Social Care – or not

The announced ‘solution’ to the care crisis really couldn’t be any worse.

National Insurance (NI) with its start at a rate lower than income tax and a rate on the highest income of nil is demonstrably regressive.

The fact that companies and employers will have to pay this NI as well and just after a pandemic at a time when most of their finances are fragile to say the least, is highly dangerous for commercial prosperity – or even existence. It is indeed an actual additional tax on jobs – just at the wrong moment. Still Johnson said f*** business – and he has, again.

The alleged hypothecation of NI is for the birds – as it can be legally abolished at any time – without abolishing the NI itself.

The fact that, we are told, the money will go first to the NHS is clever marketing but clearly unnecessary – government already has created into existence £37 billion for test and trace – no tax rises were required.

Meanwhile of course that Brexit bus:

suggested that the NHS was due for a major boost as a result of Brexit. Indeed it was literally Vote Leave’s signature promise.

So far, having left the EU, that should have been about £12bn.

The NHS is getting, it seems, less than half that – pandemic or not – and only with a tax rise.

So it is all a complete sham.

We are really and definitely not talking about whether older people who need care should keep housing wealth at the expense of younger people.

The way it is designed to work is, remarkably, that some young people will inherit housing wealth at the expense of other young people. We are literally asking people in general to pay more tax so that privileged children can inherit expensive houses. Pretty much the exact opposite of what the state should be doing.

I fear that Keir Starmer, in saying that “The Tories can never again claim to be the party of low tax” while he certainly has a point, has missed most of the fundamentals.

We are being deceived and gaslit to pay, ourselves, for the basic care that the modern state was created to provide.

In fact the state, as a result of its existence, actually creates those self-same resources itself…

When – oh when – will the electorate understand?


  1. Schofield -

    It’s hopeless many think it’s all about socialists spending other peoples’ money. As though everyone in the UK has a money printing press in their closet! What a brain dead country!

    1. Peter May -

      I fear I have, depressingly, to agree

  2. Schofield -

    What can you say about a country where a major middle of the road newspaper employs a chief economics editor who’s made a lifetime career of denying a country’s medium of exchange is created from nothing by government and licenced banks and that taxes and treasury bonds are used to regulate the economy not fund government spending.

    “Labour does not believe in modern monetary theory (MMT), the idea that a government can spend as much as it wants, inflation permitting, provided it can print the money in its own currency. (Corbyn briefly flirted with MMT but soon went off the idea.)”

    Even further said economics editor believes the world should go back to the gold standard without understanding the value of all the gold ever mined is only a very small fraction of all the value of transactions that take place globally every year! So much so you would need to carry a microscope to identify a speck of gold as a very large value unit of currency!

    “Tricky Dicky didn’t know it in 1971 but 50 years on his decision has led to a world of volatile financial markets, geopolitical tension, inflated asset prices underwritten by low interest rates and QE, and where trust in central banks is starting to wear a bit thin. In the circumstances, it is perhaps easy to understand why governments have decided to hold on to their remaining gold stocks.”

Write a reply or comment Comments Policy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *