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 CBUK2K2]@SevenOldLadies - Ah, the old the "wealthy" should pay. As Maggie once said: Socialism is great, but you eventually run out of other peoples money.[/quote]
Nope, was actually thinking of people with income above whatever the current lower limit for NI is - hardly “wealthy”

Also to add - if I had secured affordable housing and good schools yes I will happily pay more as these are the two biggest expenditures. But don’t expect me to sacrifice what I need now for the good of others.

100% right, also the top 1% of earners pay over 33% of all tax in the UK, yet receive exactly they same services.

Tbf the rich aren't all equal & it depends on how your money is generated eg investment income or PAYE.

I doubt there’ll ever be consensus on how to deal with this thorny issue, which is why it’s been avoided by all political parties for so long.

Slightly off message, but my FiL has to pay for his care as he’s ill with dementia -it’s the system we have at the moment whereby dementia and cancer are treated differently. It is what it is. No one should feel entitled to inherit money/property belonging to others.

However, what I do find iniquitous is that he pays 42% more in fees as a self-funder than a LA placed resident with the same needs.

We only know this due to an admin error when he first went to the home (a charity, so they’re not trying to profit from residents) and discovered that the LA was being asked to pay £42k p.a. When the error was realised (we flagged it), we were told his fees as a self-funder were £72k p.a.

I don’t think this is fair. Both self-funder and LA should pay the same.

What I find bizarre is that he still receives the winter fuel allowance despite not having any energy bills to pay!

I am a pensioner and don't pay NI anymore but would be happy to pay a bit more tax to help with social care or the NHS .

I'd like to see euthanasia legalised.

With the option to decide before dementia hits.

I categorically do not want to live in a nursing home, sat in an incontinence pad and not knowing my family anymore. Nor do I want to be ravaged by a cancer.

We keep folk alive far too long imo.

Well it depends exactly how you factor things in, because those rich pensioners will then pass that wealth onto their children of course less the horrific amount of death tax to be paid first. So it all goes in circles anyway.

So children who already benefited from having better-off parents benefit even more by getting that inheritance, while a regressive NI tax disproportionately penalises those without that inherited wealth.

As for 'horrific' - it's not the 1950s. £500,000 tax-free threshold if you're passing on your home to your kids. And 40% above that.

Meanwhile, people who earn more than £50k in a year have to pay 40% on anything above that threshold, so you'll forgive me if I don't weep for those who have to pay a real tax rate of, say, 15% on an £800,000 windfall.

We are sadly not in the position demographically that we were when today's retirees were in the core of the working age population. We have a huge affordability issue here as people live longer, with more complex needs in that extra time. It's great they're living longer but placing a greater burden on generations that have already lost out in other ways (tuition, housing affordability, etc) is not a straight fix. A progressive tax should be the long term solution but in the short term, looking at affordability and unearned wealth as well as tax on all, not just those of working age, probably needs to come into play if it isn't going to be a horrifically regressive system.

Please remember that those houses which will be now be included for Inheritance Tax were paid for out of TAXED earnings. As we did. Our investments and our little inheritances from our parents were also accrued from AFTER tax income.
Double taxation seems like the result of the politics of envy, that is the Labour Party policy.

I think it's unfair because many of the lowest paid will be affected. NI starts being paid by employees when they earn over about £9.5k pa, but income tax isn't payable start until people earn over £12,750.

I believe there is also an upper limit beyond which NI is not payable, around £50kpa. Those earning the most wouldn't have to pay any more on income over that level. Big caveat here though, that may no longer be the case.

I think it would be more equitable to put income tax up, but the Tories will never do that as wealthy pensioners are usually Tory voters, and they won't want to piss them off. Plus of course, working people over pension age don't pay NI anyway.

And I say that as a tax-paying, working pensioner - one of the rare Labour voting ones!

You may have paid income tax on the money to buy your hone But until you are taxed cgt on house price gains I have no qualms with IHT being it’s current rate - or higher

@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.

I can only speak for Italy, but what usually happens here is the old person goes into a home run by religiy orders, so it's relatively cheap. Or else a live in "badante" is hired. Invariably a poorly paid single woman from Romania or Albania. She'll be paid cash in hand. Gone are the days when Italy was a Dolmio advert with 3 generations all living under the same roof.

As Maggie once said: Socialism is great, but you eventually run out of other peoples money.
A typical trite over-simplification for the populist hard of thinking. What a truly unpleasant piece of work she was.

Please remember that those houses which will be now be included for Inheritance Tax were paid for out of TAXED earnings.

Of the deceased person, not the person getting the house.

Most taxed income is money on which the previous owner of that money paid tax. Should I not have to pay tax on my salary because our customers had already paid tax on the money they used to buy our products? I mean, the products were paid for out of TAXED earnings.

@LakieLady

I think it's unfair because many of the lowest paid will be affected. NI starts being paid by employees when they earn over about £9.5k pa, but income tax isn't payable start until people earn over £12,750.

I believe there is also an upper limit beyond which NI is not payable, around £50kpa. Those earning the most wouldn't have to pay any more on income over that level. Big caveat here though, that may no longer be the case.

I think it would be more equitable to put income tax up, but the Tories will never do that as wealthy pensioners are usually Tory voters, and they won't want to piss them off. Plus of course, working people over pension age don't pay NI anyway.

And I say that as a tax-paying, working pensioner - one of the rare Labour voting ones!

I believe there is also an upper limit beyond which NI is not payable, around £50kpa. Those earning the most wouldn't have to pay any more on income over that level. Big caveat here though, that may no longer be the case. It hasn't been the case since 2003 When Gordon Brown introduced a rate of 1% from the UEL upwards. It's now 2%.

Of course really wealthy people like the current government get paid via dividends so don't pay any NI at all - another reason they want to jack up NI not income tax.

@Georgie8, the reason your dad pays more self funded is that he is required to subsidise the LA residents' costs.

As Maggie once said: Socialism is great, but you eventually run out of other peoples money.
Incidentally, did you know that taxation rose overall in terms of actual take and as a proportion of GDP over the course of Thatcher's rule? Absolutely typical of her to say one thing but do another.

It's how care homes can afford to charge the LAs less.

Why should I only get a 25% discount on counil tax when a family of 4 adults next door gets it cheaper per person?
@HarrietOh because some of the council tax is per property, not per person. For example, your house is the same size so the same amount of rain falls on your property and you are putting the same amount of water into the drainage system as the 4 people next door. You have the same number of bins as the 4 people next door. If your house catches fire you’ll need the same number of fire engines as the 4 people next door. If you’re burgled you’ll need the same number of police as the 4 people next door. Etc.

@Geamhradh and @princeofpersian
Exactly so. I sympathise. Recently we have seen Threads about 16 year olds being parents whilst living at home and their parents accepting it as a 'rite of passage' and expecting that the baby will be financed by The State.
I do not expect shame but I dislike that the family shrugs it's collective shoulders and disclaims responsibility. It is the family's job to finance the actions of their promiscuous children.

They should be looking at the massive profit these companies are making. They use minimal everything. Cheapest food from cheapest provider. Cheapest cleaning materials. Cheapest furniture. Minimum wage staff and why employ the number you need when you can halve the staff and pound them into the ground. My care home doesn't even provide basic toiletries. Each resident pays just shy of a grand a week (100 beds and not far off full). Where is all of that money going? Shareholders pockets. That's where.

Another age bashing post, the elderly have paid NI for all their working lives to pay for their pensions and the NHS for their elderly population, people tend to forget that many started work at 16 so often have a head start on the younger generation.

@Carboncheque

How about it going onto council tax? As it’s local authorities who pay for social care. That way it would charge everyone, including the elderly, according to their means (council tax bands are based on house value.)

I already pay £1,500 a year thanks, after the 25% single occupier discount, for my tiny 2-bed house. It's one of the reasons I can't afford to retire. Even with the reduction I'd be entitled to as a pensioner, it would still be £90 a month. I pay the same as people in my road who've extended their houses to the point where they have 5 bedrooms and an extra living room or two.

Council tax needs to be abolished and replaced with a local income tax imo.

@Whycangirlsbesonasty

You may have paid income tax on the money to buy your hone But until you are taxed cgt on house price gains I have no qualms with IHT being it’s current rate - or higher

If you're regarding IHT as justified by house price inflation, does it not seem a bit unfair that a, say, £400,000 house in the SE whose owner paid very little for it is taxed the same as one in the N, where there's been much less house price inflation, and whose owner paid a lot more for it?

[quote CBUK2K2]@Ajl46 100% right, also the top 1% of earners pay over 33% of all tax in the UK, yet receive exactly they same services.[/quote]
Do they? Is there some evidence for that? Only 25% of tax revenue comes from income tax.

But the property met their needs at one point and doesn't now. The most obvious thing to do is release the property back into the pool for those who need it.
There isn’t a shortage of large properties at the top end of the market. Large properties often take quite some time to sell - many people would love to live there but they can’t afford to. Forcing older people to sell their house doesn’t mean a family will be able to buy it. In fact older people and people who don’t have kids are much more likely to afford that house compared to a family.