The official Boris pm cluster-fuck thread

[Soapy FFC]

4 minutes ago, Aladdin said:

Cracking down on tax avoidance by the wealthy is obviously needed.

 

It's obvious, but won't happen. It's easier to just increase the tax of those on PAYE, the lower earners, as they pay, whether they want to or not.

[101]

Do you only pay NI contributions if you are PAYE or do they take it from say company directors that take money as dividends and the like? 

I'm pretty surprised he's pressed ahead with this as it seems like perfect recruitment material for the Independence drive in Scotland.

[Soapy FFC]

So, dividend tax is being increased to make sure those who pay themselves using dividends pay their fair share. Sounds OK, but I've always assumed that the bulk of UK dividends paid don't go to individuals, but into pension funds. So what we have is another very sneaky hidden tax on peoples future. Governments do like to use these hidden taxes on pensions as they are well clear of things by the time people realise the damage done. The increase in dividend taxes in the 70's and 80' by both Thatcher and Blair govts laid the foundation for the collapse of most company final salary schemes in recent years.

[Michael W]

12 minutes ago, 101 said:

Do you only pay NI contributions if you are PAYE or do they take it from say company directors that take money as dividends and the like? 

I'm pretty surprised he's pressed ahead with this as it seems like perfect recruitment material for the Independence drive in Scotland.

If you take your income purely in dividends, you'll avoid it. I see that the government has however seen that one coming and will raise dividend taxes by the same amount. 

In salary terms you'll pay it but there's different rates for the self employed. 

Whilst this is not a popular move, I don't think the end result of more money to fund the NHS, as it's dressed up, is really going to be a driver of independence. Especially as Scotland will receive additional funding from it (granted this is not ring fenced for the NHS). 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

I’m not sure why they didn’t just delve into the £350m a week extra we have on the back of Brexit. Surely that would be much easier politically too.

[coprolite]

6 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Even apart from that the increase in NICs instead of income tax is totally wrong imo. Again clobbering the younger and poorer and protecting the old and better off.

Unearned income is the best income. 

4 hours ago, Aladdin said:

Increasing NIC contributions is, in practice, the worst way for the Tories to break their manifesto commitments as it hits their red wall seats.

They can't go anywhere near a wealth tax and capital gains increases which would both be fairer than that suggested.  It's great seeing them between a rock and a hard place.

We have a wealth tax, charged once for each lifetime. It is riddled with loopholes. 

1 hour ago, Aladdin said:

Cracking down on tax avoidance by the wealthy is obviously needed.

It also has to be recognised that our population has changed and health and social care needs have increased, costing more.  A combination of more progressive taxation/NI increases, a wealth tax and abolition of the triple lock on pensions (perhaps leaving it linked to CPI inflation rates) are likely needed.

In my experience the biggest tax dodges still available to individuals are inheritance tax ones. Never mentioned whenever there's a crackdown.

8 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

I’m not sure why they didn’t just delve into the £350m a week extra we have on the back of Brexit. Surely that would be much easier politically too.

Typical remoaner. Jolly well get on with it! 

[101]

46 minutes ago, Michael W said:

If you take your income purely in dividends, you'll avoid it. I see that the government has however seen that one coming and will raise dividend taxes by the same amount. 

Just saw that this isn't the case employers will also pay a 1.25% increase so it should be a 2.5% rise on dividend taxes or is it one rule for the PAYE mob and another for them?

[coprolite]

34 minutes ago, 101 said:

Just saw that this isn't the case employers will also pay a 1.25% increase so it should be a 2.5% rise on dividend taxes or is it one rule for the PAYE mob and another for them?

No, because the employer's contribution isn't a direct cost to employees.  It might affect how much the employer is willing to pay but it's unlikely to directly reduce amounts payable to employees by 1.5%, at least in the short term. 

f**k working or owning a productive business though. Lending money or renting out houses is where the tax system thinks money should go. Great news for slumlords and loansharks. 

[Michael W]

34 minutes ago, 101 said:

Just saw that this isn't the case employers will also pay a 1.25% increase so it should be a 2.5% rise on dividend taxes or is it one rule for the PAYE mob and another for them?

Not really, since the individual pays the extra 1.25% in either event, salaried or via dividend.

A self employed person paying himself only in dividends will of course avoid the employer's NI increase. But in other cases it's an increase in the cost of employment and doesn't impact what the individual pays to HMRC.

The dividend is of course subject to a lower rate, which is a different matter but one worthy of discussion. 

[101]

Both fair points.

[Granny Danger]

According to the BBC website:

Without a doubt this is the single biggest indicator that this is a tax to protect the wealthy.

1. From October 2023, no one starting care in England will be forced to spend more than £86,000 over their lifetime

Someone worth two or three million pounds will pay a maximum of £86k over their lifetime whilst someone with, say £100k, maybe through selling their house, will have the same maximum applied.

The ‘Red Wall Tories’ should be up in arms but they’re probably to thick to realise.

[Detournement]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

According to the BBC website:

Without a doubt this is the single biggest indicator that this is a tax to protect the wealthy.

1. From October 2023, no one starting care in England will be forced to spend more than £86,000 over their lifetime

Someone worth two or three million pounds will pay a maximum of £86k over their lifetime whilst someone with, say £100k, maybe through selling their house, will have the same maximum applied.

The ‘Red Wall Tories’ should be up in arms but they’re probably to thick to realise.

The people the Tories are trying to appeal to here are the folk waiting on inheritances when their parents kick the bucket and there are plenty of them in Red Wall seats. RW seats have far higher rates of owner occupiers than Labour metropolitan seats. 

Are the limits the same regardless of the kind of home you are in? From experience with my grandpa quality is variable.

As usual with this type of debate the media are reporting nothing on the levels of profits, director and executive pay in the care industry. Unless the goverment or councils can control costs then the owners are just going to have an incentive to keep increasing them like the hospital industry in America. 

[Michael W]

13 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The people the Tories are trying to appeal to here are the folk waiting on inheritances when their parents kick the bucket and there are plenty of them in Red Wall seats. RW seats have far higher rates of owner occupiers than Labour metropolitan seats. 

This is it, in a nutshell. Theresa May's previous attempt at this wouldn't have lead to houses being sold to pay for care either, but the government would recoup the costs after the individual concerned had died and therfore it would eat into the estate. Widespread fury erupted and she ended up almost chucking away the election. 

Alrhough I'd add that this is also to avoid angering the people in those houses who will be seething at their children's inheritance being reduced via care costs. And they won't be paying a penny extra in tax to fund this either. 

[Detournement]

The other factor in this we are still having more austerity forced on us so the combination of the NI rise and income tax allowance freeze will provide a nice wee cut in consumption to help the balance of payments. 

As the Israelis like to say we are put being on a diet. 

[Soapy FFC]

1 hour ago, Michael W said:

This is it, in a nutshell. Theresa May's previous attempt at this wouldn't have lead to houses being sold to pay for care either, but the government would recoup the costs after the individual concerned had died and therfore it would eat into the estate. Widespread fury erupted and she ended up almost chucking away the election. 

Alrhough I'd add that this is also to avoid angering the people in those houses who will be seething at their children's inheritance being reduced via care costs. And they won't be paying a penny extra in tax to fund this either. 

A lot of peoples estates will be wiped out by Equity Release companies getting their pound of flesh, given the amount of adverts on the TV for it these days.

[Detournement]

26 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

A lot of peoples estates will be wiped out by Equity Release companies getting their pound of flesh, given the amount of adverts on the TV for it these days.

Aye but it's probably a decent investment to take the money out your parents house and buy another one in a better area. The increase in value in the new property will be more than the amount lost to equity release.

 

[Suspect Device]

9 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Aye but it's probably a decent investment to take the money out your parents house and buy another one in a better area. The increase in value in the new property will be more than the amount lost to equity release.

 

 

I'm guessing you've never looked into equity release. My parents did and the offer was laughable.

[Dawson Park Boy]

3 hours ago, coprolite said:

No, because the employer's contribution isn't a direct cost to employees.  It might affect how much the employer is willing to pay but it's unlikely to directly reduce amounts payable to employees by 1.5%, at least in the short term. 

f**k working or owning a productive business though. Lending money or renting out houses is where the tax system thinks money should go. Great news for slumlords and loansharks. 

Renting out property is not as good as it used to be as you can’t set off interest on borrowings against income.

That happened a few years back.

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

 

I'm guessing you've never looked into equity release. My parents did and the offer was laughable.

I haven't. I was just basing it on some areas seeing 10% per year house price growth.

 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

4 hours ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

I’m not sure why they didn’t just delve into the £350m a week extra we have on the back of Brexit. Surely that would be much easier politically too.

I've watched different news channels today, and I didn't hear this question being raised once. 

It's almost as if this Tory khunt lied, lied and lied again.