Southerners and Northerners are paying higher taxes, but only the Southerners are benefiting.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 I do not think it’s a simplistic as your OP suggests.

There are areas in the South which are poor, extremely high unemployment, one of the poorest and most deprived areas in England is in East Essex (Jaywick).

The cost of living is generally higher in the South also.

The people you're talking about will not be property owners neither will they have savings in xs of20k !! Do pay attention! Alternatively if it assessed the percentage of wealth . I.e. 15%? 65% X 100k = 65k leaving an estate of 35k 65% X 500k = 325k leaving an estate of 175k proportional ya? But is it fair? Not really. Why should those better off subsidise those less well off ? The gov has made their problems-our problems! Slick. We do all pay the taxes as due. I really think it's time that elderly care be put into the hands of public ownership and the industry completely overhauled! Private care is just not working! There should be a basic level of care provided by state and if one wishes to add frills-go ahead at cost.if not well just get the basic yet decent and standardised complete care package. It should not be the case that one can only access clean, qualified staffed and well run care ONLY if one is stinking rich!! As healthcare if I want frills, I go private but I still get the same surgeon and Meds etc for the same ailments on NHS for free at point of delivery, just a duff menu and maybe undesirable co-habitants to put up with on an open/mixed ward! Current care appears to be uncontrolled unmonitored and unregistered where perverts bullies and violent Individuals can be employed at rubbish wages to keep costs down and residents can end up being abused and even worse in these awful dumps while local authorities and they pay ridiculously high fees! It's a free for all with our most vulnerable bearing the brunt of the appalling system in many cases. When they go bust(probably for taking too much out of profits) the residents are dumped into local authorities without warning and treated like rubbish to be disposed of . We should be thoroughly ASHAMED of the way we treat our elders in this country! Both my grandparents were cared for at home by my mum until they passed away at home at the ages of 93&85 my mum and dad did without holidays etc but we all loved being able to be with them up to the end and pop in whenever we wanted .it wasn't easy but it was the least she could do! And for £1500/week she could have employed a night nurse!!!!! I'd babysit for evenings and for a week or so for £1500/month!!!

Doesn't really help NHS as it's the same surgeon and anaesthetist who do private as do NHS! There not a special room full of spare medics! Nurses are usually private but I've been nursed by an NHS nurse doing a bit on 'side' while recovering from a hip replacement in private care!

My parents did not own a property or have much savings. When they became so ill that they needed a care home it was the devils own job to find a decent one for what the LA would pay. My mother, not too bad, but my father had vascular dementia which needed specialist care. Many care homes, despite their CQC accreditation, were dire, although the council pushed us to accept one of those as so much less costly. We did manage eventually after a LOT of pressure to get him into a beautiful one. If he had been wealthy there would have been no problem. I think it is disgusting that in this day and age we are still part of a society that offers such substandard choices to those who have worked hard all their lives but due to circumstance have not managed to accumulate great wealth (and decent care is VERY expensive).

GrannyGravy13 - you made an interesting remark here:

^"There is no such thing as everyone earning equally. Which is where the State comes in to help those who need it.

Rising wages should help the lowest paid."^

The problem as others have said is the division between rich and poor - which is marked across the country, and in isolated pockets in south-east England.

Listening to a caller the other day on James O'Brien's LBC show, she entered the debate by implying that the harder you work, the greater the financial rewards.

Needless to say this is and was rejected as arrant nonsense, but the further we drive the debate about welfare and wellbeing down the cash only path, the more it seems to me we will enter the world of knowing the cost of things, but nothing of the value.

The present "government" are deliberately loading the cost of recovery from the pandemic, and every other crisis onto the poor in society. We do not have a democratic electoral system, and winner takes it all does inevitably rely on those with wealth being able to access and use society's facilities, systems and processes better - for their individual benefits.

lemongrove

Urmstongran

Maybe this polarisation of views is the problem? Lines are drawn. Nuance and grey areas are much less apparent. We are pitted against one another. Our tribe against yours.

Boomers -v- snowflakes
Brexiteers -v- Remainiacs

Other examples abound, but you get my drift.

Yes, and I’m sick of it.
Too much division and hostility between people right now.
Plenty of low income and low priced housing in many parts of the country in any case, certainly not a North/South divide.

I totally agree, I am sick of the assumption that everyone in the South is living in expensive properties, and are all wealthy. Yes, my house is now worth far more than we paid for it, but conversely, our children are highly unlikely, despite earning good salaries, to be able to afford to buy anything of their own, in fact the ones living in London struggle to rent anything decent for their budget. It goes two ways. A couple on national salary scale living in some areas of the North of England, such as nursing, police etc., are more likely to be able to buy their own home and secure their own future, than mine here in the south are. I am not asking for sympathy, just a bit of understanding that it is not all as simple as the press would have us believe. This manufactured division into 'them and us' is a diversionary tactic to keep attention away from the people that do the real damage to all of us.

Polarisation alright.

"UG" refers to "Brexiteers- v -Remaniacs"

The very terminology reveals her blatant bias, just as it would mine if I referred to "Brexidiots- v -Remainers"

Your point about national salary scales going further in the North is fair; but the housing situation still underpins it.

It is easy (financially at least) for someone in the South to relocate North, as selling a house in the South will probably buy a far better one in the North, or an equivalent with a nest egg left over, but the same does not work in reverse. This puts Northerners at a massive disadvantage when it comes to career prospects, so they are more likely to stay near the bottom of the national salary scales, whilst Southerners have a better chance of moving up, irrespective of merit.

varian

Polarisation alright.

"UG" refers to "Brexiteers- v -Remaniacs"

The very terminology reveals her blatant bias, just as it would mine if I referred to "Brexidiots- v -Remainers"

Goodness, varian. You're brave.

I used a derogatory term for Leave voters ONCE to illustrate a point similar to yours and was harassed about it for months

I will do my best to avoid going into the care system and become a burden to anyone, even if it means throwing myself under a train or something.

I want to put a different slant on this discussion. Living in the south of England it was a real struggle saving for a house deposit and to pay the mortgage as a young couple years ago. Now youngsters I know are having to save to buy a property, studio flats start at £150,000, 1 bedroom flat from £230,000 and a terraced house start at around £400,000. On top of that council tax is high and cost of living high. Oh to live “ Up North and be able to buy a property for under £100,000 . What a dream to be young in the North and wanting to buy property, really easy ! O.K. so at the other end of your life you need to contribute a higher percentage of your home to care costs but isn’t it better to do that but have it easier to buy when young and starting out ? I think so and I know a lot of young folk who would agree as they struggle to save.

I disagree Pippa. You haven't factored in lower wages and unemployment in many parts of the country (apart from those working in public services). By the way, council tax is often higher in parts of the north than it is in the south.

The divisions build in inter-generational unfairness. This isn't about geographical divides as wealth divides anyway. It's also more about how much children (and others) inherit.

Doodledog has already made the same point.

What nonsense. This north/south divide is a bit outdated to be honest. There are equally poor and wealthy wherever you go in England. What should be happening is that if people can afford to pay for services then they should so more is available to the poorest members of society. I live in the South but spend lots of time in the north. So even if the average house prices are higher in the south, the cost of living is higher too. It’s all relative!

Well said!

helgawills

I will do my best to avoid going into the care system and become a burden to anyone, even if it means throwing myself under a train or something.

You obviously have no thought for the train driver or the emergency services who have to clean.

I agree with you railman.

Dominic Cummings apparently advised Johnson to play up geographic divisions as a way of distracting from the real divisions in society, ie between rich and poor.

He wanted people in the "north" to resent those in the "south" because it furthered his agenda of portraying politicians as out of touch southerners, based round Westminster.

Gillycats

What nonsense. This north/south divide is a bit outdated to be honest. There are equally poor and wealthy wherever you go in England. What should be happening is that if people can afford to pay for services then they should so more is available to the poorest members of society. I live in the South but spend lots of time in the north. So even if the average house prices are higher in the south, the cost of living is higher too. It’s all relative!

Sorry, what do you think is nonsense?

I don’t think helga was saying she would literally do that Meryl. I share her views but that’s not a method that anyone in their right mind would resort to.

This is conservatives trying to ‘conserve’ what they already own.

But obviously if you are a relatively rich civil servant or a well paid MP, you have zero concept of living just above the breadline having struggled manfully to afford a little house under the right to buy and now on a very meagre pension but desperate to try to pass on your tiny savings to your children or your grandchildren to give them a bit of a leg up.

He wanted people in the "north" to resent those in the "south" because it furthered his agenda of portraying politicians as out of touch southerners, based round Westminster.

Completely agree. Divisions are manufactured to deflect attention. I can't remember the exact words but it has been said that what has been achieved is the £100 per hour politician convincing the £20 per hour salaried that it is all the fault of the £8 per hour exploited worker. People punch down when they should punch up.

There are four points to a compass, not just two, north and south. The West Country falls firmly in the southern half of the UK, but with no very large cities apart from Bristol rural poverty is widespread, the transport system is not the best and second homes are the norm, pushing out the locals. Not everyone in the Cotswolds is well heeled and driving a Range Rover; Cornwall is heavily dependent on the tourist industry, so weather is critical. The whole of the “south” isn’t a land flowing with milk and honey ........

So very true kittylester. We have our own home but not much money. Why shouldn't we be able to leave our property to family, we've worked hard and made a dilapidated cottage to a comfortable home

growstuff

I agree with you railman.

Dominic Cummings apparently advised Johnson to play up geographic divisions as a way of distracting from the real divisions in society, ie between rich and poor.

He wanted people in the "north" to resent those in the "south" because it furthered his agenda of portraying politicians as out of touch southerners, based round Westminster.

That doesn't surprise me one jot.

grammargran
There are four points to a compass, not just two, north and south

Perhaps none of those at Westminster have 'O' level geography (or the equivalent).

And, of course, many others, totalling 32, South-West being one.

Perhaps it would be better to start at a lower percentage and move upwards with the value of the property and wealth. That would be more like the levelling up Boris Johnson promised.