Jump to content

Manifesto Busting Tax rises on the way


John52

Recommended Posts

.. but they are being presented as to help the NHS and Social Care

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/02/nhs-england-leaders-fear-budget-boost-will-be-half-than-10bn-asked

Not to pay for Johnson's Crony Contracts for Tory Donors

Or the money he is giving to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to buy our votes and maintain his empire at your expense

So I don't know where the money to pay for that is coming from *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Wait a moment, why aren't we funding social care from the money we sent to the EU rather than a rise in national insurance?

 

There was a bus...

 

Seriously, why does the bus and the potential rise in National Insurance matter? Because it is a matter of asking politicians to deliver on promises. Whether to win elections, a referendum, whatever. Conservatives won, leave won, so did it deliver is a fair question.

 

If remain had won then Eurosceptics as we'd still be calling them would be asking where EU reform had got to, and pointing out not very far. Do the reverse, because it is about holding power to account, whoever won it. That's what we do in a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
CurtainRaiser - 2021-09-03 12:26 PM

 

Wait a moment, why aren't we funding social care from the money we sent to the EU rather than a rise in national insurance?

 

There was a bus...

 

Seriously, why does the bus and the potential rise in National Insurance matter? Because it is a matter of asking politicians to deliver on promises. Whether to win elections, a referendum, whatever. Conservatives won, leave won, so did it deliver is a fair question.

 

If remain had won then Eurosceptics as we'd still be calling them would be asking where EU reform had got to, and pointing out not very far. Do the reverse, because it is about holding power to account, whoever won it. That's what we do in a democracy.

 

Did we have a deep recession caused by Brexit?.............Nope :D .........

 

Did we have 600k+ job losses?.........................................Nope :-> ........

 

Is the economy booming?..................................................Yep :-D .........

 

Do we have the most job vacancies EVER?.......................Yep :-) .........

 

Are wages for the working man increasing?.......................Yep B-)..........

 

So how about accepting that you were wrong about Remoaner claims if we dared to vote for Brexit? ;-) ........

 

Coz all I hear from the LOSERS is Hypocrisy (lol) (lol) (lol) ..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-09-03 12:40 PM

 

 

Do we have the most job vacancies EVER?................

 

yes if you count the same non-existant jobs (advertised by agencies just to get people on the books) several times over wherever its advertised in more than one place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2021-09-03 4:40 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-09-03 12:40 PM

 

 

Do we have the most job vacancies EVER?................

 

yes if you count the same non-existant jobs (advertised by agencies just to get people on the books) several times over wherever its advertised in more than one place

 

So are all those vacancies non-existant to? >:-) ..........

 

Gor Blimey..... you Chimps are dim (lol) (lol) (lol) ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-09-03 12:40 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-09-03 12:26 PM

 

Wait a moment, why aren't we funding social care from the money we sent to the EU rather than a rise in national insurance?

 

There was a bus...

 

Seriously, why does the bus and the potential rise in National Insurance matter? Because it is a matter of asking politicians to deliver on promises. Whether to win elections, a referendum, whatever. Conservatives won, leave won, so did it deliver is a fair question.

 

If remain had won then Eurosceptics as we'd still be calling them would be asking where EU reform had got to, and pointing out not very far. Do the reverse, because it is about holding power to account, whoever won it. That's what we do in a democracy.

 

Did we have a deep recession caused by Brexit?.............Nope :D .........

 

Did we have 600k+ job losses?.........................................Nope :-> ........

 

Is the economy booming?..................................................Yep :-D .........

 

Do we have the most job vacancies EVER?.......................Yep :-) .........

 

Are wages for the working man increasing?.......................Yep B-)..........

 

So how about accepting that you were wrong about Remoaner claims if we dared to vote for Brexit? ;-) ........

How about LINKS to your fantasy claims otherwise that's all they are........more tales from Pinocchio in his land of make believe. *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
CurtainRaiser - 2021-09-06 10:09 PM

 

 

Typical fatuous point scoring by our resident LOSER Brigade *-) ..........

 

We are currently in a Global Pandemic which has cost us so far 317 billion :-| ..........

 

"We estimate that announcements made by the government up to mid-September 2020 imply that the

cost of Covid to the UK government – in the form of increased public borrowing – will

be £317.4 billion in 2020/21 alone."

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/cost-of-covid19.pdf

 

So its just as well we no longer have to support the EU's basketcase economies >:-) .........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but whether we like it or not the pandemic has cost us a shed load of money, mostly borrowed (yes, I know that's relatively cheap at present, but it would be foolish to assume that will remain the case), and it will eventually need to be paid down.

 

Governments have no money, it all comes, one way or another, from us.

 

So, who should pay? I accept that the popular answer is invariably "anyone but me" :-), but that won't really do, will it?

 

The same is true for a number of areas of public expenditure, for which it seems increasingly popular (at least in the thinking of some) to argue that those who benefit from the service should bear the cost. And yet, no-one seems to dare to suggest that only the sick should pay for the health service.

 

This "the beneficiary should pay" argument is now being advanced in the case of social care, in that the proposal to push the cost onto the working population via national insurance (which is after all just another tax) is unfair, because the recipients are largely (but by no means exclusively) the elderly, while NI ensures that those who would pay are predominantly (but by no means exclusively) the young.

 

So, should this principle now be adopted more widely (as it has been, for instance, in the case of university fees), or should the cost of all such services be spread across the population more widely (in the way in which health service costs are financed), or should the funding source (public/private) change depending on the extent to which those using the service are the blameless victims of chance or their genetic inheritance, or even perhaps whether the service generates an overall public good (for instance education)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-09-07 5:01 PM

 

 

 

This "the beneficiary should pay" argument is now being advanced in the case of social care, in that the proposal to push the cost onto the working population via national insurance (which is after all just another tax) is unfair, because the recipients are largely (but by no means exclusively) the elderly, while NI ensures that those who would pay are predominantly (but by no means exclusively) the young.

 

 

 

What people seem to overlook is that todays young are tomorrows old.... so it's not just todays old that will benefit.

 

 

:-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

PMSL........knowing Joke52 will be taxed on his shares kept abroad B-) ..........

 

Which will help keep me in my dotage and ensure we have a few quid left to give to animal charities :D ........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2021-09-07 6:16 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-09-07 5:01 PM

 

 

 

This "the beneficiary should pay" argument is now being advanced in the case of social care, in that the proposal to push the cost onto the working population via national insurance (which is after all just another tax) is unfair, because the recipients are largely (but by no means exclusively) the elderly, while NI ensures that those who would pay are predominantly (but by no means exclusively) the young.

 

 

 

What people seem to overlook is that todays young are tomorrows old.... so it's not just todays old that will benefit.

 

 

:-|

 

Indeed ;-) ............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-09-07 5:01 PM

 

Governments have no money, it all comes, one way or another, from us.

 

So, who should pay?

With his "Chumocracy" and mates rates Johnson has squandered billions of taxpayers money. Let those who supported and pander to him pay.

 

This was what the LIAR stated in his manifesto pledge;

 

“We promise not to raise the rates of national insurance, income tax or VAT. This is a tax guarantee that will protect the incomes of hard-working families across the next parliament.”

 

So not only did he promise.........he guaranteed it. But we've known all along Johnson is a pathological lying scumbag not fit for office and only brought in by fanatical Brexiteers he'd assured he would "get Brexit done". Well thats been done along with the rest of the country so he needs to go before he does anymore damage.

 

As this will affect some pensioners the only way I can see out of this wretched mess is to implement means testing as not all pensioners are well off. The figures are all askew anyway as from what i've seen those on incomes of £15k - 50k will pay the highest amount whilst those with incomes above £50k will pay a mere fraction. So yet again the proles get hammered to feed the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-09-07 5:01 PM

 

OK, but whether we like it or not the pandemic has cost us a shed load of money, mostly borrowed (yes, I know that's relatively cheap at present, but it would be foolish to assume that will remain the case), and it will eventually need to be paid down.

 

Governments have no money, it all comes, one way or another, from us.

 

So, who should pay? I accept that the popular answer is invariably "anyone but me" :-), but that won't really do, will it?

 

The same is true for a number of areas of public expenditure, for which it seems increasingly popular (at least in the thinking of some) to argue that those who benefit from the service should bear the cost. And yet, no-one seems to dare to suggest that only the sick should pay for the health service.

 

This "the beneficiary should pay" argument is now being advanced in the case of social care, in that the proposal to push the cost onto the working population via national insurance (which is after all just another tax) is unfair, because the recipients are largely (but by no means exclusively) the elderly, while NI ensures that those who would pay are predominantly (but by no means exclusively) the young.

 

So, should this principle now be adopted more widely (as it has been, for instance, in the case of university fees), or should the cost of all such services be spread across the population more widely (in the way in which health service costs are financed), or should the funding source (public/private) change depending on the extent to which those using the service are the blameless victims of chance or their genetic inheritance, or even perhaps whether the service generates an overall public good (for instance education)?

 

Yes but I can't see any of that mattering to Boris Johnson

The old get a better deal because they are more likely to vote

fair?

I dunno

If the young can't be bothered to vote perhaps they get the politicians they deserve :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2021-09-07 6:16 PM

What people seem to overlook is that todays young are tomorrows old.... so it's not just todays old that will benefit.

What people seem to overlook is the debt Johnson's Kleptocratic Government is racking up for them to pay back - after the old have gone.

This £12 billion tax hike will apparently raise taxes to the highest on record,

but even thats only a third of the cost of useless Test & Trace

so it won't even scratch the surface of Johnson's debt 8-)

Foodbanks have never been busier

so ?where is it going?

...Eat out to Spread it Around..

..Crony Contracts for Useless PPE..

..another batch of Johnson's cronies to the absurdly over populated House of Lords..

.. the Royal Yacht...

.. and now poor working taxpayers paying for care homes so their offspring can inherit another property they have not earned..

This is just taking us even further away from a meritocracy

Is this supposed to be Johnson 'levelling up'?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2021-09-07 6:56 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-09-07 6:33 PM

 

PMSL........knowing Joke52 will be taxed on his shares kept abroad B-) ..........

 

Oh..I didn't know they were going to charge National Insurance on them *-)

 

:D ..........

 

"A new social care tax of 1.25% will be levied on individuals and businesses while investors earnings more than the £2,000 a year tax free limit from dividends will pay an extra 1.25%."

 

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/uk-stocks-fall-as-government-hikes-taxes

 

I bet that's cheered you up knowing you'll be helping me in my dotage? (lol) (lol) (lol) ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-09-07 7:23 PM

 

John52 - 2021-09-07 6:56 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-09-07 6:33 PM

 

PMSL........knowing Joke52 will be taxed on his shares kept abroad B-) ..........

 

Oh..I didn't know they were going to charge National Insurance on them *-)

 

:D ..........

 

"A new social care tax of 1.25% will be levied on individuals and businesses while investors earnings more than the £2,000 a year tax free limit from dividends will pay an extra 1.25%."

 

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/uk-stocks-fall-as-government-hikes-taxes

 

I bet that's cheered you up knowing you'll be helping me in my dotage? (lol) (lol) (lol) ..........

 

 

OK yes I only looked at the headline - its the first I heard about increase in divident tax, which I pay because I haven't domiciled in Her Majesty's Tax havens like those who conned you into voting for Brexit.

I would be happy to pay it if it was going for something useful.

But at least my tax is offset by your money Johnson is sending us to buy our votes and maintain his empire at your expense.

Are you giggling about that too ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2021-09-07 8:04 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-09-07 7:23 PM

 

John52 - 2021-09-07 6:56 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-09-07 6:33 PM

 

PMSL........knowing Joke52 will be taxed on his shares kept abroad B-) ..........

 

Oh..I didn't know they were going to charge National Insurance on them *-)

 

:D ..........

 

"A new social care tax of 1.25% will be levied on individuals and businesses while investors earnings more than the £2,000 a year tax free limit from dividends will pay an extra 1.25%."

 

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/uk-stocks-fall-as-government-hikes-taxes

 

I bet that's cheered you up knowing you'll be helping me in my dotage? (lol) (lol) (lol) ..........

 

 

OK yes I only looked at the headline - its the first I heard about increase in divident tax, which I pay because I haven't domiciled in Her Majesty's Tax havens like those who conned you into voting for Brexit.

I would be happy to pay it if it was going for something useful.

But at least my tax is offset by your money Johnson is sending us to buy our votes and maintain his empire at your expense.

Are you giggling about that too ?

 

Seems like a win win for me :D ...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2021-09-07 6:53 PM

 

 

“We promise not to raise the rates of national insurance, income tax or VAT. This is a tax guarantee that will protect the incomes of hard-working families across the next parliament.”

 

 

.

 

 

No intelligent politician would normally " promise " to do, or not do, anything.

 

They usually say: " We have no plans to "

" We do not intend to "

 

etc

 

..... to give them a way out, when they change their minds.

 

Problem is in Johnsons case is that a large proportion of the electorate still continue to believe in what he says.

 

( Maybe they won't find him so lovable now he's had his hair cut ) .

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...