How should covid be paid for?

[KenDodd]

I think there should be a small wealth tax (up to 1%) and before anyone starts saying I'm just jealous or whatever, I would be in for thousands of pounds that I don't have and would have to owe. I feel really strongly that we can't just load yet more debt onto the young, they have it much worse than my generation did already (I'm 51).

Yabu - No to wealth tax
Yanbu - Yes to wealth tax

If you vote No, please suggest an alternative that you think would be fairer.

Actually we pay less national insurance, I believe.

And qualify for fewer, less generous benefits.

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

My public sector pension is worth 5k a year. Sure take it, but leave those earning millions alone

Then you are either part time (hence low wages) or havn't been in the public sector for too many years.

Had you paid the same into a private private as a private sector worker, you'd get a lot less than £5k per year.

Well, I have no debts and have savings. Why should I be taxed more for being prudent and saving for my retirement when some others have just spent their disposable income on material things or holidays, changing their car more frequently or whatever?

That system would discourage saving.

That demography can start by accepting that selling your house to pay for your residential care in old age is completely legitimate & reasonable
I totally agree with this.

That demography can start by accepting that selling your house to pay for your residential care in old age is completely legitimate & reasonable
I totally agree with this

So do I. TBH though, I think a high proportion with the capital, already do that. Council run homes are pretty grim.

I agree too. My father despite devoting his whole adult life to working as a doctor in the NHS until he was 63 spent £130k on his at home dementia care in his last year of life and died just after his life savings were exhausted - no NHS care for him. That was the cost of day and night care at home and we were pleased he was able to die in his own home as he wanted, in his late 70s. That is the price you pay - it is a lottery really. Only 1 in 5 need a care home so why should the rest of us pay for that?

The few who go into care homes do of course pay for all that care unless they have no assets. I think only £23k is preserved of your life savings. Most of my family die in their 70s so I don't think I am likely to have a long elderly life thankfully.

What is not fair is care homes where some people are penniless and the home charge those who can afford to pay an extra sum to make up the cost of those who never saved a penny in their life! What the council pays for the poor does not cover their costs so those who have saved or have a house not only pay for themselves but pay more to pay for those who spent all their money all their lives.

Yes I agree. The super rich should have higher taxes and those over 50 who are wealthy. The companies who have profited from COVID such as amazon etc should pay more too, loop holes for these companies should be closed.

I worry that as usual it will be the middle class, like DH and I, who will have tax rises as the conservatives won't want to pass it to older people as they are their main voters, pensioners and young people can't pay it and it's unfair for poor working class to pay it. I really think that's what will happen. Yet again, those reasonably comfortable off pay.

Yet again, those reasonably comfortable off pay

Unfortunately yes, because that demographic are the most numerous. It's a numbers game, of course you can tax the superrich a lot, but there are not enough of them to make a difference. It's the huge demographic in the middle who keep the country running.

@studychick81

Yes I agree. The super rich should have higher taxes and those over 50 who are wealthy. The companies who have profited from COVID such as amazon etc should pay more too, loop holes for these companies should be closed.

I worry that as usual it will be the middle class, like DH and I, who will have tax rises as the conservatives won't want to pass it to older people as they are their main voters, pensioners and young people can't pay it and it's unfair for poor working class to pay it. I really think that's what will happen. Yet again, those reasonably comfortable off pay.

Easy to say in theory, but how about coming up with some workable answers to make it happen. World leaders have been negotiating re offhsore tax havens, cross border tax avoidance, etc for years, and there has been some progress. Trouble with anything cross border is that you need agreement from other countries and those countries who benefit aren't going to give away their tax haven status voluntarily!

@Baaaahhhhh

Yet again, those reasonably comfortable off pay

Unfortunately yes, because that demographic are the most numerous. It's a numbers game, of course you can tax the superrich a lot, but there are not enough of them to make a difference. It's the huge demographic in the middle who keep the country running.

Yes, I've been saying that for years, but people don't understand just how few "super rich" there are. There was a lot of noise on SM about Tesco profits and directors fees a few years ago, with people saying the staff should get a pay rise rather than paying dividends. I crunched the numbers - if the dividend was paid to staff instead, there are so many staff, that they'd basically get something like pennies each weekly so it wouldn't have benefitted the staff at all, and the company would probably have suffered with shareholders not investing in it if they're getting no return. You could take a million pounds from every millionaire in the country and it wouldn't really make much difference when spread around the 60 million non millionaires. As you say it's a numbers game. A bit like those on SM today saying Covid should be paid for by not giving the MPs the £3.5k pay rise - 600 MPs at £3.5k is £2.1M whereas covid is costing hundreds of BILLIONS - it's a drop in the ocean.

Manangelo- no. Self employed people do already pay and they have much more risk with their own business than others. Many have been hit hard by COVID too (DH has taken a substantial pay cut to continue paying his employees) as they often don't have the pot of money/investors/resources just to ride the tide other companies have. My DH business is small and he can't just lay people off to save money.

Besides, these are the people we need the most in the economy, starting their businesses, employing people, innovating. Tax them more and they simply won't survive and there will be no incentive to start your own business. My DH started his business 10 years plus ago from his study on his own and is only now financially secure, only now we find we don't have to worry too much about money. Why should he and people like him who are self made and created something out of nothing pay for this?

Tax bigger companies or people making lots of money anyway and boo hoo they have slightly less money to spend whereas with some self employed they literally loose their income.

@Badbadbunny - what loopholes do you want to close? Are you aware of BEPS? You can’t just set up in a “tax haven” and not pay tax on uk activities.

Bad- I understand what your saying, but if they increase tax for the very rich not just the super rich, imo those earning over £200k a year and the corporations paying next to nothing then surely this would be enough not to tax the squeezed middle class.

I want to protect the vulnerable, poor and young people who need protecting but it feels that those in there 30s/40s( like DH and I and our friends) who have worked themselves up to finally having a decent standard of life and are finally homeowners and are ok always having to pay. After years of struggling, childcare more than wages, slowly upgrading on size and location of house etc and now having to now pay.

@Baaaahhhhh

*That demography can start by accepting that selling your house to pay for your residential care in old age is completely legitimate & reasonable I totally agree with this*

So do I. TBH though, I think a high proportion with the capital, already do that. Council run homes are pretty grim.

Purely anecdotal but I also think people already do this. We hired a fulltime private nurse for one of my demented grandmothers from her ample savings. When my mum was terminally ill my dad had the means to keep her at home and pay for any extra help or stuff needed. There was no way we would have put them in a care home when we could simply pay for better and more personal care ourselves.

Yes to a wealth tax from me. We are in a global crisis so why wouldn't the ones with the broadest shoulders step up and help out?

We surely can't take it from those losing their jobs in droves, those struggling and occasionally failing to keep themselves and their families clothed, housed and fed.

I probably would not be impacted much by a wealth tax but I am happy to pay more tax to get us through this terrible crisis. I fell I am very fortunate that I could offer to pay more because many won't be in the same position.

A good start would be to align capital gains tax with income tax. Why would we tax people who work more than those making profits from shares or other assets? Particularly in times of such crisis.

Slap it on inheritance tax. The most unfair way of acquiring wealth that is directly associated with what your parents did not yourself. This is broadly similar to the lib dems excellent suggestion.

Or more tax on multiple home ownership. Or a land value tax.

It’s not as easy as that re inheritance tax. To help elderly parents, women (mainly) can see their own work incomes and pensions drop. Of course you do these things for love but it doesn’t seem inequitable that the child who helps elderly parents has some kind of compensation for lost income. Otherwise a caring daughter (usually) could give her parents a much more comfortable final year or so than she herself is ever likely to have.

I am on the fence with inheritance tax as I get it is seen as unfair but then it's also providing support for those who alternatively may be more on a burden on the state and it likely to provide opportunity for them to pay into the state more.

For example- Maybe they use that money to buy a house, whereas before they would rent so may need housing benefits to help them or are just paying someone else's mortgage. They would never get on the property ladder. Maybe they use it for private school, so freeing up a state school place, maybe they use it for private health insurance, thus not using the nhs. Perhaps they use it to find university so the child isn't saddled with debt and when they get their first job they can start paying taxes like everyone else. They get on in life as they get older and it's handed down again and so the cycle goes again.

But I get that the majority don't get that step up at all.

@YanTanTethera01

I think there are other, more obvious ways to claw back revenue into the pot. For example, bus passes and free prescriptions/dentistry when someone is 60. Last time I looked, retirement age is 66, not 60.
The entitlement to free bus passes in the county I live is at State Retirement age so is currently 66.

Dentistry is not free to over 60s. It isn't even free to everyone in receipt of State Pension. Even they pay. The only way a State Pensioner receives free dentistry is if they receive Guaranteed Pension Credit or other benefits.

Free prescriptions could be changed to State Retirement age.

Get rid of free prescriptions for those with Type 2 diabetes which is largely self-inflicted (would save the NHS hundreds of £millions.
What if someone is earning just over the limit to claim benefits but not enough so couldn't afford regular prescriptions? What if they went without medication and their condition then impacted on other parts of their body? They lose their vision? Have to have a leg amputated? The cost to the NHS would be far greater than the the cost of their regular medication then.

@Wherehavetheteletubbiesgone

Slap it on inheritance tax. The most unfair way of acquiring wealth that is directly associated with what your parents did not yourself. This is broadly similar to the lib dems excellent suggestion.

And watch the money get spent long before it is available to pass on

The government could pay for covid by cutting wasted money on projects like HS2 & reducing foreign aid. Don't forget they wasted millions buying PPE that wasn't fit for purpose.

It isn’t in our interests to cut foreign aid. From a self-serving POV we want unstable countries to become more prosperous. So we can sell to them and so the migration issue becomes less acute. That’s before you even get to the humanitarian aspect.

I get the logic of hitting IHT but what then stops people passing in their money before they die? You know like the Queen Mother did.

It's not a household budget.

We can find (borrow) and print money for things that the nation needs.

I wouldn't object to paying more income tax to fund a larger and better paid Police force and better pay for NHS staff.