advertisement


Who should pay for social care ?

Ponty said:
You think coupon rates will stay this low forever? As as result of govt interventions such as QE, inflation is going through the roof. We all know what happens next.
Click to expand...

This is just not true. We have been doing insane levels of QE for the best part of a decade and it has essentially zero effect on inflation or yield curves. Indeed that was the whole problem -- however much we did bonds, rates and inflation refused to move in any meaningful sense.
 
matthewr said:
For clarity it's not 1.25%, it's 1.25 percentage points which is a 10% increase in NI for those who pat NI on all their income (i.e. poor people).
Click to expand...
Yes, isn't that what most people understand from 1.25% extra...ie if paying 12% it'll now be 13.25%. I understand that it's possible to misconstrue but only the most extreme lying politician would even try that.

I'd like to see some calculations for the extension the £50k cap on paying NI (ie when it drops to 2% / 3.25%) to say £80k or maybe no limit and then how many people at the bottom end could be removed from paying the increase.
 
matthewr said:
This is just not true. We have been doing insane levels of QE for the best part of a decade and it has essentially zero effect on inflation or yield curves. Indeed that was the whole problem -- however much we did bonds, rates and inflation refused to move in any meaningful sense.
Click to expand...

You obviously don’t buy very much.
 
Ponty said:
You obviously don’t buy very much.
Click to expand...

I spent the last decade with all the relevant graphs literally in front of me 8 hours a day updating in real time and the cost to me personally and professionally of getting this wrong was many orders of magnitude greater than any recent increase in the cost of a flat screen TV.

All those people who made the QE leads to inflation and rate rises trade lost a crate full of money years ago. It's the modern equivalent of the Japan is going to crash soon trade.
 
Ponty said:
You obviously don’t buy very much.
Click to expand...
Although it seems that the price of goods in the supermarkets are rising, according to the Laspeyres Price Index, inflation in the UK has been hovering around 1.5% over the last 3 decades. A far cry when in my 30s we were seeing inflation topping at 24%. This was before bar codes and each time you went shopping there was a new price sticker on top of several others.

Which begs the question how come the prices in the supermarkets have risen so much lately?

Food for thought no?

DV
 
matthewr said:
I spent the last decade with all the relevant graphs literally in front of me 8 hours a day updating in real time and the cost to me personally and professionally of getting this wrong was many orders of magnitude greater than any recent increase in the cost of a flat screen TV.

All those people who made the QE leads to inflation and rate rises trade lost a crate full of money years ago. It's the modern equivalent of the Japan is going to crash soon trade.
Click to expand...

I’m not questioning your credentials. As a lay person, I know what things used to cost and I know what they cost now. For the BoE to say inflation is on target does not correlate.
 
Ponty said:
I’m not questioning your credentials. As a lay person, I know what things used to cost and I know what they cost now. For the BoE to say inflation is on target does not correlate.
Click to expand...

Economists and central bankers do look at inflation differently than consumers and journalists, but the BoE desperately tried to make inflation go up for a decade and it literally refused to move.
 
Bob McC said:
Unless they are working.
Although the £85000 limit does not start until October 2023.
Click to expand...


I've seen various - apparently conflicting - statements about the £86k 'limit'.

Some say it applies to 'care' but you may pay 'non-care' costs. Others that the cap applies if your 'assets' *are* below a given limit. Others distinguish price-of-home from other assets.

So I'm still waiting for a clear reliable and unambiguous 'official' version. Up to now it seems a bit like Unicorns again... BloJo is good at making up numbers for the side of a bus...
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
I've seen various - apparently conflicting - statements about the £86k 'limit'.

Some say it applies to 'care' but you may pay 'non-care' costs. Others that the cap applies if your 'assets' *are* below a given limit. Others distinguish price-of-home from other assets.

So I'm still waiting for a clear reliable and unambiguous 'official' version. Up to now it seems a bit like Unicorns again... BloJo is good at making up numbers for the side of a bus...
Click to expand...
It does not include board and lodge, heating or rent.
You will still be charged for these. The Lib Dem’s wanted it capped at £12000 a year under Cameron.
The cap applies to everyone.

From October 2023, anybody with financial assets lower than £20,000 will not have to pay anything for their care from their assets - but may have to contribute towards costs from their income. Let’s face it, these people won’t own a home! The govt will pick up the tab for their care home but not all their board and lodge.

The amount anyone with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will pay will be means-tested so the fewer financial assets someone has the less they will pay for their care. Again this will not affect nearly all homeowners. They will have to pay more for their board and lodge costs.

If you do have assets over £100K including property you will need to find £86K from somewhere. If that means a house sale then so be it.

For my family member that will be reached in a year. The nursing home we have chosen for her is £1700 a week.
If she can’t find it ( she can, she’s minted) she will have to leave and find a cheaper care home.
 
I had an interesting chat with my postman yesterday. In many ways it was a microcosm of the dilemma about who should pay. He's a nice chap and we often discuss hi-fi and our mutual hatred of Johnson. Any way, we got onto the subject of the hike in NI contributions and he told me he wasn't best pleased at the increase as he only earned just over £20k a year. I was dumfounded, and really didn't know what to say. I'm retired, my net pension is over twice his gross pay, and I pay no NI. How on earth can it be right that people like him are expected to help me preserve my assets? As I said in an earlier post on this thread, at the very least well off pensioners should be paying NI.
 
I think the most shocking thing about it all, is that no-one has to find more than 86k. That’s great for the wealthy, but simply keeps the less well off, well, less well off. How wouldn’t an increase in inheritance tax help fairness?

It does very much seem as if the older generations are being allowed to pull up the ladder on young people, unless their parents are extremely wealthy of course!
 
MikeMA said:
I had an interesting chat with my postman yesterday. In many ways it was a microcosm of the dilemma about who should pay. He's a nice chap and we often discuss hi-fi and our mutual hatred of Johnson. Any way, we got onto the subject of the hike in NI contributions and he told me he wasn't best pleased at the increase as he only earned just over £20k a year. I was dumfounded, and really didn't know what to say. I'm retired, my net pension is over twice his gross pay, and I pay no NI. How on earth can it be right that people like him are expected to help me preserve my assets?
Click to expand...

I suppose because once you were in his shoes, paying the NI etc and now you are benefiting, as he will. Trouble is, the nice pensions are a thing of the past for the majority. The whole tax system needs complete overhaul and simplification. Get rid of NI. No allowances for this that and the other. Get rid of any discussion about UBI. Increase the personal allowance to the equivalent of a full time salary on minimum wage. Work out the overall tax revenue to be raised and re cut into tapered bands with no big marginal step changes (eg like we currently have between £100K and £120K) on the basis of the more you earn the higher your overall tax rate. Top rate of 50% (I think it’s immoral to take more than half of what somebody earns). That way the lowest earners pay nothing and the more you earn, the more you keep, providing an incentive to work and progress.
 
MikeMA said:
Any way, we got onto the subject of the hike in NI contributions and he told me he wasn't best pleased at the increase as he only earned just over £20k a year. I was dumfounded, and really didn't know what to say. I was dumfounded, and really didn't know what to say. I'm retired, my net pension is over twice his gross pay, and I pay no NI.
Click to expand...

At £20k there are a hell of a lot of self-employed or gig-economy folk below him, many of whom don’t even get remotely close to making minimum wage. We’ve all just discovered we are getting a 1.5% extra tax on absolutely every £ we earn.

This is just as bad as the poll-tax in the 1980s. It is exactly the same hateful regressive elitist class-warrior mindset and it should be similarly answered IMHO.
 
Ponty said:
You think coupon rates will stay this low forever? As as result of govt interventions such as QE, inflation is going through the roof. We all know what happens next.
Click to expand...
Incoherent. QE is the (unnecessary) filling of bank reserves, Since the central bank guarantees all reserves at clearing anyway it reflects nothing more than the upside-down view that banks lend out according to reserve positions. It is not 'spending'. If a government chooses to also 'issue debt' on the back of that, they should be back at economics school to explain WTF they are doing.
There has been no inflation in austerity economies for 4 decades, even when the US, UK and ECB did a massive bailout after 2008. It's nothing but fear-mongering out of ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top