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.

@Tealightsandd no worries, tbh it's good that nowadays with increased childcare and flexible working, single parents can earn well.

@shouldbeworkingmore

The system requires us all to pay more tax, I accept that means I have to pay more, but I am not prepared for it to be just people like me who pay more.

Imo assets need to be taxed more not just income.

You accumulate assets from income already taxed, taxes on assets are punitive.

I disagree

You accumulate assets from income already taxed, taxes on assets are punitive.

cough housing cough

Was interested today to read that a quarter of U.K. retirees live in a millionaire household. Much of that is due to absolutely unprecedented increases in housing wealth which has never been taxed, is now hoarded and, with this new policy, further protected so that these households have care paid for by all taxpayers, but a much smaller subset of taxpayers who happen to be related to them will ultimately benefit from that asset with a higher IHT threshold because it happens to be a house.

(And the Spectator arguing against the protection of housing wealth did my head in a bit. When even the Speccy says ‘hang on, this seems to be unfairly benefiting the rich’ it might be a good point to pause and reflect.)

And the Spectator arguing against the protection of housing wealth did my head in a bit. When even the Speccy says ‘hang on, this seems to be unfairly benefiting the rich’ it might be a good point to pause and reflect.)

Ha, I heard a former Tory on the radio calling it outrageous 😆

I am happy to pay more to help support our failing social care.

@Almostwelsh

Yes it's unfair as people over retirement age don't pay NI. Pensioners do pay income tax if their income is high enough. Any extra tax should go on there, or something like a land value tax.

Retired people have already paid NI contributions PLUS income tax for around 45 years. Many of us who bothered to save are still paying income tax , and we're all paying VAT.

I agree with raising NI to pay for adult social care, it has to be paid for somehow. The asset threshold does also need increasing from the very low amount it is now, given how high house prices are, seems £100k would be a good starting point.

Bear in mind too that with the rise in the State Retirement age, that many people will be liable to pay NI on earnings for longer, I'm 59 and can't retire until 67 now, as an example.

I also think there is room to 'manouevre' within the post-retirement age NI system, maybe when total income exceeds £30k, a specific NI Adult Social Care contribution could be levied?

And if they didn't work?
MIL like many women of her generation never returned to the workplace in her life after having DC at 25.

It needs to be an increase in income tax, or VAT, or something else. Not NI.

Too many people pay minimal or no NI so this extra funding is going to be a burden on too small a group of earners if funded that way.

If you're paid in dividends you avoid NI. If you're a pensioner you avoid NI. If you make your income via investments you avoid NI.

There's a good reason why the proposal is to increase NI, isn't there Rishi Sunak..?

@CalamityJaneDoe

I feel like, with the current housing crisis, inheritance should be capped at £20,000 per child. They should not be able to inherit the house but should be offered first refusal to buy the house.

The proceeds the government gets from the inheritance and the sales of homes should go straight into social housing.

This would solve two problems- social housing and the rich getting richer every generation, widening the wealth divide and further cementing class roles.

This would solve two problems- social housing and the rich getting richer every generation, widening the wealth divide and further cementing class roles. And that is why it will never happen.

(And the Spectator arguing against the protection of housing wealth did my head in a bit. When even the Speccy says ‘hang on, this seems to be unfairly benefiting the rich’ it might be a good point to pause and reflect.)

That's because it wouldn't hit the truly wealthy. They all use (legal) avoidance schemes - as they do for any tax - to avoid selling homes to pay for care.

The people affected would be those who are worried for their children and grandchildren - because unless and until there's (a lot) more social housing, inheritance is the only chance they'll get to have a secure home.

Now, if a tax on property was introduced as well as lots of social housing (and proper care and safety net for people too disabled or ill to work)...well, then it would be a good thing all round. But will that happen? I'd love to see it but won't hold my breath.

@CalamityJaneDoe

I feel like, with the current housing crisis, inheritance should be capped at £20,000 per child. They should not be able to inherit the house but should be offered first refusal to buy the house.

The proceeds the government gets from the inheritance and the sales of homes should go straight into social housing.

This would solve two problems- social housing and the rich getting richer every generation, widening the wealth divide and further cementing class roles.

Why shouldn't they inherit the house

@cptartapp

And if they didn't work? MIL like many women of her generation never returned to the workplace in her life after having DC at 25.

She did work. As a mother. If she'd gone out to an employed job, the state would have had to fund childcare, breakfast clubs, etc - often for low paid minimum wage jobs that are below tax thresholds... Also women of her generation who became SAHP, receive reduced pensions.

Good points Sofia so maybe it should be a Tax, maybe called the Social Care Levy and paid on a similar scale to Income Tax. Like Council Tax Bills, it could show as a specific Tax in Deductions or Annual Tax Calculations.

There's always winners and losers in any system - eg, Covid Payments, those that chose to limit their Tax liabilities by being paid their earnings via Dividends were losers.

The current elderly population are generally winners, but without wanting to sound crass, they are a 'dying breed'.

And as for the current working age population it seems that 'longetivity' has peaked and we're starting to die younger which, given the stresses of modern life, is hardly surprising. And very harsh of me to point this out, but Covid decimated the numbers of aged elderly requiring care didn't it?

So, we just have to suck it up I'm afraid, we get to pay now, work longer and die younger. In a nutshell, no good moaning about it.

@Tealightsandd

Agree plus his warmongering foreign policy & driving down wages

So, we just have to suck it up I'm afraid, we get to pay now, work longer and die younger. In a nutshell, no good moaning about it.

So we might as well have cake and a cigarette then... (boosts the tax coffers too).

@woodhill

Yes Blair did so much damage. Domestically and globally.

Exactly tealights, we may as well :)

@Nat6999

User1497207191 I worked in one of the HMRC offices that we were assured was owned by HMRC when we moved in that we later found out was owned by an offshore company in the Cayman Islands, I wouldn't be surprised if many more Crown properties are in the same boat.

I would have to look it up, but I am sure there was something in the 80s, were it was decided that it was more profitable to sell the building and then lease it. I can't remember exactly what it was about, but I do know the company I worked for did it and they had something like 250 buildings some prime estate, that they are now renting

I would have to look it up, but I am sure there was something in the 80s, were it was decided that it was more profitable to sell the building and then lease it. I can't remember exactly what it was about, but I do know the company I worked for did it and they had something like 250 buildings some prime estate, that they are now renting

Yeah, recent analysis by the Public Accounts Committee has shown unsurprisingly that this arrangement ended up being bad value for the taxpayer. No doubt a lot of already rich people got more money though.
As for that 80s theory - I suspect you’re thinking of Tom Peters, a business guru who suggested that your company will be less of a target for asset stripping takeovers if it doesn’t own anything - eg property. It was never about it being cheaper.

@Gimlisaxe, between the late 1980s and early 2000s, companies and individuals did lots of "sale and leaseback" deals. In the early years of Labour government, there were a ton of hospital building programmes financed via Private Finance Initiatives. They were cheap to start with, and improved/expanded facilities for the NHS, but the cost of paying back the investment made has exploded.

M&S, god bless them, for whom I did lots of well paid work in the early 1990s, traded in tons of tired freehold shops they couldn't afford to modernize properly, and lost control of the estate assets that had been acquired over 100 years.

Thanks @XingMing that sounds exactly what I am talking about, it wasn't M&S but another retail company in basically the same position.

I did look it up at the time, to find out why someone would decide to do it, but it still didn't make a lot of sense long term