Tax increases imminent

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

Heavy hints that taxes will rise in the next Budget after the recent climb down (as the ‘taxes won’t rise again’ was based on a 5 billion saving in benefits).

I can’t lie, I’m so pissed off about this. I don’t think anyone wants to see someone who is genuinely unable to work to be further penalised, but we all know there are thousands of people who could work but don’t.

this country is going to absolute shit . We pay more and more for less and less.

Incidentally.

The way I see things is this - some posters on here, perhaps you, are ‘net recipients’, whilst others of us are paying increasing rates of tax, to fund said ‘net recipients’.

Labour should roll out the red carpet for us, because we are fewer and fewer, and we are mobile. Some of us have already taken our toys from the sandpit, and others will surely follow.

Think on that, perhaps.

He also lied to the Queen. People have very short memories.

I’m not arguing any such thing. Many people with disability don’t qualify for PIP, but as a compassionate and responsible society, we compensate for the cost impact of the more significant disabilities. And 22 years as a disability outreach worker taught me that disabled people are traditionally in much lower paid jobs than the rest of the population - there are highly paid disabled people but that’s the exception rather than the norm, so your assertion that anyone disabled in work can pay for their own disability costs is just nonsense.

I have no argument with the fact that costs need to be cut, but arbitrary cuts which are aimed at the most significantly disabled - which the government’s were - are not the way to go because they push people into poverty with no way out if they are not capable of working.

The solution is not to cut benefit. The solution is to stop the ridiculous expansion of the definition of disability we’ve seen since the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. If you expand the definition beyond what the public perceive as disability and what they are prepared to support by way of disability benefits, and then remove the need for formal diagnosis, making it easier to claim benefit, then you are inevitably and rightly going to run into the kind of opposition we’re seeing now. But cutting benefit across the board doesn’t save money. If you stop supporting need, that need doesn’t simply disappear, the cost just gets shifted somewhere else. In this case, the loss of PIP and associated carers allowance would have meant an increase in social care costs as claimants seek the support they’ve lost.

What's your proposal for those who are disabled and cannot work then?
I'm all for helping those who can and want to work, but I'm also for living in a country where those who cannot work and earn have good support and a reasonable life, some dignity and independence.

The solution is not to cut benefit. The solution is to stop the ridiculous expansion of the definition of disability we’ve seen since the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. If you expand the definition beyond what the public perceive as disability and what they are prepared to support by way of disability benefits, and then remove the need for formal diagnosis, making it easier to claim benefit, then you are inevitably and rightly going to run into the kind of opposition we’re seeing now.

I agree. I think some people should actually be entitled to more benefits but too many seem to get it now.

And therein lies the problem. It was the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 which expanded the definition of disability as I’ve posted upthread a little. If you expand the definition and take away the need for formal diagnosis, then the end result is more people eligible for disability benefits. That’s what needs to be fixed because from looking at the discussion here and on other SM sites, what passes for disability nowadays is far beyond what the public expect or are prepared to support financially.

The way I see things is this - some posters on here, perhaps you, are ‘net recipients’, whilst others of us are paying increasing rates of tax, to fund said ‘net recipients’.

@MyNameIsX

And this is why I mentioned critical thinking. What on earth have I posted that made you think i was a net recipient?

One of the problems I have with this poster is the conflation of PIP support with unemployed sickness benefits. PIP is not, and never has been an out of work benefit. Its design is purely to assess the likely extra cost of disability and compensate accordingly. If the intention behind the benefit is not understood, then the argument for cutting it falls to pieces.

I don’t disagree with you but I fear that ship has sailed. If someone is assessed as needing PIP any change to the definition of disability will create an outcry, because it will mean some people now don’t qualify. And shifting the definition for new applicants will cause an outcry too.

What about those who spent most of their lives as housewives and stay at home mums during that time? They haven't paid in.

I think patients should pay for their own food in hospitals.

I don’t think any direct action on eligibility is needed. There needs to be an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 - specifically the definition of disability. Because this is the basis on which disability benefits are paid. If you change the definition in such a way that it excludes conditions which we know don’t attract much extra cost and reinstate the need for evidence to support a diagnosis, or at least a medical opinion in support of the effects where diagnosis is difficult or inconclusive, then you go some way towards reducing costs. But since the Equality Act 2010 also supports disabled people in work and the need for reasonable adjustment, it needs to be done in such a way that support isn’t removed where it’s genuinely needed. It’s a difficult one.

Charging for ambulances isn’t a bad idea. I have lived in several overseas countries where you are charged an awful lot of money for unnecessary ambulance usage.

My family came to visit me in UK and watched a documentary about ambulances and my mother had to telephone her sister because she was in absolute shock at the people in this fly-on-the-ambulance wall documentary calling ambulances and then climbing into the back of them consciously themselves. Or having two paramedics sit with them for 6 hours because they were having a mental health crisis. My mother thinks we’re an indulgent nation when it comes to to ambulance usage. No wonder there are non available when there are actual emergencies.

then climbing into the back of them consciously themselves.

This doesn't mean someone doesn't need an ambulance....

Are you kidding?? The state pension shouldn’t be means tested. Are you seriously saying that the people who have actually paid into it should potentially get less than people who have never paid into it eg been on benefits their whole life??!! I’m working my arse off to get a Civil Service pension to top up my government pension so if they decide I can’t have a state pension then what’s the point of my hard work?

Yes, a tiny bit of your tax money might go to an "undeserving" person.

But it might also some day go to helping you or a person you care about.

There is no magic way of distinguishing between the "deserving" and the "undeserving".

Disability and other benefits are removed after a certain time spent in hospital because it’s deemed that the state is looking after your needs while you are in hospital. Which do you think would be more cost effective - making patients pay for their own food (in which case most would just order Deliveroo or get relatives to bring in food) or the removal of significant benefits. Because if you’re not going to support in patient need then you can’t reasonably remove overlapping benefits ? I wouldn’t pay for the crap that passes for food in our local hospital and I doubt many people would.

Mainly because they are American. Their HQs, where the accounts are filed, are in the USA so they pay taxes to Uncle Sam. Persuade them to locate their HQs in the UK if you can. I would applaud!

Most patients are only in hospital for short periods like a week or so and many patients won't be on benefits. Isn't it something like after 12 weeks benefits get removed? Very few patients would get a hospital bed for more than 10 days. It's a National Health Service not a cafeteria. People could order their meals as they do now just pay for the food they order.

Yes exactly. In the UK it doesn’t. In other countries it does. In Switzerland if you can climb into the back of ambulance you will probably find you’re paying the equivalence of around £6000. If you can justify the need most insurance policies won’t pay out.

I don't know enough about PIP or benefits in general to comment but the thought of paying more tax just makes me want to cry. I work really hard and most of the time I'm absolutely knackered. I feel like I'm poorer than I ever have been, objectively I'm not, I earn good money and pay loads of tax but everything has gone up so much. It's very demoralising.

It is difficult because sometimes the additional costs aren’t obvious, or about buying equipment or therapy. Sometimes the additional costs are because someone in the household can’t work because the disabled person can’t be left unattended or has multiple health appointments and need accompanied. There’s not always a way to clearly quantify the additional costs.

There is, unfortunately, no entitlement to a State Pension. We operate in a “pay as you go” system where today’s tax revenue is paying today’s state pensions. Your money is not being out aside for when you need it in 20/30 years time, it’s being spent right now.

Another thing the Government would do well to look at is tapering the additional rate tax threshold with the personal allowance. At the moment, due to the loss of the personal allowance at £100k, lots of high earners are either cutting back hours or piling funds into their pensions because perversely if you earn more than £100k but less than £125k you can be worse off than someone earning £99,999.

And yes of course anyone earning that amount (not me, that’s for sure!) is very lucky, but we’d actually increase the tax take from those people if the loss of the personal allowance was tapered rather than a cliff edge.

For disability benefits it’s 28 days - and that includes the removal of any motability car. The only ‘benefit’ that isn’t affected is state pension. Having recently been in hospital I can confidently say that I wouldn’t pay good money for hospital food because in the main it’s inedible and there’s little to no nutritional value in it. Given that food is bought and cooked in bulk I don’t think this would save much and may even increase costs as people forego what’s produced in the hospital kitchens and go for one of the many available alternatives.

motability -
Lease costs were, on average, 44 per cent cheaper in May 2018 for Motability customers than in the wider leasing market. Around two fifths of this difference arises from the direct impact of the tax concessions from which the Scheme benefits.

Tax concessions- tax concessions are gifts of money to people and deprive us Joe Public of money that would have been paid in tax.
wiki says 815,000 people have these cars that’s a load of money -and of course the ceo gets a good pay from that.