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.

Plumtree391:
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.
-------
Unfortunately it is likely, people just forget what a share of everything costs, defence, policing, healthcare provision, their education as a child (unless they were an adult immigrant), government services etc.

Plumtree391:
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.
-------

Again, it depends how you attribute costs, but for most people rather than a cost for individual treatment, as we have universal healthcare you would take an adult population share of the total healthcare cost. But to give you an example a hospital birth costs the NHS around £3,500, a GP visit costs roughly £30 a time. A prescription with someone paying the charge usually costs more than the prescription due to the stupid way it is administered. Minor operations range from a thousand upwards (an appendicectomy costs the NHS around £950 if all goes well, routine follow up adds another £350).

Plumtree391:
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.
-------
I agree if people need help then society should try to help them, but the problem is society is not helping itself by having such low levels of taxation. I would much rather Germany or Norwegian levels of public services, even though it would mean paying higher taxes. Many more people making a contribution, but everyone benefitting.

Plumtree391:
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).
-------
That is the point of the welfare state, but the problem is that too many people in the UK want someone else to pay, they are not willing to put the money in themselves. There is a constant demand for more spending, but the demand is also almost as consistent that someone else pay for it.

@Imasoulman

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.

They promised a lot of stuff in the last election, Boris promised Brexit would save us £350 million a week, where it has cost us £550 million a week. They did not promise to lock us up for most of the last 18 months, but have done. They have borrowed more money than every before and that has to be paid for.

NI should be rising, Income tax should be rising, too many people seem to expect everything normal to be free, completely ignoring the billions handed out with CJRS and SEISS over the last eighteen months.

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! I think that's what @Gimlisaxe said a government not the

They have borrowed more money than every before and that has to be paid for. Of course, they needn't have bothered and, well, erm...

@MatildaIThink NI should be rising, Income tax should be rising, too many people seem to expect everything normal to be free, completely ignoring the billions handed out with CJRS and SEISS over the last eighteen months.

Actually, NI should be scrapped and income tax increased to compensate and a bit more to bring in more tax revenue. NIC is an antiquated anomaly that is long past it's sell by date. It comes from a time when most peoples' incomes were in the form of wages. Decades later, that's not the case anymore, due to limited company dividends, property rental income, foreign income, occupational pensions, etc.

As for SEISS and CJRS, I've always believed they should have been "loans" along similar lines to student loans, i.e. paid back by a small percentage of income over many years and ultimately written off. It's grossly unfair to increase taxes on people who didn't receive the grants (i.e. the 3 million excluded for a start). It should be the people who benefitted from them who make higher payments back.

@Imasoulman

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.

In case you missed it, there has been a bit of an unforeseen event since then! An event which has cost the country several hundred Billion pounds!

[quote user1497207191]**@MatildaIThink* NI should be rising, Income tax should be rising, too many people seem to expect everything normal to be free, completely ignoring the billions handed out with CJRS and SEISS over the last eighteen months.*

Actually, NI should be scrapped and income tax increased to compensate and a bit more to bring in more tax revenue. NIC is an antiquated anomaly that is long past it's sell by date. It comes from a time when most peoples' incomes were in the form of wages. Decades later, that's not the case anymore, due to limited company dividends, property rental income, foreign income, occupational pensions, etc.

As for SEISS and CJRS, I've always believed they should have been "loans" along similar lines to student loans, i.e. paid back by a small percentage of income over many years and ultimately written off. It's grossly unfair to increase taxes on people who didn't receive the grants (i.e. the 3 million excluded for a start). It should be the people who benefitted from them who make higher payments back.[/quote]
On a practical level I agree with combining NI and IT, the problem is that it will never happen as governments of all colours love saying that our starting income tax rate is "only" 20%, when in reality it is of course 34%.

With SEISS and CJRS I am not totally sure what they should have done, for many people they seem to have been excessively generous, for others they completely missed the mark.

Dividend is a difficult one because although it attracts a lower rate of taxation, for a dividend to be paid the company has already had to pay 19% corporation tax on the profit first. So the starting rate of tax on dividend is in reality 25% (although no NI is due), but it also means that the effective rate for higher rate taxpayers is 45.3% (vs 40%+NI) and for additional rate payers is 49.9% (vs 45%+NI).

I agree, it's really unfair. Young people need to vote in their droves. Nothing will change for them if they don't. Sing it from the rooftops.

@flashbac

Higher earners pay less after a certain threshold. Your maths are out.
Lower or average earners will get shafted, as per usual.

Wrong. Your understand is out, not my maths, thank you.

An increase of 1% on NI means an extra 1% on every penny over £9,580.

It doesn't make the slightest difference that the rate paid at £50k+ is lower. It's still going to go up by 1 percentage point.

It's an extra 1% off everything earned over £9,580. So no, lower earners aren't being shafted more.

If anything, higher earners are shafted as the NI rate at £50k+ is increasing to 1.5 x what it currently is (3% from 2%)

@TankFlyBossW4lk

I agree, it's really unfair. Young people need to vote in their droves. Nothing will change for them if they don't. Sing it from the rooftops.

The problem is what do they vote for? The Conservatives are a pile of self interested shite and whilst Starmer seems like a decent bloke Labour is offering no realistic solutions to the issues we face. No one else stands a chance of power and even if they did, who, whatever shuffling corpse of UKIP has been renamed as? The Greens who seem more obsessed with wokism and that and X and Y make a female than actually caring about the environment?

I agree we need a better kind of politics, but unfortunately no one is offering it and very few seem to be willing to vote for it.

[quote SofiaMichelle]@flashbac

Higher earners pay less after a certain threshold. Your maths are out.
Lower or average earners will get shafted, as per usual.

Wrong. Your understand is out, not my maths, thank you.

An increase of 1% on NI means an extra 1% on every penny over £9,580.

It doesn't make the slightest difference that the rate paid at £50k+ is lower. It's still going to go up by 1 percentage point.

It's an extra 1% off everything earned over £9,580. So no, lower earners aren't being shafted more.

If anything, higher earners are shafted as the NI rate at £50k+ is increasing to 1.5 x what it currently is (3% from 2%)[/quote]
We'll just have to disagree and move on.
Tories won't do anything to upset their base anyway so the well off don't need to worry.

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.

My thread was about NI increases though.

They need to manage the funds they have a bit better.

They are hoping to raise £6bn through breaking one of the promises they were elected on the back off, compare that to £37bn wasted on track and trace let alone all the other ridiculous contracts they handed out.

Day to day social care and the NHS will not see a penny of this, it will all go towards saving the wealthier pensioners from having to sell their property for an extra few months.

My thread was about NI increases though

It wandered away from those about 12 posts in.

[quote SofiaMichelle]@flashbac

Higher earners pay less after a certain threshold. Your maths are out.
Lower or average earners will get shafted, as per usual.

Wrong. Your understand is out, not my maths, thank you.

An increase of 1% on NI means an extra 1% on every penny over £9,580.

It doesn't make the slightest difference that the rate paid at £50k+ is lower. It's still going to go up by 1 percentage point.

It's an extra 1% off everything earned over £9,580. So no, lower earners aren't being shafted more.

If anything, higher earners are shafted as the NI rate at £50k+ is increasing to 1.5 x what it currently is (3% from 2%)[/quote]
Surely this depends on the detail - it's not unknown for an increase to only apply up to the UEL or for the increase to be different above and below the UEL. We won't really know the effect until they tell us.
That (initial 1%, now 2%) has only existed since 2003.

Social care needs rethinking, too many carehome & care agency owners are making millions from their businesses while giving poor service to their customers. Carers who used to be known as home helps when the service was run by councils are on minimum wage & often running themselves ragged working more than 12 hours a shift, they don't get paid moving from client to client, only the time they are in a client's home. Care homes & home care should all be brought back under council control. The fairest way would be 1% NIC raise for anyone earning under 100k & 2% over 100k & a super tax on companies like Amazon, Starbucks etc.

in your opinion @Blossomtoes, many people on the thread have said houses should be used to fund the care. I don't think anyone on the thread has whinged about losing out on an inheritance?

@shouldbeworkingmore

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.

My thread was about NI increases though.

My thread was about NI increases though.

The thing is it is all connected, you have to factor in taxation and contributions as a whole. Housing in real terms is five times more expensive than when my parents bough their house, food is a quarter of the price. All this relates to various generations costs of living, which relates to their ability to accumulate wealth etc. so you can not just take one thing (potential NI rises) in isolation.

[quote user1497207191]**@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![/quote]
I was careful not to say the government and say a government, because I am well aware that none of the governments in my lifetime has covered themselves in glory, most if not all were or are corrupt.

Although I do debate whether this government is the worst or they are just more open in how corrupt they are

Public money is always spent so badly to be honest - the standard of care will not improve it'll just go to plug the gaps that already exist.

Care homes & home care should all be brought back under council control

God forbid. I dread to think what the standard local authorities would deem to be appropriate would be like. If I have to go into one I want the choice that paying through the nose buys.

@MatildaIThink I'm aware it's all connected but I still dont think anyone on the thread was whinging about losing out on inheritance?

Maybe people argued IHT should be higher.

I agree that housing costs are ridiculous now, I just don't agree that the young a Nauseating entitled generation.

All this relates to various generations costs of living, which relates to their ability to accumulate wealth etc. so you can not just take one thing (potential NI rises) in isolation.

And that's why my OP said the proposal was wrong because it doesn't factor in the above.

@Nat6999

Social care needs rethinking, too many carehome & care agency owners are making millions from their businesses while giving poor service to their customers. Carers who used to be known as home helps when the service was run by councils are on minimum wage & often running themselves ragged working more than 12 hours a shift, they don't get paid moving from client to client, only the time they are in a client's home. Care homes & home care should all be brought back under council control. The fairest way would be 1% NIC raise for anyone earning under 100k & 2% over 100k & a super tax on companies like Amazon, Starbucks etc.

Care homes & home care should all be brought back under council control. My local council can not even fix the holes in the road, whilst wasting hundreds of millions on pet schemes which no one wants. My local council spent £14 million replacing traffic lights with mini-roundabouts six years ago, they have spend the last year replacing mini-roundabouts with traffic lights at a cost of £19 million. They want to build more shops and office buildings when the shops they currently own have an occupancy rate of 23% (and it was only 45% pre Covid), whilst building more offices despite enough empty office space in the town for 14,000 desks (pre-Covid). They want to divert a major road from it's current route around the edge of the town centre, and sent all the traffic down residential streets so that they can lay some turf on the old road.

If my local council is in charge of care homes when I need one I would be better off fending for myself in the wilderness.

@Blossomtoes

Care homes & home care should all be brought back under council control

God forbid. I dread to think what the standard local authorities would deem to be appropriate would be like. If I have to go into one I want the choice that paying through the nose buys.

My Grandmother spent her last couple of years in a Council run home. It was a lovely place where she was well cared for. This was before the Tory race to bottom for local Government service though of course.