Looking Back On 14 Years Of Austerity - For What?

Yes, wish you a speedy and full recovery ronib

Get well soon ronib

Back home on enhanced recovery program having had robotic surgery- luckily the robot was in place 6 months ago at a cost of £1.5 million.
But the fly in the ointment for me is the lack of gp diagnosis and probably not a lack of funds.

Joseann

Furlough was amazing for DD2 and sil who each had their own business in London. A big mortgage, 3 kids, 4 pets, where they would have been without it, goodness knows. I'm not sure of the details, but sil also claimed some kind of government loan or handout to tide them over, but offered to pay it back on a tax return later when work came back again. Oh yes, and the stamp duty holiday enabled them to sell up and start a new life.
Rishi seemed like the golden boy on that front, not so much in this job now.

Furlough was a great achievement and benefitted many, however it, along with Universal Credit, was rife with fraudulent claims. I was a front facing staff member throughout lockdown and in the office, not only were we working very long hours, weekends and bank holidays to get payments out to people prior self employment furlough kicking in, we also experienced high numbers of staff getting Covid as many of the offices were open plan.

Eat out to help out wasn’t so great though was it!

ronib

MaizieD well in my particular case, having survived the hurdle of the gp system, major surgery today having been referred 5th January….. and I am not joking.

You are one person out of 66 million, ronib. Just because it's true for you it doesn't mean it's universally true.

I hope your surgery goes well

MaizieD well in my particular case, having survived the hurdle of the gp system, major surgery today having been referred 5th January….. and I am not joking.

Interesting to read comments and there seems to be collective amnesia about the huge cost of furlough during the Covid pandemic.

The furlough money cost the state nothing, ronib. It was created by the Bank of England under the direction of Parliament. If you are citing it as a tory success among the disasters of the past 14 years I'd remind you that itv was forced on them by circumstances and that a government of any colour would have done the same. In fact other governments in other countries did it too..

And I'm very much afraid that the NHS swinging into action 'when there is an urgent need' is not necessarily true, nor is it indicative of any sort of tory success.

Joseann

Furlough was amazing for DD2 and sil who each had their own business in London. A big mortgage, 3 kids, 4 pets, where they would have been without it, goodness knows. I'm not sure of the details, but sil also claimed some kind of government loan or handout to tide them over, but offered to pay it back on a tax return later when work came back again. Oh yes, and the stamp duty holiday enabled them to sell up and start a new life.
Rishi seemed like the golden boy on that front, not so much in this job now.

Some did very well during Covid many small businesses had a couple of weeks off then got bored and returned to work quickly, coping with staff absences as they occurred. The exception was hospitality where many hotels, pubs and restaurants still havn’t reopened. Travel industry did badly as well.
I worked all the way through doing extra shifts as needed, not testing positive until late 2022

Furlough was amazing for DD2 and sil who each had their own business in London. A big mortgage, 3 kids, 4 pets, where they would have been without it, goodness knows. I'm not sure of the details, but sil also claimed some kind of government loan or handout to tide them over, but offered to pay it back on a tax return later when work came back again. Oh yes, and the stamp duty holiday enabled them to sell up and start a new life.
Rishi seemed like the golden boy on that front, not so much in this job now.

Interesting to read comments and there seems to be collective amnesia about the huge cost of furlough during the Covid pandemic.
Was that Boris Johnson and the then Chancellor Sunak finding a way to support businesses for months on end? My neighbour was right when he said that people have very short memories when millions were paid to stay at home for months on end. He was very grateful to the Conservative government for their support. That cost a fortune.
Also when there’s an urgent need, the NHS does swing into action and quickly. I think that there’s a lot the NHS needs to address - mostly communication - but it is there for everyone.

I'm totally in agreement Doodledog. As a society, I think we should support the parents of very young children, but not when they're older. I worked full-time from when my children were six months and the "superior" comments I used to get from parents who didn't have to work were hurtful. At the time, I didn't have much choice, but now I'm quite resentful of the taxes I paid to provide for people who were better off than I was.

Whether it is tax or NI doesn’t matter. In both cases it is contributions from workers which subsidise those who don’t pay, but benefit from healthcare, education, roads, police, defence and so on. I have no problem at all if someone is unable to work, eg though unemployment, illness or caring for someone who needs care, as I believe that we should contribute according to ability to do so; but to my mind, if they can, they should, or at the very least refrain from making superior comments about those whose work and contributions subsidise their lifestyle. That last comment is not directed at you (or anyone in particular) Norah.

growstuff

Norah NI is used to contribute to state pensions and the NHS and some other benefits. (In reality, it all ends up in the same place as other taxes.) If people paid separately for these (as people in some countries do), it would be easy to work out how much everybody would pay. If somebody doesn't contribute to healthcare, they don't get any when they're ill, or if they don't contribute their pension, they don't get one.

Yes, I explained my opinion poorly. Thank you.

Ahem! As you posted yourself, " a small amount is notionally directed to the NHS".

The point is the same really. If general taxes are used for the NHS and somebody chooses not to pay them by not working, why should they receive healthcare? They wouldn't if we had a system where health is paid for as a separate insurance.

As you also pointed out, PAYE workers are paying a residual basic rate tax of 20% + 10% NI and are subsidising those who don't work.

Employee NIC does not pay for the NHS*. It is a contribution towards state pension, job seeker’s allowance, contribution-based employment and support allowance, maternity allowance and bereavement payment,

www.gov.uk/national-insurance/what-national-insurance-is-for

but I agree, it is just another tax on earnings the rate of which has been increasing over the years until 2024.

In the early 1970s it was levied at around 5% and then rose to 6.75% by 1979, 9% by the end of the 1989, 10% by the end of the 1999, 11% by 2009, 13.8% by 2019. Last year it was 12% but has been reduced to 10% from January 2024.

Higher earners and younger pensioners will have paid more NIC than lower earners and older pensioners. So long as someone has paid some NIC for 52 weeks in a year in excess of the lower earnings limit they will receive credit towards a state pension.

Employer’s NIC is paid on top of earnings. It’s effectively a tax on jobs currently levied at 13.8%.

* except the OBR says this:

NIC receipts are, unlike most taxes, paid into the National Insurance Fund and are notionally used to pay for the state pension and other contributory benefits, where an individual’s past payment record has some influence on the size of payments they receive. A small amount is notionally directed to the NHS, although this only makes up a small proportion of NHS funding. As such, in some presentations of receipts, NICs are counted as ‘social contributions’ rather than taxes.

obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/national-insurance-contributions-nics/

Norah NI is used to contribute to state pensions and the NHS and some other benefits. (In reality, it all ends up in the same place as other taxes.) If people paid separately for these (as people in some countries do), it would be easy to work out how much everybody would pay. If somebody doesn't contribute to healthcare, they don't get any when they're ill, or if they don't contribute their pension, they don't get one.

It’s not about winning or losing - it’s just different points of view.

To my way of thinking it’s not about percentages of tax, or the amounts earned - that is why we have a graded tax system, and how fair it is is a different question. Basically though, each individual is taxed at a rate deemed fair based on their earnings. It doesn’t matter if they pay in £10 or £10000. But they are not making contributions on behalf of anyone else. Everyone in the UK benefits from living in a country where even today a lot is provided. IMO that means that everyone should pay their share, otherwise they are being subsidised by those who do pay. It is particularly important for a fair society that those who can afford not to work are not being subsidised by those who can’t, which can often be the case when talking about one person’s tax bill covering more than one person.

Doodledog

The main breadwinner is still only paying his or her own tax bill - nobody can pay for anyone else, and under the current system tax is based on income, not wealth. I know there is purchase tax, but people spend money which has already been taxed, so it is not being paid by someone who was given it in the first place, if that makes sense - it is being recirculated.

Everyone looks after their home and children (if they have them), whether they work or not, and some people don't have children anyway. Why should those who do be exempt from making a financial contribution to society? I don't think that doing so makes anyone 'a second class citizen on the scrounge' (!!), but I don't see why someone who is at home when their children are at school should not contribute in the same way as someone going out to work.

Knowing this is an argument I will not win, I'll answer.

Of course all parents look after their children, whether they work or not.

However, for some families it's better for one person to work excessively long hours pay tax at 45% knowing childcare and all home related tasks are done. The worker likely expects to not "help" with driving long distances to schools, lessons, sports, clubs, or even shopping for food. No time wasted in queues.

Naturally 2 people could be on 20% tax, or 1 on 40% and one below the limit, or an other combination- however, I believe most couples tend to attempt to bring home the amount of money needed for their life style - if one person/taxpayer can accomplish that I've no problem. But why would I?

As a point of interest: why someone who is at home when their children are at school should not contribute in the same way as someone going out to work. How could an amount be determined sahm should contribute? IOW, what imaginary job, what skills - would be used to calculate NI?

mumstheword86

I absolutely disagree. Having worked in the benefit sector for over 14 years, only retiring late 2022 I absolutely refute your comments. Getting social housing is incredibly hard, just having children no longer qualifies one, as it would back in the 80’s, many many people using foodbanks are actually in work! We’ve statistically been in what the govt calls “full employment” for the last 10 years!

Very few people live a “good” stable life on benefits unless they are cheating the system and many people claiming universal credit are actually in work.

My concern is around those individuals and corporations not paying their taxes, whilst employing people on minimal wages and zero hour contracts meaning they are forced into using food banks and claiming Universal Credit.

The main breadwinner is still only paying his or her own tax bill - nobody can pay for anyone else, and under the current system tax is based on income, not wealth. I know there is purchase tax, but people spend money which has already been taxed, so it is not being paid by someone who was given it in the first place, if that makes sense - it is being recirculated.

Everyone looks after their home and children (if they have them), whether they work or not, and some people don't have children anyway. Why should those who do be exempt from making a financial contribution to society? I don't think that doing so makes anyone 'a second class citizen on the scrounge' (!!), but I don't see why someone who is at home when their children are at school should not contribute in the same way as someone going out to work.

MaizieD

Perhaps it would help if people didn't believe that people who don't go out to work and pay income tax are some sort of second class citizen on the scrounge...

If they have not got a genuine reason not to work (physical or mental health problems or a disability) then why shouldn’t people work.

The exception is of course couples where the main breadwinner can afford for the other to stay home and look after the home and children.

Is that your entry for the Passive Aggressive Post Of The Week Award?

Maybe take issue with something specific that a named person has written and say why you don't agree?

Perhaps it would help if people didn't believe that people who don't go out to work and pay income tax are some sort of second class citizen on the scrounge...

I know that TV shows such as 'Rich House Poor House' are fake and show very little in a week, but I sometimes wonder whether all of us might benefit from walking in the shoes of others for a while? So people who think the young are entitled could try looking after children on a zero hours contract with top-up benefits and all that that entails, and someone thinking that so-called 'Boomers' are all millionaires with huge houses can see what it's like for someone on a state pension with no other income. I realise that it would be impossible to set up, but I do think that a lot of eyes would be opened. Maybe virtual reality might make something like that possible one day.

Iam64

Mt thoughts, mums the word, is that you have a distorted, negative view of our country. We have far more good citizens than those who, for a variety of reasons have a ‘sense of entitlement’. I include tax dodgers in that group

Indeed Iam64.

the lazy entitled people of today - that is a lazy use of language and of thought.

I spent the bulk of my career as a social worker and I can assure you that for every "lazy entitled person" there are scores struggling to manage in the face of poor health (with poor services to manage this), poor education and absence of support for young parents that would cut into the "cycle of deprivation."

We are a rich country in comparison to most of the world. What we choose to spend those riches on reflects the moral health of the nation. Our government chooses to use those riches to bolster the income of the already rich, whilst watching the NHS, education and social care dwindle.

It is very sad. Sometimes I feel glad that I am on the home straight and will not have to watch the decline much longer.