| Social care 09:33 - Jul 27 with 2813 views | LeoMuff |
Why is Burnham not allowed to raise taxes to solve social care ? Seems an odd take from Kemi.
Considering the cost and scale of the problem surely it’s inevitable and I would certainly pay extra for it, you can’t truly fix the health service without solving this.
|  |
| |  |
| Social care on 13:09 - Jul 27 with 755 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Social care on 11:58 - Jul 27 by bluestandard |
It really amazes me how much vitriol there seems to be for landlords these days. Bearing in mind that it would seem that its the small landlord which is attracting the greatest ire. Why? |
Not the small landlord for me.
It's those who 'bank' properties and often leave them empty to simply gain in value. A huge issue in some of the London developments. |  | | |
| Social care on 13:12 - Jul 27 with 748 views | Ryorry |
| Social care on 09:47 - Jul 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Farage was objecting to it too, off the back of any tax rises. And as a second hammer blow, they would make it more expensive to employ those who are traditionally employed in social care
https://www.theguardian.com/po
Badenoch wants austerity-like measures for other departments to pay for it. There is nothing left to cut, especially with a renewed commitment to 3.5% on defence.
I did like a proposal I heard over the weekend though.
Landlords who own more than 2 houses have a steeply increasing council tax and stamp duty to pay. It's already 100% more for Council Tax where I live for a 2nd home, but I'd heard proposals of that becoming 200% for the next, 250% for the 3rd extra.
And each new home bought over the two would attract the maximum 12% stamp duty no matter the value - normally that band is for over £1.5m
We also need the 2% wealth tax proposed before on assets over £10m. [Post edited 27 Jul 9:49]
|
The problem re the council tax proposal is that would mean (if the intention is for landlords to pay the CT, rather than the tenants which is currently the case), then either landlords simply raising rents to cover the costs; or most of the excess houses being sold on the open market, which the tenants wouldn’t be able to afford, thereby exacerbating the housing crisis even further - where are those tenants going to go? If social housing is to be built to house those homeless then great, but that’s a long term project which needs to start right now, and the proposals not brought in till the millions of newbuilds (or renovations/conversions) are finished.
Foreseeing some replies here, this is not scaremongering. Landlords are already removing their properties from the longterm private rental market in their droves, prompted by the RRA of this May & proposed legislation to raise EPCs to C min in particular. Many that are still in are teetering on the brink of pulling out and only need one more nudge like the proposal cited. [Post edited 27 Jul 13:28]
|  |
| |
| Social care on 13:14 - Jul 27 with 741 views | Vaughan8 |
| Social care on 13:07 - Jul 27 by J2BLUE |
Both need to balance the books or suffer later, as we are now seeing with nearly 10% of our income going towards servicing the debt interest.
Your example isn't the best either because people need to live somewhere. They could be debt free and rent but they still need to find the rent payment each month. At least with a mortgage you are likely gaining some equity each month and hopefully one day will own that property outright.
The government needs to cut spending. Even if we raise taxes the deficit will remain very large. We are spending £130bn a year on debt interest. Surely you are not arguing against cutting spending if possible? I am not suggesting we go full Elon and start cutting random things with no plan. We really do need to assess our priorities though and probably make some hard choices. We cannot keep adding to the debt and increasing the cost of servicing it. The US spends 19% of federal income on servicing debt.
We need to act now. |
Agreed. I think I read the other month that now more than 50% of people are claiming more from the government than paying in (tax).
Whilst i'm sure a lot of that is pensioners, surely that can't go on or get worse.
Increasing tax on working people doesn't seem to be the answer. Its already bad enough than some people are better off on benefits than working. It shouldn't be like that.
(btw i've got no answer, but i'm not paid to come up with any) |  | | |
| Social care on 13:16 - Jul 27 with 726 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Social care on 12:52 - Jul 27 by Swansea_Blue |
A country is nothing like a household, and besides many households carry more debt as a proportion of income than the government. The average household with a mortgage (about a third of households) is about £200k in debt. We all borrow against the future, not just governments. |
It’s very similar in that you’re reliant on third party funding, and at an inflection point that source is cut off. As with your house, if you are unable to service that debt the state has to start selling its assets to pay down that debt (as is currently the case in Argentina, and previously Greece). It’s not a wild analogy.
We then compound it because the cost of borrowing goes up as our sovereign rating goes down, so servicing debt takes up an ever larger portion of state spending. We’ve just become accustomed to a system that was reflective of demographics decades ago, and we don’t have a big enough tax pool now vs the wider population. | | | |
| Social care on 13:17 - Jul 27 with 727 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Social care on 09:47 - Jul 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Farage was objecting to it too, off the back of any tax rises. And as a second hammer blow, they would make it more expensive to employ those who are traditionally employed in social care
https://www.theguardian.com/po
Badenoch wants austerity-like measures for other departments to pay for it. There is nothing left to cut, especially with a renewed commitment to 3.5% on defence.
I did like a proposal I heard over the weekend though.
Landlords who own more than 2 houses have a steeply increasing council tax and stamp duty to pay. It's already 100% more for Council Tax where I live for a 2nd home, but I'd heard proposals of that becoming 200% for the next, 250% for the 3rd extra.
And each new home bought over the two would attract the maximum 12% stamp duty no matter the value - normally that band is for over £1.5m
We also need the 2% wealth tax proposed before on assets over £10m. [Post edited 27 Jul 9:49]
|
Burnham has obviously seen Farage's "no foreigners" rant about care workers this morning: - https://www.theguardian.com/po
"Burnham suggested care workers should be exempt from Shabana Mahmood’s plan to make foreign workers wait much longer until they can apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK
In his BBC interview, Burnham came close to confirming this. He said that, while it was important to show the public immigration was under control, he wanted a “fair resolution”. Asked if he was looking again at Mahmood’s plans, he said:
I am going to look at what’s been said during the consultation. I mentioned social care before, and I see people contributing to our society by working in social care who’ve in many cases come from around the world to work there or work in the NHS.
I don’t think people actually say that that is something that we don’t want. We want people when they’re here and making a contribution to be able to be, if you like, supported and welcomed here" | | | |
| Social care on 13:18 - Jul 27 with 720 views | nrb1985 |
| Social care on 09:36 - Jul 27 by BlueBadger |
Look, if the better off have to actually do something to support the country they live in rather than cream off huge amounts of money whilst avoiding taxes through accountancy loopholes I think we can all agree that that's the nightmare scenario. |
Hi BB - if I’m not mistaken, you’re a healthcare professional?
If so interested in your view on the following;
I was at a lunch on Saturday and a retired GP was there so naturally this type of topic came up. He said one thing we desperately need to fix is the tax anomaly between 100-125k pa earners because this meant many GPs only work 3 days a week so as not to cross the 100k threshold.
Is this something you’ve seen or heard before? If so, seems a remarkably easy fix, which could increase GP capacity per week by 40% if they worked 5 days not 3. | | | |
| Social care on 13:30 - Jul 27 with 682 views | chicoazul |
| Social care on 11:32 - Jul 27 by bluelagos |
NHS, Education, roads, fire and emergency services, state pension, unemployment and sick benefits, bins collected, our defences...
What did our taxes ever do for any of us eh Chico. |
The NHS and state pension are funded by NI as well as tax.
Education, well everyone here is always telling me how stupid most people are so that doesn’t seem to work very well at all.
Roads lulz have you driven on the wreckage of our infrastructure lately.
Fire and emergency services are in the worst state they have ever been with my local ambulance service constantly missing their targets, and the police nationally don’t solve 93% of crimes. They are worse than useless.
Bins collected well i don’t know about you but mine have gone from every week to every 3 weeks.
Defence yes there is a sector that spends our money very efficiently indeed isn’t it /s.
Out of work and sickness benefits are one of the few vaguely-good public services we receive when we access them but they are pathetic compared to many of our contemporary countries.
Overall what we get for our money paid is declining rapidly while the amount we pay goes ever up and up. I have no idea at all why anyone would want us to hand over even more of our wages to a political class which is proven useless and has failed for 40 years. |  |
| |
| Social care on 13:36 - Jul 27 with 667 views | Meadowlark |
| Social care on 09:47 - Jul 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Farage was objecting to it too, off the back of any tax rises. And as a second hammer blow, they would make it more expensive to employ those who are traditionally employed in social care
https://www.theguardian.com/po
Badenoch wants austerity-like measures for other departments to pay for it. There is nothing left to cut, especially with a renewed commitment to 3.5% on defence.
I did like a proposal I heard over the weekend though.
Landlords who own more than 2 houses have a steeply increasing council tax and stamp duty to pay. It's already 100% more for Council Tax where I live for a 2nd home, but I'd heard proposals of that becoming 200% for the next, 250% for the 3rd extra.
And each new home bought over the two would attract the maximum 12% stamp duty no matter the value - normally that band is for over £1.5m
We also need the 2% wealth tax proposed before on assets over £10m. [Post edited 27 Jul 9:49]
|
Don't the tenants usually pay the council tax? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Social care on 13:39 - Jul 27 with 659 views | J2BLUE |
| Social care on 13:16 - Jul 27 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It’s very similar in that you’re reliant on third party funding, and at an inflection point that source is cut off. As with your house, if you are unable to service that debt the state has to start selling its assets to pay down that debt (as is currently the case in Argentina, and previously Greece). It’s not a wild analogy.
We then compound it because the cost of borrowing goes up as our sovereign rating goes down, so servicing debt takes up an ever larger portion of state spending. We’ve just become accustomed to a system that was reflective of demographics decades ago, and we don’t have a big enough tax pool now vs the wider population. |
Exactly.
Spending cuts is so linked to the Tories and 'austerity' now that I think many oppose any cuts in spending without any real thought. |  | | |
| Social care on 13:44 - Jul 27 with 648 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Social care on 13:16 - Jul 27 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It’s very similar in that you’re reliant on third party funding, and at an inflection point that source is cut off. As with your house, if you are unable to service that debt the state has to start selling its assets to pay down that debt (as is currently the case in Argentina, and previously Greece). It’s not a wild analogy.
We then compound it because the cost of borrowing goes up as our sovereign rating goes down, so servicing debt takes up an ever larger portion of state spending. We’ve just become accustomed to a system that was reflective of demographics decades ago, and we don’t have a big enough tax pool now vs the wider population. |
True in extreme cases. Although there’s a far lower tolerance to an individual defaulting than to a state, plus states can create money from nothing (still have to manage inflation of course). The idea that we tax people and corporations and then use that money for spending is wrong. ‘All’ governments have to do is been seen to be credible. It gives them a lot more leeway as I understand it. |  |
| |
| Social care on 13:47 - Jul 27 with 634 views | chicoazul |
| Social care on 13:09 - Jul 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Not the small landlord for me.
It's those who 'bank' properties and often leave them empty to simply gain in value. A huge issue in some of the London developments. |
Landlord detected. | |
| |
| Social care on 13:58 - Jul 27 with 607 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Social care on 13:44 - Jul 27 by Swansea_Blue |
True in extreme cases. Although there’s a far lower tolerance to an individual defaulting than to a state, plus states can create money from nothing (still have to manage inflation of course). The idea that we tax people and corporations and then use that money for spending is wrong. ‘All’ governments have to do is been seen to be credible. It gives them a lot more leeway as I understand it. |
Credibility is a huge part of it, but of course sovereign ratings are formulated in a much more technical manner. It’s risk assessment essentially, and looking at the ability to repay vs likelihood of defaulted payments, it’s not purely run on emotion.
Of course we can print money, but that comes with its own downsides, inflation, devaluation of people’s spending power, and the one that’s most overlooked is the negative impact on Sterling. This is why governments typically borrow rather than print their own money, as increasing supply will drive down their currency - thus making imports incredibly expensive and driving inflation (as currently seen in Argentina). | | | |
| Social care on 14:03 - Jul 27 with 597 views | J2BLUE |
| Social care on 13:44 - Jul 27 by Swansea_Blue |
True in extreme cases. Although there’s a far lower tolerance to an individual defaulting than to a state, plus states can create money from nothing (still have to manage inflation of course). The idea that we tax people and corporations and then use that money for spending is wrong. ‘All’ governments have to do is been seen to be credible. It gives them a lot more leeway as I understand it. |
Inflation is a stealth tax. There is no free lunch.
The idea that we tax people and corporations and then use that money for spending is wrong.
And that is precisely the issue. That should be the case. We are borrowing to fund things we cannot afford. We then have to pay interest on that borrowing so we need to borrow more.
People need to get their heads out of the sand. | | | |
| Social care on 14:06 - Jul 27 with 588 views | Ryorry |
| Social care on 11:42 - Jul 27 by underspaces |
The proposed changes are set to cost £18.5bn per year.
We could just use the 'Trump tax' of an extra £20bn per year for branded medicines to solve social care. Would be a much better use of money considering NICE are only predicting an extra 3 new medicines getting through appraisal every year with the doubling of meds expenditure.
Will be something for DHSC to ponder! |
Tax the sick even further*, great idea 
*Those in rural areas already paying hefty car parking charges for regular hospital clinics appointments, for which no public transport is available. | |
| |
| Social care on 14:09 - Jul 27 with 574 views | positivity |
| Social care on 13:18 - Jul 27 by nrb1985 |
Hi BB - if I’m not mistaken, you’re a healthcare professional?
If so interested in your view on the following;
I was at a lunch on Saturday and a retired GP was there so naturally this type of topic came up. He said one thing we desperately need to fix is the tax anomaly between 100-125k pa earners because this meant many GPs only work 3 days a week so as not to cross the 100k threshold.
Is this something you’ve seen or heard before? If so, seems a remarkably easy fix, which could increase GP capacity per week by 40% if they worked 5 days not 3. |
very few gps today work a 5 full-day week, as it's a very intense 60 hours, with similar amounts of admin to add on top of that!
don't think anyone would want gps having to make decisions on our health at that level of burn-out! | |
| |
| Social care on 14:37 - Jul 27 with 527 views | Bent_double |
| Social care on 13:14 - Jul 27 by Vaughan8 |
Agreed. I think I read the other month that now more than 50% of people are claiming more from the government than paying in (tax).
Whilst i'm sure a lot of that is pensioners, surely that can't go on or get worse.
Increasing tax on working people doesn't seem to be the answer. Its already bad enough than some people are better off on benefits than working. It shouldn't be like that.
(btw i've got no answer, but i'm not paid to come up with any) |
I saw the 50%+ thing in this article the other day.
"Office for National Statistics’s treasure trove “Effects of taxes and benefits on household income”, finds that 53% of the population gets back more from the state than they pay in: that includes not just all taxes and VAT, and cash transfers in benefits and pensions, but non-cash benefits such as the NHS, social care, education and transport subsidies (omitting collective benefits, such as the police and the armed forces)."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news |  |
| |
| Social care on 15:15 - Jul 27 with 475 views | jontysnut |
| Social care on 14:09 - Jul 27 by positivity |
very few gps today work a 5 full-day week, as it's a very intense 60 hours, with similar amounts of admin to add on top of that!
don't think anyone would want gps having to make decisions on our health at that level of burn-out! |
I wonder if that GP was talking about the pension tax issues which make it uneconomic for them to work after the annual and lifetime allowances have been reached. I met a doctor who had used up his lifetime allowance before he was 40. I retired after paying in for 40 years and had used up less than half of mine |  | | |
| Social care on 15:22 - Jul 27 with 462 views | jontysnut |
Father in law is paying £1300 a week in a care home from his rapidly diminishing lifetime savings which puts paying a little extra tax into perspective.
The manager of the home said that even at that price their margin is pretty tight. | | | |
| Social care on 15:33 - Jul 27 with 439 views | brazil1982 |
| Social care on 13:09 - Jul 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Not the small landlord for me.
It's those who 'bank' properties and often leave them empty to simply gain in value. A huge issue in some of the London developments. |
When does a small landlord become a larger one? 5'9" ? |  | | |
| Social care on 19:02 - Jul 27 with 352 views | ITFC_Essex |
I am middle-right conservative and the biggest irony of Badenoch having a pop at Burnham for raising taxes (and running up debt) is she voted for, and pushed through tax rises and increases in spending (and thus heaped on the debt) when she was in Government. They honestly rely on people with 2-day memory's to vote for them these days. She was at the heart of a very failed Tory government.
So much so, I have been forced to vote Lib-Dem. She has done everything in her power so far to keep me, and others like me, from voting Tory next time, including her North Korea style clear-out of party-moderates and far right policies that would make Farage and co. blush. [Post edited 27 Jul 19:03]
|  |
| |
| Social care on 19:16 - Jul 27 with 339 views | Mullet |
| Social care on 12:43 - Jul 27 by bluestandard |
I don't think landlords, or any one sector of the economy for that matter, deserve sympathy over and above everyone else. What I see , demonstrated perfectly by the OP of the comment I replied to, is what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is driving the hosing crisis / cost of living to which you refer. Happy to discuss, but conscious that this is a social care thread! |
Apologies I missed this. I don’t think it is or has to be one or the other - I think it was maybe 30 or more years ago people started to see being a landlord and flipping properties as almost “free money” - I accept it’s not that simple.
I’m buying a house from a widow who had six small terraces all over a part of Manchester where house prices rocketed and demand far outstripped supply. She’s been an absolute nightmare to deal with as clearly she is losing her rental income and presumably her husband ran the venture.
But fundamentally- they live in one of the most affluent parts of the country and combine that with the idea that was done by being able to rent out six houses (I don’t think I’m being unkind in saying the one I’m taking on has had the bare minimum done in terms of maintenance and has gone up x10 in value since they bought it)
When you see cases like that, it’s hard to justify it and it angers people. Rightly so in my view. Owning houses you don’t live in should be a source of moral condemnation in my opinion. Where o grew up in Suffolk is inundated with holiday homes and second homes bought up by non locals and strangling the market for youngsters. I moved away and never went back because I knew I’d never afford to buy there etc.
For me it’s a massive cause of social division and an ethical one. When you inherit a house and have no intention of living in it, there needs to be a better system in place to deal with that. |  |
| |
| Social care on 19:41 - Jul 27 with 321 views | LeoMuff |
| Social care on 19:16 - Jul 27 by Mullet |
Apologies I missed this. I don’t think it is or has to be one or the other - I think it was maybe 30 or more years ago people started to see being a landlord and flipping properties as almost “free money” - I accept it’s not that simple.
I’m buying a house from a widow who had six small terraces all over a part of Manchester where house prices rocketed and demand far outstripped supply. She’s been an absolute nightmare to deal with as clearly she is losing her rental income and presumably her husband ran the venture.
But fundamentally- they live in one of the most affluent parts of the country and combine that with the idea that was done by being able to rent out six houses (I don’t think I’m being unkind in saying the one I’m taking on has had the bare minimum done in terms of maintenance and has gone up x10 in value since they bought it)
When you see cases like that, it’s hard to justify it and it angers people. Rightly so in my view. Owning houses you don’t live in should be a source of moral condemnation in my opinion. Where o grew up in Suffolk is inundated with holiday homes and second homes bought up by non locals and strangling the market for youngsters. I moved away and never went back because I knew I’d never afford to buy there etc.
For me it’s a massive cause of social division and an ethical one. When you inherit a house and have no intention of living in it, there needs to be a better system in place to deal with that. |
Owing more than one house is a luxury and should be heavy taxed as a deterrent imho.
Certainly more than 2 should be very heavily penalised when there are huge shortages of affordable housing | |
| |
| Social care on 19:45 - Jul 27 with 313 views | mellowblue |
| Social care on 09:47 - Jul 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Farage was objecting to it too, off the back of any tax rises. And as a second hammer blow, they would make it more expensive to employ those who are traditionally employed in social care
https://www.theguardian.com/po
Badenoch wants austerity-like measures for other departments to pay for it. There is nothing left to cut, especially with a renewed commitment to 3.5% on defence.
I did like a proposal I heard over the weekend though.
Landlords who own more than 2 houses have a steeply increasing council tax and stamp duty to pay. It's already 100% more for Council Tax where I live for a 2nd home, but I'd heard proposals of that becoming 200% for the next, 250% for the 3rd extra.
And each new home bought over the two would attract the maximum 12% stamp duty no matter the value - normally that band is for over £1.5m
We also need the 2% wealth tax proposed before on assets over £10m. [Post edited 27 Jul 9:49]
|
why do landlords always get the brunt of it these days. So many are pouring their rental portfolios on to the housing market as it just is not worth the hassle any more. Alienating landlords is not going to help anyone dependant on the rental housing market. Most houses in Germany are rented, and their landlords are not constantly demonised. That's not to say that there aren't bad landlords obviously, but most I know are decent people. | | | |
| Social care on 20:05 - Jul 27 with 302 views | Ryorry |
| Social care on 19:41 - Jul 27 by LeoMuff |
Owing more than one house is a luxury and should be heavy taxed as a deterrent imho.
Certainly more than 2 should be very heavily penalised when there are huge shortages of affordable housing |
As I said earlier in thread, if deterrents like this were implemented, most landlords would either raise rents to cover their costs; or sell the properties at current market rates (unaffordable to most tenants) because they're not prepared to make a loss letting the property out. The margins for many are already minimal, with increased mortgage & insurance rates etc.
I'd be interested to hear how you'd house the millions of tenants who would become homeless as a result?
If you mean second or holiday homes for use by only the owners for a few weeks a year, then yes, I agree with you. | |
| |
| Social care on 19:18 - Jul 28 with 151 views | bluestandard |
| Social care on 13:09 - Jul 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Not the small landlord for me.
It's those who 'bank' properties and often leave them empty to simply gain in value. A huge issue in some of the London developments. |
I wouldn’t call people that bank properties landlords, as they aren’t letting their properties out. But if your comment was aimed at this small subset of property investors, then yes fair enough, I agree. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
