread so apologies for any repetition. I am very angry about this on so many counts, as someone who took a conscious decision to go self - employed over ten years ago, them form and grow a successful but still small limited company. I am an "entrepreneur", I suppose. This change:
- discourages risk - encourages the black / cash economy - rewards big business and tax avoiders eg the banks, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Starbucks etc - rewards the deregulated "sharing economy" or at least the massive international corporates behind it eg Uber, Airbnb - rewards those who have spent their working life in reasonably paid, low risk positions working for public bodies who get to to retire on generous final salary pension schemes in their early to mid fifties - and is nowhere near as bad long term for you lucky property owners in London / SE who have seen house prices double/ treble in last few years while the rest of us have seen little or no rise at all.
Apologies if I have personally insulted / offended anyone on here but I am sickened by this policy and the lack of any proper opposition to it.
Anyone can pay into a pension, even if you aren;t working/earning - I know a bit of an oxymoron but you can. For instance I pay £2,880 (£3,600 with the tax relief) a year into a pension for my wife.
Can't disagree with that! Think this particular element was all around someone saying self employed not paying into a pension as they 'don't pay much tax to get the relief' Golfie was just pointing out that wasn't quite correct. You don't have to pay tax to get tax relief on pension contributions (to a limit/level).
- rewards those who have spent their working life in reasonably paid, low risk positions working for public bodies who get to to retire on generous final salary pension schemes in their early to mid fifties
I really wouldn't believe the hype on this bit Weegie...
- rewards those who have spent their working life in reasonably paid, low risk positions working for public bodies who get to to retire on generous final salary pension schemes in their early to mid fifties
I really wouldn't believe the hype on this bit Weegie...
Sorry, I personally have both a sister and brother-in-law and several other friends in exactly that position. No hype about it at all. And good for them - they made the right life choices.
So how much extra NI will you have to pay as self employed @Weegie Addick?
Pretty sure it will still be less than the NI I pay as an employee.
I think it's quite right Self Employed pay less NI, how much less is probably the debate and you do have to factor in with employers contributions employed pay 25.8%.
But to put it in perspective If you go back to the late 90's Self employed paid 6%, Employed 10%. Ignoring the additional 2% across the board for the UPL it will be now;
Self employed now 10%, Employed 12% So self employed will have seen their NI increase by 66% whereas employed only 20% with a further 1% to come for the self employed the following year.
I'm no longer self-employed, @Addickted as I said. My objections are much more fundamental than a few %. And more about principle than personal impact.
- rewards those who have spent their working life in reasonably paid, low risk positions working for public bodies who get to to retire on generous final salary pension schemes in their early to mid fifties
I really wouldn't believe the hype on this bit Weegie...
Sorry, I personally have both a sister and brother-in-law and several other friends in exactly that position. No hype about it at all. And good for them - they made the right life choices.
And there's the rub.
Most of my working life has been in public sector. I could and did earn more in the private sector, which was great at the time and I made hay whilst the sun shone.
But the bottom line is I returned to the public sector at a greatly reduced salary, because I knew my last ten years of employment would provide me with a pension I could live off comfortably when I am 60.
Whilst waiting a further seven years before I get the state pension - two years later than I originally contracted for.
Comments
I'm going to say the top five %of our population who pay fuck all tax because of the way tax avoidance is set up in their favour and successive governments do fcuk all about it.
This should not be an argument about young and old it should be about tax avoidance at the highest level
My father has dementia and has been in a home for 2 years, he can't talk (any sense i.e. string a sentence together), wears nappies and needs help with everything. Yet he doesn't get 'continuing care' as basically he's very placid and not aggressive.
Therefore he's paying in the region of £55k a year to the home, fortunately he has a reasonably good pension, not enough to pay it in full but 80% of it so the rest comes out of savings and then his house........ he still pays tax though on his pension income....
I am a self employed business owner and I won't jump up and down about the budget. But a lot of MPs are doing so on my behalf. Somebody has to pay - my view is to make it as fair as you can. But if paying is always unpopular and MPS kick up a stink, what is Hammond supposed to do?
Nobody in authority gives a toss about people with dementia and because they are unable to defend themselves, unless they have bloody minded relatives who fight on their behalf, fleecing them to bankruptcy is considered acceptable.
Free NHS? Not if you have dementia!
And all the major parties have to get round a table and agree a solution amd promise not to use against each other in elections.
BTW - I meant £3.5k a month for a modest residential home - not week in my previous post - it isn't quite that bad yet!
The rules for who gets continuing care is ridiculous as well. My dad is all but a 2 year old in an adults body yet isn't deemed to need continuing care...... yer right........ then in the same breath every 18 months they go into the home and check on him that he isn't being held unnecessarily against his will (as ultimately it was me that decided to put him into a home as he couldn't make the decision!).........
Don't get me started on Dementia..... when my dad was hospitalised (urine infection) they stuck him on a normal ward so I get a call at 3am from the police to say my dad had 'absconded' from the hospital sometime after 11pm (the last time they checked on him). It was a February, -3 and snowing! He somehow despite not even knowing his own name had managed to walk the 3 miles to his house (and find it!).
Once you are past a certain point they just wash their hands of you, Dr's are useless as well, like the one who'd given my dad 7 repeat prescriptions in 10 days (a months worth at a time!)
Good luck finding a dementia home for 3.5k a month in the South East. I looked at 1 that was £1600 a week! Most are £4k+
I'm not saying it's right but who else should pay these taxes? The young have already had their funding, social housing, education support, tuition fees and everything else apart from the shirt on their backs ripped away from them by the greedy rich already. No doubt some people on here think there should be an iPhone and Starbucks tax since they think all young people are rich yuppies who don't know how to spend. Such condescending drivel from a bunch of people who seem to think the growing number of young homeless are invisible.
Of course we could fund HMRC so they could collect the taxes that are being evaded, as well as closing loopholes that millions use every year to squirrel away their cash. Ain't gonna happen though.
At least I now have the foresight that if I can afford it, I can start saving for the treatments and care I may need when I am a pensioner.
Over the last 20 years we've mad a rod for our own backs and some won't like this but I blame the government at the time (Labour although conservatives aren't innocent in all this either). Bringing in all these 'working/child tax credits' all it has done is let employers pay (in real terms) lower wages as they know the state will top them up to a sensible level. This has led to companies making more money which only benefits the shareholders which are generally the richer side of society.
Make employers pay proper wages that give everyone a decent living, pay shop assistants, cleaners etc £10-12 an hour not £7 something.
So get the minimum wage up considerably and slowly reduce the tax credits. Raise the tax allowance to a more sensible cost of living level (£18k?) and add 1p or whatever is needed to the income tax rates for all.
On education (Uni) I don't have an issue that you have pay with the way the system is set up, it's simply sign of the world we live in, pay tomorrow for what you get today, I can't think of a better system TBH with the numbers that now go to. And before anyone says/asks, I didn't go to Uni but have two daughters that likely will in the next 5 years.
We are paying for not having collected enough tax in the past but hindsight is a wonderful thing......... we need to sort it out now or it'll only get progressively worse. The higher earners pay proportionately more tax than 20 years ago but lumping it all on the individual tax payer is never going to be enough, business needs to start paying a little more in my view, that won't help me personally but it needs to be done.
As an example, the 40% band in 2009 came in at £37,400 it's now £32,000, plus the 45p band at 150k.
Can't believe I'm saying it but up taxes! That will effect the higher earning pensioners as well so it wouldn't just be 'the youngsters'.
The government, at some point made it a choice for those at the unskilled, lower end of the labour market to have a choice whether to work or not as wages can be so pitiful they would be out of pocket by going to work. That is mental. Now you have hundreds of thousands, more likely millions working full time yet still needing subsidised support from the welfare. In one of the largest economies on the planet! At the same time you have a biblical amount of wealth held by about 4% of the population. That gives them the power and money to say 'I'm all right Jack'.
Now this ain't happened overnight and I don't hold wealth generators and corporations wholly responsible but at some point the scales were tipped so big, big firms could basically outright take the piss out of their workforces. The company I work for have just announced some incredible financial to the city yet those of us that have actually done the work to create these financial figures the city and shareholders so love are seeing none of it. And we aren't alone, year on year our terms and conditions are eroded, we haven't had a pay increase in line with inflation despite some astounding end of year reports all achieved by us. Yet the boys and girls at the top table have had, amd I don't like the term but I'll use it, eye watering bonuses and rewards. Yet again at the time to negotiate pay we are being told we need to be mindful of the need to be frugal! Dafuq!!!
Anyway, housing. I will hold court who anyone who calls me lucky to have a mortgage. I'm 35, bought my first place at 24 at the worst time to buy but did so by working my bollocks off and going without like I'm sure most 'lucky' mortgage holders have. But I was in a position where I could earn over and above from OT and call outs and put my hand up for everything to thump my salary and deposit up. I could only do that of call outs and OT are there, fucking loads of people don't have that option amd I genuinely don't see a solution, it isn't simply a case of just going without or living with mum and dad. It's mathematics that don't work!
Then we get to the social care problem and fuck me is it a problem; one not helped by farming out care of HUMAN BEINGS to private, shareholder-reporting contractor's. Ones who will undercut one another to won these local authority and NHS contracts then realise half way in they cannot possibly make a coin out of them because looking after vulnerable humans costs a lot. So they basically abandon them and end up relying on the goodwill of the poor bastards earning 7.50 an hour, to prop it all up until they cut and run and the next contractor does the same. Things like health care, the armed forces, the police, infrastructure, the rail network cannot be privatised because they are never going to make anyone money unless they asset strip and cut them to the bone just to balance a spreadsheet and to hell with the employees and customers.
What is needed is some honesty from out leaders about where they want to take us and some collective honesty from us minions about what we want.
And whoever said the inland revenue employing a thousand special investigators to go after the big fuckers dodging tax is spot on. Firms like apple, amazon won't just up and leave if governments collectively did something solid about their criminal tax avoidance. Then all of a sudden a surplus will begin to appear but that won't suit those who currently slither along the real corridors of power.
I'm off to evacuate my bowels in misery at what I've just written
This change:
- discourages risk
- encourages the black / cash economy
- rewards big business and tax avoiders eg the banks, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Starbucks etc
- rewards the deregulated "sharing economy" or at least the massive international corporates behind it eg Uber, Airbnb
- rewards those who have spent their working life in reasonably paid, low risk positions working for public bodies who get to to retire on generous final salary pension schemes in their early to mid fifties
- and is nowhere near as bad long term for you lucky property owners in London / SE who have seen house prices double/ treble in last few years while the rest of us have seen little or no rise at all.
Apologies if I have personally insulted / offended anyone on here but I am sickened by this policy and the lack of any proper opposition to it.
Pretty sure it will still be less than the NI I pay as an employee.
But to put it in perspective If you go back to the late 90's Self employed paid 6%, Employed 10%. Ignoring the additional 2% across the board for the UPL it will be now;
Self employed now 10%, Employed 12% So self employed will have seen their NI increase by 66% whereas employed only 20% with a further 1% to come for the self employed the following year.
Most of my working life has been in public sector. I could and did earn more in the private sector, which was great at the time and I made hay whilst the sun shone.
But the bottom line is I returned to the public sector at a greatly reduced salary, because I knew my last ten years of employment would provide me with a pension I could live off comfortably when I am 60.
Whilst waiting a further seven years before I get the state pension - two years later than I originally contracted for.