To ask what you'll be doing to avoid the Labour tax hikes

[OptimismvsRealism]

Pension contributions
Gift aid
Selling my shares now while CGT is relatively low

What really worries me is that all the professionals we actually need to want to be here will just fuck off elsewhere, though.

It's not like we're knee deep in hospital doctors.

What bollocks! You know nothing about us and nothing about her. Why assume I’m being unreasonable when you could assume I’m being accurate? Her passive income is greater than ours combined working. I look after her very well. I just wish she’d spend some of her money on looking after herself and contribute a bit to the economy around her.

Are all the elderly people you know saints? None of them spend their energy trying to slip something past the tax man, and save some pennies by refusing to pay for services? That must be nice. I have a very frustrating elderly mum who refuses to spend a penny on services to keep her and the rest of us safer- like taxis, so she doesn’t kill someone on the roads.

The sainted pensioner trope is wearing a bit thin in my nearest and dearest.

So what’s your solution to improving these services then?

It’s really weird how people want rich folk to pay more tax, but not my elderly mother who is the richest person I know.

I’m not ashamed or envious of her money- I wish she’d spend it productively, provide someone with a job and improver her own life at the same time.

If you want a functioning NHS, social services and everything else that makes a civilised society, you have to pay tax.

Exactly and just because you’re in the south doesn’t mean you earn more! Especially for jobs with government pay scales etc

Don’t be silly, it’s not a suggestion.
It’s a statement of fact. There are far fewer wealthy people than lower income people.

There aren’t enough of the top 5% earners.
If we can get more people earning more money, we can tax them more.

It’s a bit like the number of pensioners being supported by the number of workers. It used to be lots of workers, not that many pensioners to support. The balance has tipped a bit. And the way population is going, my kids will be supporting a hell of a lot of us older folk.

Again, not a suggestion or a policy, just something to do with the way numbers work.

To claim most benifits you need to have less than 16k of capital, this includes the value of the amount of your house you own and savings / investments etc. So… sell your house and security and live on way less than minimum wage for the rest of your life, in whatever HA the council have, and put up with snobs on mumsnet spouting ridiculous soundbites about how fab life on benefits is. Sounds great - go for it!

I’m happy to pay more. We're very fortunate and I’m not going to gate-keep for the sake of a few hundred pounds a year.

But as other have said, it’s not going to make much of a dent. Proper corporation tax on big companies would be a better avenue to follow IMHO

Massive reform on many fronts that neither party is willing to undertake because it will take much longer than one or even two party term and will be incredibly difficult due to massive vested interests (unions primarily but also industry associations like BMA and industry lobbies). Also neither party is unified enough so lots of ideology snd preaching to the party faithful instead of focusing on reform. Electoral system is broken. Given how fractured the parties are, a switch to proportional representation would be a good step that could potentially allow for breath of fresh air.

@Over40Overdating thank you, I’ll be looking into this some more

No, you need reform first to all of the above but primarily NHS.

I will be contributing fully as I always have.

I want to support the most vulnerable in my community. I want to have access to the public services I and others need.

We also need to massively reform pensions to make it similar to Australian and Canadian systems (and to a degree US pensions for public workers) instead of unfunded bonanza we have in the UK. None of these feature in the agenda - just raising taxes and throwing money at the unions with nothing to show for it.

Actually I can still get help with the interest on my mortgage as well as other benefits. Ok I won’t be repaying the capital left on the mortgage but I think that’s a small price to pay for being at home with my children without all the stress of working to earn private school fees. Instead of having to earn an extra £20k a year to cover VAT I will have no fees and the ability to be at home and teach my children myself - I’m quite academic and really enjoy teaching them so no issues there. According to another thread running that will give them an unfair advantage in life though so is to be frowned upon.

my children all have nationality that allows them to leave this country for work so once they have been educated they can move to a country without envy taxes and enjoy the fruits of our labour.

never been a snob or much concerned what others think of me so not too bothered by that either. More bothered by the fact labour want me to work harder and harder just to make my life less comfortable

I agree like the Ontario’s teacher pension scheme that can then invest in sustainable businesses that could be good for the country. Like social housing for teachers and nurses. We need some creative thinking, Not same old stuff.

@MrsPuddle
You don't have more money, you just stop working for very small wage.
Let me try to explain:

Let's assume you're on 125k. Let's ignore pension contribution for simplicity.
Your take home pay is 78k.

You drop one day a week and get 100k - take home pay is 68.5k. Assuming you work 47 weeks (25 days annual leave), 4 days/week, your daily take home pay is £364.

You add fifth working day each week in previous 125k scenario and your take home for that extra day is only £202. This daily rate of take home pay is equivalent of 64k gross. For many people in this position their free time is more valuable to them.

If you add here lost childcare support, esp for more than one child, then you're actually paying for privilege of working.

Now, assume in previous scenario of 125k you're able to drop 60k in your pension now. This is great for 50+ as you can take it in a few years time, pay off mortgage if needed etc, so many higher earners in this position continue working for some time.

I'm certain Labour will be nasty and either reduce annual allowance or rate of relief or tax free lump sum or all of this. Again, the delta you'd be working for is not worth it. Let's don't forget that one doesn't suddenly become high earners in 50s, people normally reach this position earlier so likely to have some savings/assets by then. It will make perfect sense to reduce hours/retire to enjoy life whilst you're still fit instead of continuing working for very diminishing return.

So by trying to take more government will end up with less.

If you own the majority of your house, and have any savings, you won’t get standard benifits unless there are additional factors at play such as disability.

But that’s beside the point based on what you’re saying, if you’ll be SO much better off then…. just do it?

And labour aren’t making your life less comfortable - they are making people who are facing real hardship in their lives more comfortable

Reform costs money FYI. Money comes from our taxes. So….

NHS needs major restructuring, not more money.
You go to A&E, there are four or five people in Reception who aren't medically trained, one nurse and one consultant. Just why??? Why not to have one receptionist but two consultants or two nurses instead? The list of examples is endless.

It’s obvious why not. Because the more qualified the person, the more they’re paid. You’ve just explained why the NHS needs more money.

And labour aren’t making your life less comfortable - they are making people who are facing real hardship in their lives more comfortable.

Correction - there are people there who do face real hardship and experience some truly horrifying circumstances. There are minority though. There is a very significant number of people who face hardships as a result of poor choices and lack of effort.
Society is always bailing them out at the expense of those prudent ones but this also depletes the funds available to the former group. The scale of it reached the stage now when those contributors simply go on strike as much as they can

Sorry, but your conclusion is completely incorrect.
You get rid of three unskilled people on 25k pa, take into account total cost of employing them (pension, NICs etc) and get money to hire a properly qualified nurse or junior doctor instead. You really don't need more money.

I suspect this is driven by wrong targets - A&E is measured how quickly they register new patient. It only takes 3-5min max to do this but they still keep a lot of people at this gate whilst patients still need to wait for hours to get assessed by medically trained staff.

How is one person, no matter how skilled, going to do the same amount of work as three people? If you’re going to improve the NHS it won’t be by employing fewer people with greater skills - they’re not usefully employed taking bloods, doing obs or dressing wounds.

It's not called maternity pay in the US, it's called short-term disability (STD) pay, and yes, it does exist. Sometimes I think MN is in a time warp with what they know about the US because most of these laws changed ages ago. STD is a form of insurance that covers lost work time for all medical issues, including childbirth.

Y'all also have absolutely no idea how American health insurance works, but we actually have a hybrid public-private system, with state and federal gov'ts together paying about 50% of health care costs directly and private insurers paying the other 50%. Every citizen or green card holder can get private insurance by law, bought through a federal gov't website and paid for on a sliding scale based on income. Most private and all public employers offer private insurance. Government plans include Medicare (for those over 65) Medicaid (the poor) Tricare (active military, military retirees and their families) the VA (military veterans) COBRA (between jobs) Workman's Comp (workers injured on the job) SCHIP (children who are above the poverty line but whose parents' employers don't offer family insurance plans) and the Disproportionate Share Fund (reimburses health care providers for care of the indigent.)

Not aimed at you, PP, but to all who really need to hear it: Americans aren't stupid or unfeeling. Nobody here dies for lack of medical care. Out-of pocket costs are capped by law. Chemo is expensive but it is COVERED by insurance. A friend of mine has been battling AML leukemia since Feb. His insurance has paid millions with no end in sight without any hesitation or questions. Insulin costs $35/month by law.

Why should someone in a 3m mansion pay just 2.5x more CT then someone in a 300k band D house

Because they don't use as many services as intensively as the family of 5 in a terraced house?

There is a balance between the two extremes, and it varies with age. Me and DH, youngish pensioners, cost very little and still pay quite a chunk in income tax, because we saved to provide over and above the SP when we retired -- to be comfortable. My DM who died a fortnight ago also cost the state virtually nothing until she was nearly 90. She worked until she was 78 and hadn't seen a GP in eight months. The last time she spent a night in hospital was in the 1970s. Yes, she was fortunate to live her whole life in robust health.