The Tipping Point

Another tipping point?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-housing-bill-mauled-ministers-7833440

The Lords defeated the Tories on their housing bill eleven times.
The Lords are definitely the opposition these days.

Did you watch Dennis Skinner telling Hunt to wipe the smirk off his face?
One of Hunt's problems is he always looks as though he is smirking, so he'd find that difficult.

Apparently Jeremy was so frightened of walking past doctors this morning that he was driven 50 yards by chauffeur.

I cannot guess where this is going. So many people seem to think there will be an endless supply of doctors - if these leave their places will be filled - that is just so naive.

A bit sick. Jeremy Hunt has just said that had Nye Bevan given way to the BMA, there would be no NHS.
I hope he's not comparing himself to Nye Bevan.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/25/bma-considers-permanent-strike-for-junior-doctors

Tipping point reached for doctors?
A junior doctor has said on TV that he will resign to spend more time fighting the contract.
This is what Jeremy Hunt has driven them to.
He must know you cannot have what he wants without putting more money into the NHS, yet he is determined they can save even more.
It's all about money for this government.

Kindle! PAYE not page.

In all honesty Daphne I don't know as much as I would wish to about NI and am very happy to be informed . Do you work as self-employed? I wonder if what I have read is about people used to the employer sorting things out under page?

I don't think people would mind anywhere nearly as much as some do, paying to help those who just do not have the means to pay in as much as they do if the payments, when the were needed, related to previous income.

To be honest, I would role the income tax taken via NI into personal tax - keeping it progressive. If you brought in a Citizen's income and got it to the same level as the basic pension you would not need a separate state pension.

Gracesgran, They can pay NI. I have three income sources, none of which reaches the NI threshold, so I pay voluntary Class 4 contributions. Class 2 contributions have been abolished, which is maybe what you're thinking about.

dj, Your example of people not earning enough actually illustrates my point about NI. If they hadn't worked at all, they would have been credited with NI for pension purposes. Carers and parents will also be given pension credits, which have replaced home responsibilities protection. The amount people pay bears almost no relationship to any benefits. And don't start me on the new state pension, which is a con!

dj, Yes, but once you earn that much, you pay NI on everything.

Yes - zero hours contracts are bringing so many problems to some Jen.

I am off to bed now (having just watched the paper review but will think about starting one tomorrow if you haven't beaten me to it ) It has been mentioned it in passing I think but more is being written about it at the moment.

Heidi Alexander is doing well - let's hope that Hunt listen's. Lucy Powell is strong too and very articulate. There is a very nice Shadow Cabinet forming. Lets hope these two can do something for both the NHS and Education.

People on zero hours contracts, too, Gracesgran, who can work enough to pay lots of NI one week, but no hours for the next two. It should be evened out, smoothing they call it, I think.

I agree about citizens income, too. Have we had a thread about it yet?

I should have said Jen that lower income earners should be credited - I think they should be now anyway. There are many people who earn enough to pay NI but, because they earn it over several jobs it seems they cannot do so from what I gather.

(I would be in favour of a basic or citizens income too - but that is a different discussion )

Daphne, you have to earn £156.01+ per week in order to pay NI, so there is an NI free allowance.
Although it's a lot lower than tax, it does give benefits, which you do not get if you do not pay.
When I employed people I always used to make sure they worked enough hours to pay NI. Otherwise there was no sickness benefit, no state pension, etc.

There have been lots of complaints about the new universal pension. If people - usually women - have not paid enough in for ten years, they get nothing.
They might have worked all those years, but if they have not earned enough to pay NI for 50 out of 52 weeks in those years, they get nothing.
In the old system, they used to get something. AgeUK has worked out that 70,000 will get nothing.

Agreed, Gracesgran. National Insurance is a silly 'tax'. The amount people pay and the benefits people receive from it have very little correlation. The whole thing needs rethinking.

I actually thought Osborne might do something good in the last budget when it was floated that he was going to remove higher tax relief on pension contributions. Apparently, this relief 'costs' about £8bn a year, but he gave in to his wealthy chums. This tax relief gives wealthier people twice the amount in their pension pots as basic rate payers and is widely abused as a way of deferring tax. It's even worse when it's paid into a tax haven.

I think it has been interesting that the tax rate has been equalised for older people and cannot see why people should not go on paying NI when they are older - if their income is above the base level. As long as a Chancellor did not try to use this to raise more income for the Treasury this should allow the base rate to be raised exempting more at the bottom. I also think it is regressive for the top earners (over £827 a week, currently) to only pay 2% while those earning less pay 12% and that should be equalised too bringing the 12% down.

We need to keep simplifying not adding to the longest tax code in the world. By simplifying it will be easier to collect and more difficult to use the system to your advantage.

absent,

You've proved my point. I don't know which year you're talking about, but the last time income tax was 33% was 1978-9. National Insurance Contributions were 6.5% (unless opted out). Higher rate tax in that year was 83%!

Now they're 20% and 12%. There is no reduction for opting out if you have an occupational or private pension.

Income tax was only paid on anything above the threshold, so 33% was a maximum, unless you were a high earner. 6.5% was paid on everything, so the maximum was 39.5%.

It's the same principle now, so the maximum is 32%.

The difference is that that the switch from income tax to National Insurance Contributions means that taxpayers with unearned income benefit.

I agree with you about VAT on children's clothes. Unfortunately, I bred a couple of monsters, who were in adult sizes when they were about 11 or 12.

In 2015/6 government income from income tax and NICs is expected to be £284.7bn, of which about 60% will be from income tax and 40% from NICs. Income from VAT is expected to be £115.8bn. Income tax only accounts for about 25% of the Treasury's income. There has been a shift away from income tax as a way of raising money towards indirect taxes and National Insurance. Wealth (including land) is undertaxed compared with many other developed countries.

When I started to work for my living, the basic rate of income tax was 33%. The basic rate now is 20%. There was no VAT, but Purchase Tax on luxury items, such as diamond jewellery, was very high. Successive governments have reduced the most familiar, best-known forms of taxation, clearly with a view to seeming like the nice guys who should be re-elected, plus reducing other taxes that usually only clock in for the wealthier in our society. Generally speaking, people have little idea of how much VAT they pay on many ordinary, non-luxury items, such as shoes for teenage boys still at school (they do have enormous feet) each year. Is it still at a rate of 20%? It was introduced at 5% and covered a much wider range of goods than Purchase Tax. Just for the record, bear in mind that there is a difference between zero-rated VAT (such as books) and non-VATable; the former can be changed on a nod of the head.

Of course, increasing the rate of income tax is shooting yourself in the foot if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer. It's much easier to blame other people for the shortfall of revenue to the Treasury.

In addition, it should be said, that plunging into wars is a hugely expensive business. I don't think we have ever had an account of how much the Iraq adventure cost, or, indeed, the Falklands adventure, or the Bosnia adventure or any of the others.

ww, People don't pay according to means and that's my gripe. I was wrong about the NHS being funded out of NI. It's funded by general taxation, but it's been government policy to keep taxation low and to raise NI at the same time. Both go into one big 'pot'. NI is now 12% with no 'NI free allowance'. People with occupational pensions pay extra, so a teacher (for example) pays 21% for pension and insurance on all earned income in addition to income tax and 'graduate' tax (ie paying back student loan).

Meanwhile, anybody not in paid employment only pays income tax on pensions and/or any other income, so only pays 20% on anything over the tax threshold. Many people with unearned income are wealthier than those with earned income, so people don't always pay according to their means.

In Australia pensioners pay 2.5% of their income and receive health care very similar to the NHS.

There are an awful lot of people of my age (61) and younger who are pretty pi$$ed off with it all. We're worried that by the time we do eventually get to pension age, there won't be anything left unless steps are taken now to get a grip. I'd be quite happy to pay 2.5% 'health tax' for the rest of my life, if I thought services could be saved and I wouldn't have to pay for one off treatments.

Sadly, I think there are still too many people who either don't believe what's happening or just don't care. The super rich can afford private health care and education and blame the poor for their own situation. I don't understand why people defend tax havens, inheritance tax, low taxation, etc. when they will never benefit. meanwhile, they support myths about benefit scroungers.

Our party political system means that politicians never do what's fair, but what will bring them enough votes in the next election. They don't act in the country's long term interest and bribe/con just enough voters to stay/get into power. Polticians have very thick skins. They don't care about sob stories.

I have been watching that Jen. It is more of the uncovering done by Channel 4 News but it has gone pretty quiet since they revealed it. However it has been the cover-ups that have brought people and parties down in the past ...

Gracesgran, should this be the tipping point?

www.thecanary.co/2016/04/22/tories-response-compelling-evidence-won-general-election-breaking-law/

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/23/junior-doctors-strike-will-not-put-patients-at-risk-senior-medics-say

More proof, if needed, that it's Jeremy Hunt who is being the spanner in the works of the NHS.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/psychologists-against-austerity-and-peoples-assembly-protest/

I was surprised to read about these at the protest, although I have read of students not wanting to become psychologists because of the NHS problem.
So therefore I shouldn't be surprised.