Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Would you be willing to pay more NI or tax to fund the NHS and social care?

Would you be willing to pay more NI or tax to fund the NHS and social care?

+4
Cajunboy
karlypants
wanderlust
Norpig
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 6]

Guest


Guest

Specifically which wealth tax do you keep referring to though?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Specifically which wealth tax do you keep referring to though?

There is no new wealth tax proposed so I'm not referring to any specifically.

The LSE experts report talks about about taxing people... -

Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold.
Include all assets such as main homes and pension pots, as well as business and financial wealth, but minus any debts such as mortgages.

One example they use is based on £500k per person (albeit on a household of two people).

If the tax came in on an individual basis at one person owning property - then that would have directly fallen on a ninety odd year old former bus conductor and now pensioner who bought his ex-council house - with no savings other than his home.

In this scenario it would have meant him having sell his home to pay a wealth tax!

It's not beyond reason that a married professional couple who have bought their home and have savings and a big pension pot each could even fall under the wealth tax as per that example and whilst they may have done well in their careers and are thus comfortably off, I doubt even they would consider themselves to be wealthy enough to be caught up in a wealth tax!

Have you ever thought that maybe there is a reason why successive governments have always shied away from introducing such a tax since Thatcher came to power?

They've even considered taxing multi-nationals first rather than doing that?

The reason is because it is a vote loser.

You/we have to separate in our minds between doing the right 'things' and being physically able to carry them out - politics is all about getting into and then staying in power - doing what we might believe to be the right thing may well not be what others consider to be the right thing for them and will vote against it.

Most people simply are not altruistic, they care more about themselves - people's behaviour all through Covid has proved that.

That's why Blair put a 1p on NI rather than bring in a wealth tax - he knew which was more politically acceptable to the voters.

Nothings changed since then other than vastly more people needing social care and inherited wealth has gone up simply due to the inflation in house values.

If Blair knew not to bring in a wealth Tax twenty years ago, why do you think Boris didn't do it this time and Kier is doing his best not to mention it?

Guest


Guest

'If the tax came in on an individual basis at one person owning property'

But it hasn't been proposed in this way? You can't criticise the report for proposing something it hasn't.

'It's not beyond reason that a married professional couple who have bought their home and have savings and a big pension pot each could even fall under the wealth tax as per that example and whilst they may have done well in their careers and are thus comfortably off, I doubt even they would consider themselves to be wealthy enough to be caught up in a wealth tax!'


Well if you hit the threshold of £1 million per household, I'm afraid you are wealthy - whether you like to think of yourself as wealthy or not?!

We can't set tax thresholds based on whether someone feels like they're wealthy, it needs to be based on fact.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:'If the tax came in on an individual basis at one person owning property'

But it hasn't been proposed in this way? You can't criticise the report for proposing something it hasn't.

'It's not beyond reason that a married professional couple who have bought their home and have savings and a big pension pot each could even fall under the wealth tax as per that example and whilst they may have done well in their careers and are thus comfortably off, I doubt even they would consider themselves to be wealthy enough to be caught up in a wealth tax!'


Well if you hit the threshold of £1 million per household, I'm afraid you are wealthy - whether you like to think of yourself as wealthy or not?!

We can't set tax thresholds based on whether someone feels like they're wealthy, it needs to be based on fact.

First of all...

Sluffy wrote:
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Specifically which wealth tax do you keep referring to though?

There is no new wealth tax proposed so I'm not referring to any specifically

secondly...

Sluffy wrote:You/we have to separate in our minds between doing the right 'things' and being physically able to carry them out - politics is all about getting into and then staying in power - doing what we might believe to be the right thing may well not be what others consider to be the right thing for them and will vote against it.

For someone who clearly shows an interest in politics you certainly don't demonstrate an understanding of how it actually works in practice.

You seem to be more of an idealist than realist.

Or more likely just arguing for the sake of it.

It's clear from your reply that you have not read the LSE summary report or simply don't understand it.

The fact is that the report hasn't given any recommendation at to what levels to set a threshold (or how the end user may want (or need) to implement such a policy if they were in a position to do so) merely a range and what tax revenue are predicted at those levels.

Guest


Guest

Ah the aggression begins. I don’t know why I bother Sluffy, I’ll leave you to it again.

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Labour did not want the issue to turn into a debate about "our plan versus their plan".

Letting the government come unstuck on one of its flagship policies is a good enough strategy three years from an election.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ah the aggression begins. I don’t know why I bother Sluffy, I’ll leave you to it again.

Hahaha!

Aggression...

If you say so!

:facepalm:

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

okocha wrote:Labour did not want the issue to turn into a debate about "our plan versus their plan".

Letting the government come unstuck on one of its flagship policies is a good enough strategy three years from an election.

Why should the government come unstuck, Labour didn't when it did exactly the same thing for the same reason?

They also say 'a week's a long time in politics', so I doubt it will be a burning issue in three years time.

Labour needed to say something - after all the measures are aimed at 'bashing' the  young and poor - but what could they say?

They could say it was wrong - because they'd done exactly the same things themselves. they couldn't call for a windfall tax because the G7 are working together on that.

They are left with hitting the economy whilst it is at its lowest following all the lockdowns - with a purchase tax increase - VAT and or petrol, alcohol, cigarettes - that will stunt the economic bounce back and be popular with the voters wouldn't it?

The only thing left is tax the rich and that simply won't get voters flocking back to them to overturn a 78 seat majority.

It's laughable that some are seeming to believe they have a masterplan but keeping it quite for now...

I mean just think about it, rather than offer up a better solution they would rather see the young and the weak (a party that so called represents them) suffer three years deprivation until they miraculously sweep back into power on a landslide victory.

I don't think I'd be over the moon if I were one of the young or poor suffering for three years when the answer to the issue was there all along but kept quiet because they 'didn't want it turning into a debate'...

Absolute bollocks!

What you DO want is a debate because 'your' plan is far better than 'their' plan - and everybody will see that!

You want the electorate to see you have all the answers!!!

That's they only way to win the election if people can see you being electable - if you don't put forward policies all the time on all things - for debate - then the voters might as well stick with the Devil they know rather than the one they don't!

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I don't believe that most swing voters compare what the current government does against what the opposition did last time they were in power. That's more a trait of a folk with fairly fixed opinions and voting histories who are unlikely to change whatever happens.

I think that the all important swing voters are largely malcontents who vote on what the current government is doing and some are swung by specific issues that are dear to them.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:I don't believe that most swing voters compare what the current government does against what the opposition did last time they were in power. That's more a trait of a folk with fairly fixed opinions and voting histories who are unlikely to change whatever happens.

I think that the all important swing voters are largely malcontents who vote on what the current government is doing and some are swung by specific issues that are dear to them.

Well you are correct that most free elections are determined by floating voters who have no hard affiliation with any political parties.

It's nothing to do with them being malcontents at all, what a strange thing to say?

Floating voters cast their votes for numerous reasons, some national issues, many because of local issues, others for personal reasons.

Traditionally (I don't know if it applies anymore?) but the trend was that younger voters tended to vote Labour but as they progressed through life, got jobs, started family's, accrued wealth they moved towards voting Conservative.

Maybe that was some minor factor contributing to the collapse of Labours Red Wall at the last election?

As for your opening paragraph, I'm not sure what the point is you wish to make?

If you are trying to refute the point I made about Labour raising NI and the Tory Party doing it now near 20 years later - then you've completely missed the point entirely, which is how can Labour complain about the Conservatives doing exactly the same as they did - and effecting directly the same sort of people (the poor and the young) that they did too???

They can't!

If they did they leave themselves wide open to be branded hypocritical and ridiculed for being so.

That's why Labour can't and haven't attacked them on that point - unfortunately it is clear they don't have a better alternative policy either - hence why they've been virtually anonymous this last week or so.

Otherwise your paragraph simply states the obvious and I wouldn't have thought it even needed saying?

Guest


Guest

Labour haven’t attacked the Tories for raising NI?!

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

This govt shoots itself in the foot so often and on so many issues that their incompetence, hard-heartedness and corrupt behaviour are sinking deeper and deeper into the public consciousness.

 The latest poll indicates that the Tories now lag behind Labour who are largely avoiding being drawn into knee-jerk reactions or distasteful slanging matches. Back-benchers and print-media are doing that job for them. Even The Express. FT and Telegraph are filling their pages with criticisms of Tory attitudes, policies and ministers.

 It's hard to think of a single government minister who is respected.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Labour haven’t attacked the Tories for raising NI?!

Well off course they've made a noise of sorts but more muted because they are on the back foot because they haven't articulated an alternative policy with costs - everybody picks up on this very point!

Yesterday -



4 days ago

Tax on landlords could help pay for social care, says Keir Starmer

Money to pay for social care could have been raised through taxing landlords, Sir Keir Starmer was expected to tell a conference.

It comes after Boris Johnson announced plans to raise National Insurance tax on workers and employers in order to pay for the NHS backlog and social care

Sir Keir was to describe the rise as "unfair" and "poorly thought through".

But the Labour leader has come under pressure in recent days to detail his own plan to fund social care.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58516799

5 Days ago -

Pensioners beware! Keir Starmer admits he backs ‘wealth tax’ to pay for social care

PENSIONERS have been put on alert after Sir Keir Starmer admitted he would back "wealth taxes" to fund the crumbling social care system - but has still refused to reveal if he has his own plan.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1488950/keir-starmer-news-labour-party-wealth-tax-social-care-reform-national-insurance

6 Days ago -

Boris Johnson humiliates Keir Starmer with Labour's OWN plan for National Insurance hike

Sir Keir attacked the Tory Government with the same arguments from Tuesday and claimed that increases to the National Insurance tax to pay for social care were not fair. The Labour leader remarked that his plan was to see that those with the most wealth and "broadest shoulders" carried the biggest cost load to resolve the social care problems.

Mr Johnson was able to fire back against these claims by revealing that in 2018 the Labour Party had its own plans to introduce a tax hike to National Insurance in order to pay for social care.

Mr Johnson said: "I have been scouring the records for evidence of the Labour plan and I found it.

"In 2018, the current Shadow Secretary of state for social care, Liz Kendall, joined forces with Nick Boles and Norman Lamb to promote a new dedicated health and social care tax.

"This was based on National Insurance, where is she? I can't see her in her place, Mr Speaker."


The Tory bench then erupted in cheers and laughter.

Mr Johnson continued: "She said this was to be this country's beverage moment.

"Is the Labour Party really going to vote against the new beverage moment tonight?"


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1488061/Boris-Johnson-Keir-Starmer-PMQS-National-Insurance-social-care-news-vn

...and...




And even YOU SAY IT!!!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:
Cajunboy wrote:Labour will no doubt bang on about breaking manifesto promises,  while sitting on the fence about making any concrete proposals themselves.

Completely agree, pathetic from Labour again. Kendall outright refused to state their alternative on Sky the other day.

Barely surprising that the Tories have yet again targeted working people and seemingly got away with it, the tax increase is right, who’s been targeted is completely regressive.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

Well you are correct that most free elections are determined by floating voters who have no hard affiliation with any political parties.

It's nothing to do with them being malcontents at all, what a strange thing to say?

Floating voters cast their votes for numerous reasons, some national issues, many because of local issues, others for personal reasons.

Traditionally (I don't know if it applies anymore?) but the trend was that younger voters tended to vote Labour but as they progressed through life, got jobs, started family's, accrued wealth they moved towards voting Conservative.

Maybe that was some minor factor contributing to the collapse of Labours Red Wall at the last election?

As for your opening paragraph, I'm not sure what the point is you wish to make?

If you are trying to refute the point I made about Labour raising NI and the Tory Party doing it now near 20 years later - then you've completely missed the point entirely, which is how can Labour complain about the Conservatives doing exactly the same as they did - and effecting directly the same sort of people (the poor and the young) that they did too???

They can't!

If they did they leave themselves wide open to be branded hypocritical and ridiculed for being so.

That's why Labour can't and haven't attacked them on that point - unfortunately it is clear they don't have a better alternative policy either - hence why they've been virtually anonymous this last week or so.

Otherwise your paragraph simply states the obvious and I wouldn't have thought it even needed saying?
So you are saying that "Floating voters cast their votes for numerous reasons, some national issues, many because of local issues, others for personal reasons"  whilst also stating that "It's nothing to do with them being malcontents at all"

So you're arguing that they switch allegiances because they are happy with the party they're switching from?

Genius.

Still I was foolhardy enough to give an opinion and it wouldn't be right if you didn't take the opportunity to have a dig at me.

And at least it gives TROY a break Smile

Everyone else is just trying to ignore your rambling pontifications, but it would definitely improve the site if folk felt they could express an opinion without them. Alternatively you might consider re-evaluating the site policy of not allowing us to put you on "Ignore" so we don't even see what you write?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:So you are saying that "Floating voters cast their votes for numerous reasons, some national issues, many because of local issues, others for personal reasons"  whilst also stating that "It's nothing to do with them being malcontents at all"

So you're arguing that they switch allegiances because they are happy with the party they're switching from?

Genius.

Still I was foolhardy enough to give an opinion and it wouldn't be right if you didn't take the opportunity to have a dig at me.

And at least it gives TROY a break Smile

Everyone else is just trying to ignore your rambling pontifications, but it would definitely improve the site if folk felt they could express an opinion without them. Alternatively you might consider re-evaluating the site policy of not allowing us to put you on "Ignore" so we don't even see what you write?

malcontent

noun
a person who is dissatisfied and rebellious.
"it was too late to stop the malcontents with a show of force"
adjective
dissatisfied and complaining or rebellious.

People don't vote because they are rebellious.

Maybe you do but most others vote for a myriad of reasons - many to do with local issues - Conservatives lost Amersham recently over planning issues, not because they didn't like the government or its policies - and Amersham will return Tory in the next election - guaranteed!

Amersham 'switched allegiance' to a party they don't want even though they are happy with the party they had and will switch back to it again at the next election!

Labour lost Hartlepool because Labour selected a pro-EU candidate, whilst the electorate was pro-Brexit and would not support him at the ballot box - nothing to do if they were pro or anti Labour or Tory policies.

Hartlepool 'switched allegiance' not because they didn't like the party they had but didn't like the candidate who was standing for it!

People vote for the most random and bizarre of reasons - not because they want to storm the barricades or start a revolution.

As for people posting on here, that's up to them.

It's a forum, you know, where people debate.

If you post bollocks then what do you want me to do, agree with it when I don't?

If you believe in what you've said then back it up, and if you can't don't bitch that I'm stifling your opinions - am I balls, I'm simply saying that what you've said isn't true.

I know you can't face being wrong, you have issues about that but if you post rubbish on here, then I'll explain why that isn't the case - you know like normal people do when having a discussion.

If you can't deal with that then that's your problem and if it bothers you so much - and it clearly does, then perhaps you need to get some help because this is just trivial stuff on the internet between random strangers who don't know you from Adam, nor you them!

I really hope for your sake that you are a completely different person away from the internet than how you act on here.

Guest


Guest

Sluffy - do you understand the difference between:

1. Criticising government policy
2. Presenting an alternative solution

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy - do you understand the difference between:

1. Criticising government policy
2. Presenting an alternative solution

Yes.

Do you understand  the difference between:

1. Being believed to be a credible alternative in the electorates eye's to a standing government.
2. Not being believed to be a credible alternative in the electorates eye's to a standing government.

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Backing up my point at post 72, here's an extract from an article Allister Heath wrote on the 9th September in the Telegraph of all papers: "Shame on Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party. They have disgraced themselves, lied to their voters, repudiated their principles and treated millions of their supporters with utter contempt"......and "remind voters that the Tories are utterly untrustworthy."

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Sluffy wrote:
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy - do you understand the difference between:

1. Criticising government policy
2. Presenting an alternative solution

Yes.

Do you understand  the difference between:

1. Being believed to be a credible alternative in the electorates eye's to a standing government.
2. Not being believed to be a credible alternative in the electorates eye's to a standing government.

Today -

Boris Johnson says NHS backlog needs to be fixed and while the government has a plan, Labour "has nothing to say"

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I see inflation has now hit 3.2%.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum