Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 287 total)
  • Have we done the potential hike in N.I. payments?
  • Premier Icon doomanic
    Full Member

    What are people’s thoughts on this? I understand that there’s a huge bill waiting to be paid but it’s going to hit the poorest the hardest.

    Premier Icon whatyadoinsucka
    Free Member

    long overdue, but timing, not great

    i’m sure i already pay a precept for social care in my council tax bill

    Premier Icon verses
    Full Member

    Sorted…

    Premier Icon PJM1974
    Free Member

    Although we’re seeing tax on share dividends hiked by a similar amount, what we really need to see is a proper wealth tax applied – the gap between assets and real wages has grown to insurmountable levels so it’s highly likely that future generations won’t have equity to put into social care.

    Dare I say it, we also need to see the social care sector either nationalised or reorganised on a local council basis with a proper pay structure put in place for care workers – would you rather wipe bottoms for the NMW or go and work in an Amazon warehouse for twelve quid an hour? We have to find a shortfall of 115,000 care workers, build an industry with prospects and sustainability.

    Premier Icon P-Jay
    Free Member

    Honestly, I think it could end Boris as PM, which is insane given all that has gone before, but I believe it.

    Backbench Tories won’t like it because it’s an increase in taxation, Income Tax / NI it all goes in the same pot. Anyone in Cabinet who wants his job will see it as a way to stick a knife in.

    His base won’t take long to remember that Bus and it’s promise to give the NHS £350m a week.

    Labour won’t like it because, well they’re in opposition and they’re not supposed to, but fundamentally it’s going to be felt by lowest earners. Bear in mind that whilst income tax jumps from 20% to 40% at £50k, NI actually drops 10% at about the same income, which actually makes the two rates far closer than they seem to be. NI hasn’t be earmarked for ‘care’ or whatever for decades, it’s just a less obvious tax.

    Labour voters will hate it because it’s a tax the rich simply don’t pay.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    PJM makes good points, especially regarding tax. This needs to be tax funded rather than NI funded.

    I’ve no issue with people with assets using them to cover care costs if they can. You can’t take it with you, as it will hopefully enable the publicly funded care budget go further. I say that watching MrsMC calculating how many more months the proceeds of the house sale will provide care for her mum. I also know that it’s anathema to my parents who have worked and saved hard all their lives to enjoy their retire and hopefully leave me a legacy, but I’d sooner they used it all up on proper care when they (soon) need it and just leave me enough to organise a funeral.

    Premier Icon blurty
    Full Member

    (Personally, I’m close to retirement)

    It seems completely wrong that the young are going to prop up & pay for services for the old, especially coming off the back of Covid lock-downs; primarily aimed at protecting the old to the detriment of the young.

    I would prefer to see social services like care for the elderly to be funded locally, with a combination of local income tax + asset tax.

    Premier Icon ransos
    Free Member

    NI is possibly the least equitable way of providing the necessary funding.

    Premier Icon PJM1974
    Free Member

    His base won’t take long to remember that Bus and it’s promise to give the NHS £350m a week.

    Quite – no doubt some bore will be along in a minute to say “no-one really expected the Tories to hand over an extra £350m a week to the NHS”, the truth of the matter is that people really did expect exactly that, especially in view of the empty shelves and food inflation that we’re seeing.

    This is a gift to Labours & the Lib Dems who could counter that a tax on banker bonuses, assets over £1m and earnings over £500k per annum should be levied so that those who stand to live out their retirements in relative comfort should pay their dues to the state.

    Meanwhile, we see this – Earnings vs House Prices since 1970. Either homes should be seen as an investment and be affordable for the majority, or we should go the way of having a rental economy and a proper state funded social care scheme.

    Premier Icon big_n_daft
    Free Member

    What are people’s thoughts on this? I understand that there’s a huge bill waiting to be paid but it’s going to hit the poorest the hardest.

    If labour get into power they can change the funding mechanism

    The problem they will have is voting against the funding gifts the conservatives a message that labour tried to stop increased money in social care.

    But Starmer is an establishment stooge etc etc

    Premier Icon scruff9252
    Free Member

    Call me a cynic but I can see the tories rolling out this tax hike, only to reverse it shortly afterwards. They will do this because they can say quite strongly that society do not value the NHS as they are unwilling to pay for it and therefore accelerate the selling off of the NHS to their mates.

    Secondly, am I correct in reading that the NI tax hike is nationwide, but the increase in spending is only in England?

    Premier Icon brian2
    Full Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
    Successive misuse of the funds raised are not the fault of the old, maybe if some of the young got off their backsides and voted for change and accountability things could improve.

    Premier Icon FuzzyWuzzy
    Full Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
    Successive misuse of the funds raised are not the fault of the old, maybe if some of the young got off their backsides and voted for change and accountability things could improve.

    It’s not that simple though, the population is ageing so the ‘burden’ of social care costs are increasing and no government has wanted to tackle the issue (as taxing people that can’t see beyond their own pay cheque isn’t a vote winner).

    I’m sort of surprised Boris is trying it now (although not surprised he’s trying to do it via NI which, as others have said, is unfair). I guess he wants a legacy and figured the Tory majority would guarantee it working but surely he’s not dim-witted enough to have forgotten about all the backstabbers within the party (as he was one of them) and all the grief they’ll cause him

    Premier Icon 5lab
    Free Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,

    they haven’t paid enough though – the funding should have been building up a backlog of money ready to pay for this. It didn’t, and that’s no fault of old people themselves, but *someone* needs to pay, and having this as income tax (which wealthy pensioners pay towards) not NI (which they don’t) seems like it’d be fairer.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    It seems completely wrong that the young are going to prop up & pay for services for the old, especially coming off the back of Covid lock-downs; primarily aimed at protecting the old to the detriment of the young.

    Genuine curiosity, were similar arguments made when the state pension was rolled out? Its essentially funded by those (younger) still in work?

    We all know that social care – for children, young adults and the elderly, remember – needs properly funding to attract the right number and quality of staff and make it fit for purpose. So does the NHS.

    The argument is how to fund it fairly and adequately, both now and in the future. Everyone entitled to use it needs to contribute based on ability to pay, through some combination of taxation and sale of assets, either while alive or recovered from their estate.

    Premier Icon finbar
    Free Member

    Secondly, am I correct in reading that the NI tax hike is nationwide, but the increase in spending is only in England?

    Impossible under the terms of the devolution settlements – any extra spend in England will inarguably get Barnetted, i.e. devolved governments’ budgets will increase.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.

    Ok boomer

    If they didn’t spend all their bloody money on ashes avocado on toast….etc, etc…

    Premier Icon PJM1974
    Free Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.

    Actually, this is a subject fairly close to home for me, my father is paying £1,100 per week for residential care and has had to sell his home to pay for it.

    As you can see here, home ownership is out of the question for many people. Graduates are saddled with tuition fees – what used to be paid for from our tax is now subject to an interest rate in excess of 5% here.

    So we expect young people to work for less money, with virtually no accessibility to affordable housing, with debts to pay for qualifications demanded by industry (and again, no doubt there will be a wag bollocking on about how Media Studies isn’t of value to society, a sentiment that they read in the Daily Mail or Sun).

    In addition, defined benefit pension schemes have long since closed, so retirees have benefitted hugely from something that simply won’t be an option for young(er) people.

    Finally, we’re not talking about slapping an extra tax on everyone. I do believe that the very wealthy – who’ve directly benefitted from a pool of poorly paid labour, from massive house price inflation, from tax cuts that have had a real impact upon public services and from final salary pension schemes – really ought to be taxed on the value of their assets.

    Premier Icon thegeneralist
    Full Member

    His base won’t take long to remember that Bus and it’s promise to give the NHS £350m a week.

    Quite – no doubt some bore will be along in a minute to say “no-one really expected the Tories to hand over an extra £350m a week to the NHS”, the truth of the matter is that people really did expect exactly that, especially in view of the empty shelves and food inflation that we’re seeing.

    Totally disagree. His base is either self serving rich people who don’t GAS about anyone less well off than themselves or terminally stupid $^$@ers who couldn’t understand rational thought and economy if it slapped then in the face. As long as Bojo quotes a bit of Latin at them and tells them that actually they’re not pigshit thick %#@^& they’re really perceptive, clever and taking back control then they’ll continue to vote for him.

    I can’t believe anyone can have lived through the last 2 years, and the recent elections and genuinely have any respect for the average British voter whatsoever

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    I think it’s terrible for all the reasons listed. Some ways off the top of my head to make it more equitable are

    Expand NI so the pensioners pay it at the same earnings basis as everyone else.
    Make dividends subject to NI
    Make the sale of your house subject to CGT (that covers at least part of the wealth taxation issue)
    Make inheritance payable by the recipient (rather than estate) as income in the year received.

    Also what is wrong with selling your home, assuming you’re not going to be living there, to pay for your care? Otherwise what is it but a taxpayer subsidy for the recipients of your estate?

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    As the Labour Party appear to either be on holiday or now disbanded or something, it was left to one of the ‘Red Wall’ Tory’s to summarise:

    Jake Berry, leader of the Northern Research Group of Conservative MPs, said he did not think it was reasonable for people in his constituency – more likely to be on lower wages than those in affluent southern England seats – to have to pay more tax to support those who simply want to “keep hold of their houses in other parts of the country where house prices may be much higher”.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Full Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,

    That’s not how it works.

    I’m happy with the increase if it was spent wisely, I won’t be happy with the increase.

    Premier Icon mikeyp
    Full Member

    As above the idea that “I’ve paid tax all my life” means I should get social care is not how the system has been (under) funded. This is the problem. Until social care is integrated into the NHS very little will change.

    Premier Icon blitz
    Full Member

    It’s clear that there are other much more progressive ways of funding this if fairness is your goal. But that’s obviously not the goal of this government or it’s major donors so it’s hardly a surprise, as depressing as that is.

    Premier Icon whatyadoinsucka
    Free Member

    current pensioners are arguably the richest pensioners will ever be, final salary pensions and massive gains on property. and when they say they paid NI all their lives, that money goes no were near the amount required to fund them in oldage.

    when i retire in 22-27 years i’ll be on a private pension, which for the contributions 22%, i’ll likely get 10-15% of my current wage. hardly worth bothering,
    but i’ll be better off than not having a pension ..

    seems a ponsy scheme / stack of cards about to fall

    Premier Icon moonsaballoon
    Full Member

    Also what is wrong with selling your home, assuming you’re not going to be living there, to pay for your care? Otherwise what is it but a taxpayer subsidy for the recipients of your estate?

    Nothing on the face of it but the richer you are the less this seems to be a problem . The wealthiest seem to be able to use their wealth to ensure that their kids inherit the majority if not all of their wealth . I’d quite like to leave my 3 bedroom semi to my kids , otherwise what’s the point of working 40 hours a week for 45 years if it’s not to give your kids a better life .

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    Should have been income tax really, but other than that, I’m OK with it.

    Also what is wrong with selling your home, assuming you’re not going to be living there, to pay for your care? Otherwise what is it but a taxpayer subsidy for the recipients of your estate?

    The real issue is it polls very badly with voters who see leaving their house to their children as a God given right (even ones without a house to leave). Hence, no government dares touch inheritence tax. Barking mad situation IMO.

    They also chose NI over Income tax as it polled better as most voters mistakenly believe NI is ring fenced for NHS and social security.

    Premier Icon timbog160
    Full Member

    I’m ok with it, and also with removal of triple lock, although initially only temporarily I understand.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    I’m ok with it, and also with removal of triple lock, although initially only temporarily I understand.

    The % hike this next year (or this year) is CV-19 anomoly anyway, so skipping it makes sense.

    Although many pensioners only have the state pension to rely on and are far from rich. The gold plated final salary pensions only cover a modest percentage of people.

    Premier Icon big_n_daft
    Free Member

    Graduates are saddled with tuition fees – what used to be paid for from our tax is now subject to an interest rate in excess of 5% here.

    Except it acts like a tax not debt, and it’s progressive in that those earning more pay more. There is even a threshold to stop low earners paying any tuition fees. The 5% just stops the high earners paying it off too fast.

    Premier Icon Gribs
    Full Member

    They will do this because they can say quite strongly that society do not value the NHS as they are unwilling to pay for it and therefore accelerate the selling off of the NHS to their mates.

    All the money raised will end up with their mates in the first instance to “reduce waiting lists”.

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Full Member

    Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,

    Yea that’s never been the case.

    My grandparents paid NI so that a handful of people at the time could retire at 60/65 and have a short retirement. Life expectancy for men born in the 1930’s was 58*!

    They actually retired at 55 (police) and have lived quite happily on their pension for 35+ years.

    I don’t begrudge them, they played the hand they were dealt. But in no way have they even come close to having “paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions“.

    *not sure if the war is included in that stat.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    Although many pensioners only have the state pension to rely on and are far from rich. The gold plated final salary pensions only cover a modest percentage of people

    The staggering stat they quoted on Channel 4 news last night was that once you account for housing costs, pensioners now have higher average incomes than those in work

    That’s utterly insane!

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    The staggering stat they quoted on Channel 4 news last night was that once you account for housing costs, pensioners now have higher average incomes than those in work

    Problem with averages and stats that it hides the fact you have some very poor pensioners who are by no means well off and whose standard of living really needs the triple lock. You also have others on 6 figure final salary pensions who don’t even notice the state pension in their bank account…..

    Plus it all stinks of a set one group off against another in a race to the bottom.

    Premier Icon PJM1974
    Free Member

    Except it acts like a tax not debt, and it’s progressive in that those earning more pay more. There is even a threshold to stop low earners paying any tuition fees.

    There are repayment thresholds, however it should not be confused with a Graduate Tax. Way back when I didn’t go to university, we had grants available from local authorities, now there are barriers in place so that less well off graduates have to load themselves heavily in debt.

    Semantics aside, we’re asking our graduates to pay back loans to cover what otherwise would’ve been covered by the state. We’re also asking them to find way much more cash for their first homes too and now we’re asking for more NIC.

    The 5% just stops the high earners paying it off too fast.

    Cause and effect – high income earning graduates paying the full whack of interest does indeed mean that they pay more.

    “Ministers, and those in thinktanks, would do well to remember that even lower-earning graduates already spend most of their 30s and 40s paying effective tax rates of over 40%.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    Plus it all stinks of a set one group off against another in a race to the bottom.

    That ship sailed quite some time ago, but got a real rocket up it’s arse because of you-know-what in 2016

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    because of you-know-what in 2016

    Yes, Bowies death has had huge repercussions….

    Premier Icon PJM1974
    Free Member

    That ship sailed quite some time ago, but got a real rocket up it’s arse because of you-know-what in 2016

    So much this.

    Premier Icon zippykona
    Full Member

    Don’t forget to email your Tory MP asking why the 350 million isn’t enough.

    Premier Icon DickBarton
    Full Member

    Haven’t read after seeing this but it may already have been picked up but…

    Successive misuse of the funds raised are not the fault of the old, maybe if some of the young got off their backsides and voted for change and accountability things could improve.

    If the old have voted properly when they were young then the young wouldn’t be reading that comment and rolling their eyes as another old person (I’ve no idea if Brian is old or not, but the comment suggests he is likely to be) dictating what should be done as they didn’t do it themselves…everyone should be voting for change so the change can be better for everyone – young and old, healthy and sick, not-so-well-off and well-off.

    I’m all for taxing the well-off higher if it helps everyone. I always get concerned that these kind of things always appear to leave the well-off with plenty in their pockets and the not-so-well-off with less in their pockets. I’m not suggesting we strip all wealth away from well-off people but the system should be taxing them far higher than they are.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 287 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.