May's "ordinary working people"?

[ardcarp]

Oops sorry. Yes, Nick it was. I think his, er, hairstyle reminds me of Sergeant Bilko = Phil Silvers.

Talking of old favourites, does anyone remember the time when you bought your weekly Stamp (pink, IIRC) from the Post Office and stuck it into a little book, which you then sent off when full to prove a complete contributions record? Such fun.

[Dave2002]

Oops sorry. Yes, Nick it was. I think his, er, hairstyle reminds me of Sergeant Bilko = Phil Silvers.

Talking of old favourites, does anyone remember the time when you bought your weekly Stamp (pink, IIRC) from the Post Office and stuck it into a little book, which you then sent off when full to prove a complete contributions record? Such fun.

Aren't you thinking of Green Shield stamps? :laugh: :laugh:

[ardcarp]

:biggrin:

But seriously, everyone's forgotten them! I guess a completed page of NIC stamps would sell for a fortune at auction because of its rarity. By definition, nobody kept them. I wonder if millions of old completed and fully stamped up books are languishing in some forgotten HMG cellar/archive?

[ahinton]

On (a), when the Liberals introduced the National Insurance Act (not that long ago, my grandmother was 21) it was to provide insurance in the event of illness and unemployment. But my understanding is that there is an even more fundamental point. That NI and associated measures effectively marked the beginning of the end of an outlook where poverty equated to criminality. Ever since - and increasingly - the undercurrent of many a Katie Hopkins (not that most know it themselves - they are too in the present) is that in an "ideal" world we would return to that position. In any case the original outlook has remained in some ways in a real sense. It is always in inconsistent approaches (based on uncertainty) towards "dealing" with homeless people and the mentally ill and in the media obsessively seeking out people taking advantage of the system. To me, none of that is at all ideal.

"That's my money" dictates that these people should be "bad". For those who think history couldn't happen here, there were just 68 years between 1911 and 1979. If.....if......the latter was the pivotal point, then the workhouse is due for a return in just 30 years. So, yes, National Insurance is still not only financially but symbolically an insurance to some extent against that prospect. And those who wish to place it under tax - and reduce tax for ever more - are supporters and even managers of the workhouse just one step removed. I regret that I would see such arguments when they are put forward as Dickensianism for the Future. Given the blase ways now, there may already be a pamphlet with that title. Incidentally, Lloyd George nicked the idea off Bismarck and it is about as socialist as Bismarck so it isn't socialist. Anyone who says otherwise listens far too much to Fox News.

Interesting points, for which many thanks. Of course the situation in the early days of that Act and the aspirations behind it were beyond laudable but the way in which it all works today is so different to that as to be almost unrecognisable. Lumping it together with other taxes does not mean reducing tax for ever more; indeed, it would surely have to signify and require substantial increases in taxes...

On (b), sorry, but I am genuinely not sure I understand the point you are making.

It's not that important; it's only about use of terminology. "Pensions" are things for which people save into a find so that they can vest their accumulated pot when they so choose, subject to the laws of the say at the time when they might do so, whereas the state retirement benefit doesn't involve any such procedures or structures and kicks in for those entitles to it at whatever state retirement age happens to be at any given time and regardless of whether or not the recipient has retired (in which particular alone it is similar to real "pensions", i.e. they're demonstrably not for "retirement" purposes as originally envisaged).

[Lat-Literal]

Interesting points, for which many thanks. Of course the situation in the early days of that Act and the aspirations behind it were beyond laudable but the way in which it all works today is so different to that as to be almost unrecognisable. Lumping it together with other taxes does not mean reducing tax for ever more; indeed, it would surely have to signify and require substantial increases in taxes...


It's not that important; it's only about use of terminology. "Pensions" are things for which people save into a find so that they can vest their accumulated pot when they so choose, subject to the laws of the say at the time when they might do so, whereas the state retirement benefit doesn't involve any such procedures or structures and kicks in for those entitles to it at whatever state retirement age happens to be at any given time and regardless of whether or not the recipient has retired (in which particular alone it is similar to real "pensions", i.e. they're demonstrably not for "retirement" purposes as originally envisaged).

Thank you.

On your first part, that would only be true if we are not currently in 1941 heading backwards towards a Brexit in the summer of 1939.

Expect at various times in the coming years the decline of fascism, another economic crash, mass starvation, people living the life of riley in Berlin and the rebirth of jazz.

[ahinton]

Thank you.

On your first part, that would only be true if we are not currently in 1941 heading backwards towards a Brexit in the summer of 1939.

Expect at various times in the coming years the decline of fascism, another economic crash, mass starvation, people living the life of riley in Berlin and the rebirth of jazz.

That should be interesting!

[ardcarp]

It seems my OP must have triggered the U-turn! :biggrin:

[Lat-Literal]

It seems my OP must have triggered the U-turn! :biggrin:

Yes but people earning under £16,000 will no longer be better off. That is especially bad news for those who are above the minimum wage. Cleaners, shop workers, farm workers, administrative assistants. These are low earners and not self-employed. Remember ash die-back? I have good news. There hasn't been a single case in Surrey and in Scandinavia there is now resistance. I mention this because I had my favourite tree surgeons in today. They are self-employed. The reason why I got them back rather than someone else is that they do a good job, teach me about trees, shake my hand, always stick to the price or even reduce the price and crucially promote paying by card. I intend now only to appoint self-employed people who are not cash in hand. It is to me the principal signal that I can trust them not to have sold out to modern ideas about what is acceptable. I thank you.

(nb I am not hugely bothered about it myself but it seems to me that the multi millionaire Chancellor was right and I am not convinced it was an error of judgement - rather how refreshing to see the Conservatives attempt progressive taxation in line with May's One Nation sentiment and how dismal to see it fall under the cliche and clout of white van man)

[french frank]

It seems my OP must have triggered the U-turn! :biggrin:

The BBC particularly savoured the Chancellor's reply to Alex Salmond's question whether it had been the Prime Minister that had informed him that the NIC change went against a manifesto commitment, or who (it was Laura Kuenssberg, he said).

[Beef Oven!]

Watch my lips - He was breaking the manifesto promise, how stupid is that?

[Lat-Literal]

The BBC particularly savoured the Chancellor's reply to Alex Salmond's question whether it had been the Prime Minister that had informed him that the NIC change went against a manifesto commitment, or who (it was Laura Kuenssberg, he said).

There are a lot of lies in the media and on the internet about the manifesto wording. For example, the supposedly neutral and factual "Full Fact" on which much of the newspaper coverage is based states:"“a Conservative Government will not increase the rates of VAT, Income Tax or National Insurance in the next Parliament.” It repeated this position three more times in the document." It's fake news. NI rates were mentioned only once in the manifesto. I've checked it. The BBC's Paul Lewis in his blog is more accurate, referring to "the Government’s election pledge – made four times in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 – that “we will not raise VAT, National Insurance contributions or Income Tax”."

As I highlighted earlier, Lewis said in full in November 2015 - "National Insurance contributions will be going up by an average of 15% for around six million people in April (2016). The lower the earnings the bigger the percentage rise. Technically this does not break the Government’s election pledge – made four times in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 – that “we will not raise VAT, National Insurance contributions or Income Tax”. The Treasury told me that the pledge only applied to main tax and National Insurance rates and in any case this increase had been announced by the previous government and so was outside the pledge". Little was made of it by those who answer to other people, ie employees, even though the increase was much higher than anything proposed in 2017 and the manifesto did not make the distinction that the Treasury did when questioned that the commitment only applied to what had not already been decided. One could get stuck on the word "rates" mentioned once but contributions significantly increased by the back door - it was as part of introducing the new State Pension and associated SERPS issues. And "contributions" was the word mentioned several times.

That earlier change was not in the spirit of the commitment to low contributions mentioned several times in the manifesto. The later change - Hammond's - was to bring the system into line post pension changes with a reneging that was Cameron and Osborne's for good or ill and quelle surprise. That part was wholly typical. The big business now is that Hammond was for the EU and some don't like it; May is genuinely trying to provide some centrism economically so as to counter-balance the fact that the right have got their way over Brexit; those who got their way over Brexit don't like that bit of her because they don't like compromise; and there is a belief that white van people are the voters who swing elections when it isn't those in Ford Mondeos for Blairite Labour. The latter idea, though, in this context exists in a region between machination and hubris. Even MPs representing Tory marginals know that their tentative voters will only threaten - key word - to go off to UKIP because they are so scared of Corbyn, Sturgeon and even Farron. But what you have got is a lot of folk in the media itself - mega-rich and self-employed by a million dodges - stirring it up in the pretence it is all about the little people. And some musicians.

[ahinton]

There are a lot of lies in the media and on the internet about the manifesto wording. For example, the supposedly neutral and factual "Full Fact" on which much of the newspaper coverage is based states:"“a Conservative Government will not increase the rates of VAT, Income Tax or National Insurance in the next Parliament.” It repeated this position three more times in the document." It's fake news. NI rates were mentioned only once in the manifesto. I've checked it. The BBC's Paul Lewis in his blog is more accurate, referring to "the Government’s election pledge – made four times in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 – that “we will not raise VAT, National Insurance contributions or Income Tax”."

As I highlighted earlier, Lewis said in full in November 2015 - "National Insurance contributions will be going up by an average of 15% for around six million people in April (2016). The lower the earnings the bigger the percentage rise. Technically this does not break the Government’s election pledge – made four times in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 – that “we will not raise VAT, National Insurance contributions or Income Tax”. The Treasury told me that the pledge only applied to main tax and National Insurance rates and in any case this increase had been announced by the previous government and so was outside the pledge". Little was made of it by those who answer to other people, ie employees, even though the increase was much higher than anything proposed in 2017 and the manifesto did not make the distinction that the Treasury did when questioned that the commitment only applied to what had not already been decided. One could get stuck on the word "rates" mentioned once but contributions significantly increased by the back door - it was as part of introducing the new State Pension and associated SERPS issues. And "contributions" was the word mentioned several times.

That earlier change was not in the spirit of the commitment to lower contributions mentioned several times in the manifesto. The later change - Hammond's - was to bring the system into line post pension changes with a reneging that was Cameron and Osborne's for good or ill and quelle surprise. That part was wholly typical. The big business now is that Hammond was for the EU and some don't like it; May is genuinely trying to provide some centrism economically so as to counter-balance the fact that the right have got their way over Brexit; those who got their way over Brexit don't like that bit of her because they don't like compromise; and there is a belief that white van people are the voters who swing elections when it isn't those in Ford Mondeos for Blairite Labour. The latter idea, though, in this context exists in a region between machination and hubris. Even MPs representing Tory marginals know that their tentative voters will only threaten - key word - to go off to UKIP because they are so scared of Corbyn, Sturgeon and even Farron. But what you have got is a lot of folk in the media itself - mega-rich and self-employed by a million dodges - stirring it up in the pretence it is all about the little people. And some musicians.

"National Insurance Contributions" - what a misnomer! I apologise in advance of what I'm about to write about them as I've said it all before, but they are a tax no different to any other taxes on earned income / profits. They should be abolished and absorbed into the general taxation system because their use is analogous to the use of funds paid into that system; there's no hypothecation such as Gordon Brown lied when seeking to persuade people otherwise. Disposing of them would help to simplify an already woefully over-complicated taxation system and, by so doing, the operational costs of that system would be reduced to the benefit of all taxpayers. As I've never gotten tired of pointing out, these "NIC" payments are unquestionably tax on income / profits by another name; they insure none of their payers against any insurable risk and are compulsory rather than contributory (in the voluntary sense), so they should be admitted to be the taxes on income / profits that they are and have always been and then absorbed into the system of general taxation on income from earnings / profits.

Good to see that Hammond's ditched the increase in them, an act which, however embarrassing to what passes for the current government, demonstrates that, for once, the left hand does seem to know what the right hand ought better not to do (with apologies to Clare of the Chancellor's ilk).

By the way, there's no such thing as a "state pension" and nor should there be; the many and varied things that government should do does not include acting as a professional pension provider and the so-called "state pension" is not and has never been a "pension" of any kind, since it is entirely different to all other pensions in which people invest into a fund for their ultimate personal (hoped-for) benefit and which can be vested by the investor at his/her discretion at a time of his/her choosing, subject to the legal provisions applicable thereto.

[Lat-Literal]

"National Insurance Contributions" - what a misnomer! I apologise in advance of what I'm about to write about them as I've said it all before, but they are a tax no different to any other taxes on earned income / profits. They should be abolished and absorbed into the general taxation system because their use is analogous to the use of funds paid into that system; there's no hypothecation such as Gordon Brown lied when seeking to persuade people otherwise. Disposing of them would help to simplify an already woefully over-complicated taxation system and, by so doing, the operational costs of that system would be reduced to the benefit of all taxpayers. As I've never gotten tired of pointing out, these "NIC" payments are unquestionably tax on income / profits by another name; they insure none of their payers against any insurable risk and are compulsory rather than contributory (in the voluntary sense), so they should be admitted to be the taxes on income / profits that they are and have always been and then absorbed into the system of general taxation on income from earnings / profits.

Good to see that Hammond's ditched the increase in them, an act which, however embarrassing to what passes for the current government, demonstrates that, for once, the left hand does seem to know what the right hand ought better not to do (with apologies to Clare of the Chancellor's ilk).

Well, Alistair, we are back in the theoretical sphere although what you prefer has been mooted. I understand it is unlikely to happen. We disagree on this point. You know that. I'm comfortable with it. People have different opinions. But I am in the odd position here of having found the Cameron Government the worst in my lifetime (and following the previous half a dozen that was quite some feat) and recognising that the current Government has an impossible job but is trying to deal with that job constructively. To my mind, the EU was an obstruction. Brexit was an obstruction. Every other party currently is an obstruction and so is half of the Tory party. I am willing to support May as far as I can. I am no fan of Hammond but I think he is carrying the can for the previous regime. Many of us have been now for nearly a decade. I will go where I sense bridge building. Divisions are so lame.

(Incidentally, those of us who believed vehemently in "Europe" since the 1970s should have argued loudly against its expansion in the 2000s - we didn't so we are where we are)

[BBMmk2]

Watch my lips - He was breaking the manifesto promise, how stupid is that?

Agreed. She was quite right and showed guts for correcting PH! Good leadership, no matter how embarrassing it was for him, The stupid boy!

[MrGongGong]

Agreed. She was quite right and showed guts for correcting PH! Good leadership, no matter how embarrassing it was for him, The stupid boy!

:laugh::laugh:
She's lying and only trying to hang on to power
Don't for one minute think any of them care at all for self-employed people least of all musicians :sadface:
At least Ken Clarke actually listens to music

Trust no one