To think the proposed NI increases for social care are unfair?

[shouldbeworkingmore]

I recognise that social care needs funding but think that this proposal unfairly targets the younger generations. Plus we already have income taxes by stealth as the thresh holds have been frozen & wage stagnation is likely to continue for the next decade.

[quote princeofpersian]@CoronaPeroni "currently on no income at all", "I'm 65 and a socialist through and through." Well, that figures. Another English person who has taken a lot more out of the system than they've put in, and who is happy to have others forced to subsidise them.[/quote]
Haha! You're hilarious and so wide of the mark. I'd fashion a reply if only my sides hadn't split laughing

I think the government needs to be very clear where money is going,

To be fair they've never once even shied away from pointing out it's going to their mates. It's hardly a state secret now.

Once again, for all the caterwauling here, it's not like we live under a totalitarian regime. We have repeatedly - over decades - democratically voted to be where we are. Which is why not much will change. Every time we've had a chance to change we have conclusively rejected it.

@sashagabadon

it should be an additional tax that everyone pays including the retired. Very unfair burden for working age if NI. I like the idea of a new 1-2 % tax on income including pension income over say a minimum amount so the burden is shared among all age groups - not just the under 65's. Retired people still gain as fewer years to pay it - and they could benefit greatly from it if it avoids them selling their home when the time comes.

It’s not the person going into retirement-home care who benefits from not selling their house. It’s their heirs, who haven’t necessarily done anything to deserve a legacy.

@DGRossetti

I think the government needs to be very clear where money is going,

To be fair they've never once even shied away from pointing out it's going to their mates. It's hardly a state secret now.

Once again, for all the caterwauling here, it's not like we live under a totalitarian regime. We have repeatedly - over decades - democratically voted to be where we are. Which is why not much will change. Every time we've had a chance to change we have conclusively rejected it.

Well, we had 13 years of Blair/Brown and very little changed then either. So who else can we vote for?

Ironically, the suggestion that pensioners might fund more of their own care is probably the thing that lost May her majority...

It’s not the person going into retirement-home care who benefits from not selling their house. It’s their heirs, who haven’t necessarily done anything to deserve a legacy.

Exactly that. And I can’t see why it’s a problem. As I said to my parents’ neighbour when he attempted to commiserate with me, they spent their lives saving for a rainy day and the time had arrived to put the umbrella up.

Hello younger generation. We are the elders who paid for your education, your medical treatments, doctors, hospitals, your libraries, your social services and so on, all the things that helped you to grow up healthy and able enough to whinge and moan about paying for others. Additionally, many of us have had our pensions raided of thousands by successive governments. Now you're whinging because, as I just heard on radio, care costs are eating into your inheritance I.e. parental homes sold to pay for their care instead of the money going straight into your bank accounts. Nauseating entitled generation.

@princeofpersian

And again, nobody asks why this is not an issue in other countries like France, Italy and Spain. The reason: there families care for each other. Hard working immigrants to the UK are sick and tired of paying to subsidise the dysfunctional family arrangements of the English.

What? Who is going to pay my mortgage and bills etc. if I look after sick family?!

Why don’t we have a like button @longwayoff?

We are the elders who paid for your education, your medical treatments, doctors, hospitals, your libraries, your social services and so on, all the things that helped you to grow up healthy and able enough to whinge and moan about paying for others.

Some of you are...

Nauseating entitled generation.

Case in point. Can I cry reverse ageism now?

@Blossomtoes

65% of people arrive at pensionable age having cost the state more than they put in

Is there any proof of that? Like, you know, evidence based statistics? Because it seems pretty unlikely to me for anyone who worked for 40-50 years in good health.

I agree, it does sound unlikely.

I'm 71 and don't think I have cost the state much, certainly not as an adult. I worked.

As a child I was in hospital three times, later on had appendicectomy, stripping of varicose veins and in patient treatment after a relatively minor accident. Oh and one hospital birth. Obviously I've been to my GP over the years (though not for a long time), paid the prescription charge before I was 60. Not on any meds and never have been long term. State pension from 60.

65% seems high. However if people need help, they should have it. That's what the welfare state is all about. I have an eighty one year old cousin with various long term conditions (mobile and does well), who has never been able to work. She'll never be rich but it's a comfort to know she doesn't have to worry about money.

Children need everything provided for them too. We want our children to be safe, happy, educated and as healthy as possible, surely, and if one of them is never able to earn money, to have no anxiety about paying rent or eating (and their parents when the kids are young).

Addendum to above: Thinking about it, I remember some very selfish attitudes in the 1990s/90s (Thatcher time), about people who cannot contribute to society should not receive, etc. That seemed to die out, thankfully. I hope it isn't back again.

@memberofthewedding

@ Mirrorxx

It shouldn’t be additional NI as retired people don’t pay NI. So yes it is once again the young having to pay

Older people have already paid for their pensions via 40+ years of taxes and work in the community. Older pensioners lived through the austerity of the 1950s with no central heating, outside toilets and queuing for food!

Show a bit of gratitude.

Not just the 50s! We lived without central heating or an inside loo in the 70s. No queuing for food thank god.

@Plumtree391

Addendum to above: Thinking about it, I remember some very selfish attitudes in the 1990s/90s (Thatcher time), about people who cannot contribute to society should not receive, etc. That seemed to die out, thankfully. I hope it isn't back again.

It's never died - in fact it's got worse.

@DGRossetti

I think the government needs to be very clear where money is going,

To be fair they've never once even shied away from pointing out it's going to their mates. It's hardly a state secret now.

Once again, for all the caterwauling here, it's not like we live under a totalitarian regime. We have repeatedly - over decades - democratically voted to be where we are. Which is why not much will change. Every time we've had a chance to change we have conclusively rejected it.

Except we haven't. More people voted for something other than this morally bankrupt shower of shite - but due to our shit voting system, we got a shit party that the minority of voters wanted.

The fact we continue to put up with FPTP and other affronts to modern democracy is the real reason nothing changes.

@Plumtree391 very few of us even cover the cost of our own birth and school education up to the age of 16 nevermind beyond that. I can't remember the figures but the "i've paid my stamp" argument might have been accurate up to the 70's when people died shortly after retiring without lots of intervention. It's not true now.

[quote JaneKing75]@Plumtree391 very few of us even cover the cost of our own birth and school education up to the age of 16 nevermind beyond that. I can't remember the figures but the "i've paid my stamp" argument might have been accurate up to the 70's when people died shortly after retiring without lots of intervention. It's not true now.[/quote]
In case anyone is interested in the actual facts rather than bollocks -

fullfact.org/economy/are-half-british-households-burden-state/

If this ageist policy is implemented, I'll be reducing my contributions to the Exchequer accordingly. At the moment I don't buy any goods or services cash in hand, though I've the opportunity. That can change.

Alternatively, if the undoubted need to better fund social care is met in a way that doesn't place the burden disproportionately on the working age, lower income population, sign me up. I'll accept paying more than I do now.

@DGRossetti

I think the government needs to be very clear where money is going,

To be fair they've never once even shied away from pointing out it's going to their mates. It's hardly a state secret now.

Once again, for all the caterwauling here, it's not like we live under a totalitarian regime. We have repeatedly - over decades - democratically voted to be where we are. Which is why not much will change. Every time we've had a chance to change we have conclusively rejected it.

I disagree, I think they are still trying to hide things, Take Hancock for an example,was upfront, he had an interest in a company, made sure he followed the rules, failed to mention the damn company was owed by his sister and I am sure if I had a bit of a think, I could probably come up with tons more examples.

One of the things a government needs to do is shut down the tax loopholes, but they won't because they use it as well

@Blossomtoes

65% of people arrive at pensionable age having cost the state more than they put in

Is there any proof of that? Like, you know, evidence based statistics? Because it seems pretty unlikely to me for anyone who worked for 40-50 years in good health.

There is plenty of information, very little in raw form as it is information that seems to be shied away from on both sides of the political spectrum. It gets very messy trying to factor in a share of services (eg a share of hospital provision, education provision, defence, policing etc.

When it comes to benefits around 40% of non retired households (note households, not individuals, which is again where lack of clarity exists across various data sets) receive more in cash benefits than they pay in tax. When you factor in pensioners that goes over 53.4% and that was pre-Covid.

The reason we have such a low level of net contributors is mostly because of our large tax free allowance, the largest in the EU by some way. Our starting rate of income taxation (effectively 34% when you combine Income Tax and National Insurance) is a bit low, but the fact that on an average income you are not paying tax on more than a third if your income is a huge factor.

fullfact.org/economy/are-half-british-households-burden-state/
www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-britain-income-tax-revenues-institute-fiscal-studies
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/

@TempsPerdu

Nauseating entitled generation.

Case in point. Can I cry reverse ageism now?

Not really. The whole thread has been bereft of empathy. If an 'oldie' wants to sarcastically reply in the same manner, well, own it!

I rarely agree with a Tory but I do think this is part of the answer to a very difficult issue to solve. It won't be enough!

@Gimlisaxe One of the things a government needs to do is shut down the tax loopholes, but they won't because they use it as well

Tax avoidance/evasion exploded under Blair/Brown. Remember the "sweatheart deals" with Vodafone and others?

HMRC themselves did a sale and leaseback deal of their own office block through a tax haven.

IR35 has caught a number of government depts!

The Government (not just the current one, but of BOTH colours) needs to get their act in order before preaching about tax evasion/avoidance of the masses!

But they promised there would be no increase at the last election!

They will of course increase NI but if anyone thinks that social care or the NHS will actually benefit then you are extremely naive.