Corbyn and Momentum

Tax is a form of means test; anything else is incredibly complicated. The only good reason I can see for means testing better off pensioners in order to provide this form of National Health Insurance is that those who would otherwise never fill in a means testing form will find out how ridiculously complicated they are and some of them will get taken to court for not telling the appropriate office that they are getting 2p more on their pension six months later,commonly known as a 'change in circumstances".

Integrating with care is a good idea - I think it would help all the services to join up and work together when the money is taken out of the provision of service equation, if that makes sense. No fighting about who pays for what, the care is about what the person needs, not who pays the bill.

The MT report broke it down into quite a few subsets, trisher, and students were the highest. Perhaps that's why he broke it down, he was showing the same numbers. The ONS link is really useful. What I think is interesting is the comparison between guaranteed hours work and zero hours contracts. I still think they're a really good way for people to work part-time or with flexiblity.

so anxious to post that it may not make complete sense:
a means-tested extra tax for the NHS on those who in receipt of extra care ie pensioners

In fact, I am sure I typed that but my pc keeps freezing

I would like to see that too Primrose and what Gracesgran said about an integrated care system.

In fact, I have posted for a long time about the idea of a means-tested extra tax for the NHS on those in receipt of pensioners who can afford it because we are the heaviest user of these services.
That would not be just on pensioners, btw, but an extra tax on all because they may well need care in the future and we need to maintain these services and improve on them.

Primrose65 The highest percentage seem to be students in full time education
That's interesting and makes me doubt Matthew Taylor's report. The Office for National Statistics says only 18% of people with zero hours contracts are in full time Education www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/mar2017
I know who I'd believe.

Of course you do Wally. It doesn't matter if it's fact of fiction you would agree with any attack on Corbyn - or at least you have so far. Do tell me if I'm wrong and you have something pleasant and positive to say.

lemongrove Agree with every word.

I don't think any party has said they will hypothecate the NHS tax so far - tell me if I am wrong. I agree this should be a separate tax but I would want it for NHS, Public Health and Social Care as they are so interconnected and the best efficiencies can be made by keeping people well and keeping them out of hospital (Public Health and Social Care). I would want it to be paid for by everyone starting from the first job (?) on a progressive scale for life.

Now can anyone tell us if any party gets anywhere close to Primroses and my or your ideas? It's what the actual offering are that I'm interested in. Both parties in the last election promised extra funding for the NHS and I have found a Labour Party ten year plan here but can't find anything about the Conservatives but I think they are investigating.

Off the top of my head, here's one. I think that taking NHS funding outside of general taxation/NI contributions would be a good policy. Ringfence the spending and raise the tax separately. Tax rates, NI rates and NHS rates.
People don't want to pay an extra tax as they don't believe it will go to the NHS. (They don't vote for it). It would be the first step in taking the NHS out of politics too.

Some realistic and pragmatic policies would be good.

That's a start. But in the spirit of your OP, without trying to stifle those who are interested in a positive discussion, how about expanding that and telling us which policies you want the Labour Party, currently led by Jeremy Corbyn, to offer you?

This isn't a trick question. I am interested.

Surely there's an element of exploitation in any work though ww, if you chose to define it that way. I'm not sure how you would measure exploitation though, and if this type of work is high on that scale. Tax is not avoided totally - people pay tax on their zero hour income, VAT on the goods they buy. No employers NI though, I agree. Is a primary objection is that the government doesn't get a full slice of the pie and it has lost income? They are not highly paid jobs though and I'm sure there are plenty of part time jobs with guaranteed hours that are below the NI threshold.

Corbyn and Starmer are saying that Labour has 6 tests for Brexit, which are firmly in the national interest.
. If the government’s negotiations fail to meet the national interest then Labour cannot support it.

Corbyn said

“After 20 wasted months, Theresa May has again failed to bring clarity to the negotiations. It is worrying that she admitted her plan will reduce our access to the EU market”

It’s official we will be poorer after Brexit

The trouble with Matthews Taylor is that he simple fails to recognise the element of exploitation in the relationship, let alone the tax and pension contribution avoidance .

To go o n and suggest that a basic income would fit in very nicely with the concept of zero hours as you do prim whilst not re cognising the need for the companies revenue input is unbalanced in its argument.

Trisher - that's not what the Matthew Taylor report on zero hours contracts says. I'm not sure what has influenced your thinking.
The highest percentage seem to be students in full time education and the over 65's. Any person working, in any type of job, when they have children can sometimes have childcare problems. Fluctuating income is only part of the equation - people have fluctuating expenses too but no one would suggest banning holidays abroad or buying a new car.
I think that looking at how zero hours contracts work is a really good way to understand how people might live if they received a universal basic income. A lot of the zero hours workers are in a similar position to that - a pension or a student loan to cover basic expenses.

Oh then I take it from your reply that you are clueless about the intentions of Momentum.

One thing I do know is that you can never take Mays word as gospel. Very little of what she says has come to fruition, in fact she has achieved precisely zilch since coming to office.

You obviously stop up your ears and cover your eyes ww
To all that Momentum are doing.

Didn’t you read Osborne report on himself about austerity?? I’m surprised you brought that up as it is apparently done and dusted.
Vain and silly man.

Some realistic and pragmatic policies would be good.

You haven’t a clue lemon

Give me evidence of momentum’s intention of getting rid of hard working MPs

It is absolute nonsense

Before the last GE, Corbyn and Co. promised everything bar rainbows and unicorns and pots of gold.
Voters can usually see through those kind of promises:
No more austerity!
No University fees!
No more zero hours contracts!
£10 an hour for any job!
Social housing for all!
And so on and so on. So, borrowing zillions or hiking up taxes, even for the not very well paid, possibly both.

What policies do you want to see from the Labour Party Lemongrove?

If your MP is ( as you said) not a Corbyn supporter, then he may not enjoy the job for long.
If, you actually meant, that he had reservations about Corbyn but came round to the idea and Momentum helped put him in place as an MP then that is different.

I wonder Wally and Annie could you tell us what you do want in the LP manifesto? Nothing to do with people but what policies you want to see. That would be more positive surely.

lemon What an extraordinary statement!! You are clearly unaware of the help that momentum put into my MPs electioneering.

You comment was pure fiction.