Gutted about NI rise

[CarryOnNurse20]

I know we need it and we have so much money to pay off. But we have been scrimping and saving after a hard couple of years. Every penny is accounted for from pay day to pay day. I’m a nurse and my pay has been capped/below inflation my whole career. And now the NI rise means any savings etc we have made will now be gone. I’m gutted.

It would be fairer because everyone with income over the tax threshold would pay, regardless of whether they were working or retired @VanGoghsDog

@user1471505494

Just who do you think should pay. Social care needs to be sorted and paid for. Boris might have said he wouldn’t raise taxes or NI but that was before this awful pandemic when nearly every sector in society has demanded money because they are all special cases. Boris is not a magician able to pull large amounts of money out thin air, neither are the other political leaders who seem very short of ideas themselves

They seem to do it for a lot of other things, HS2, that bridge thing in London, track and trace.

Whenever its one of their friends, they seem to get money from the magic money tree.

@lllllllllll

I’m sorry - I misread that post as a similar one of mine and I got really angry because it’s a horrible, horrible accusation to make to anyone. I got it wrong, and I’m sorry.

@JassyRadlett you're right - kicking an old person out of their home to fund their social care is abhorrent. But there are people who think that's perfectly acceptable. I'm glad you're not one of them.

Worth noting though that I do support the idea of housing wealth being used to pay for care, if it's done properly and sensitively, with the government providing bridging liquidity until the house is no longer occupied by the occupier, their spouse or their true dependents.

I don't buy the idea that houses are sacrosanct. If I lose my job now and can't get another, we'd have to sell our house. That's fine, and we'd still be a fuckload better off than most folk because we have a large amount of equity thanks to asset increases over the last decade and our own repayments. If I need a lot of care in my old age, again I think my housing equity should contribute to that, to be paid when I and my husband no longer need the house.

My kids are lovely but they've already won by being born into a relatively well-off family with relatively secure housing. It's natural to want them to inherit, but not at the cost of someone without their advantages.

I also think lower paid workers should be exempt. But that would be difficult to administer I suppose.

@lllllllllll well no because it does seem to be a common ‘thread’ running through the elderly - proved by the fact they overwhelmingly vote conservative and are happy to watch us being taxed and slashed time and time and time again

If the elderly had a true understanding of what we are going through, and cared, they wouldn’t vote Tory would they

Just to mention a few points:
Nearly half of the social care budget goes to working age people - those with disability or illness requiring care. They are usually fully funded as they have few or no assets.
So it is not just elderly people who require social care.
Currently every one young or old (unless they are on benefits) pays tax on their income above the personal allowance
The proposal to make people who are working after retirement age to pay NIs is to be welcomed. If retired people are not working - no NI is paid.
Sadly I think there will be cries from the perpetually offended that it is unfair. Depends where you sit on the rich scale and your anticipation of inheritance from your parents, in-laws.
I do however, resent the extra money going to the devolved countries - who already benefit from the Barnett formula (introduced years ago as a temporary measure. )

@thecatsthecats

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think it bizarre that older people expect to hang onto their homes as well as take up a new home in a social care setting.

I will only need one home when I'm older, and care also. Having an asset I can sell to fund that is perfectly logical. Sad, but then so is lots of stuff associated with aging. You're entitled to be sad, but expecting to pass on thousands and have your care funded is taking the piss.

Bring on euthanasia. I want the freedom to die, and to live well before that.

(caveat, yes yes, lots of different circumstances etc)

With you all the way on this, including elective euthanasia.

The obsession with passing on accumulated wealth and assets to children is something I've never understood. Why does anyone, by default, EXPECT to inherit from their parents? I certainly don't and I don't care if my parents - with whom I have a great relationship, btw - leave all their cash and assets to the local cat's home, my siblings, third-cousins-twice-removed or the milkman. I'm not 'well off', either, and my parent's 'wealth', whilst probably fairly decent, has never been something I've automatically considered as my birthright.

It's almost as if the forelock tugging British cannot help but try to make themselves feel part of the nobility by rubbing their hands with glee over the idea of 'inheritance', in however small a way. Just another example in a litany of cultural phenomena that often leaves me feeling apart from an accident of birth rendering me 'English', I suppose (in the same way that being accused of being 'unpatriotic' made me feel nothing but a sort of low-level relief).

The effect of this is that most people with a house will have to pay 100% of their care and the state will not help by way of even a penny (as most people don't need more than £86k worth of care - and you have to pay all that yourself), despite having to pay 1% extra NI from age 18 to 70!!!
Whereas those who never work a day in their life pay nothing and those who do work but have no savings pay the extra NI pay nothing other than that for the care. As ever the harder workers and higher earner savers are shafted and the idle and lazy benefit from the hard work of others.

How do other parts of Europe pay for social care? Could we learn from them?

@Claudethecat

All he cares about us hanging on to his older voters and making it look as off he hasn’t increased taxes

Yep.

How is that different to Blair and Brown who increased NIC by 2% during their reign, whilst leaving income tax rates unchanged?

Claud I believe in Germany your adult children have a financial obligation to help pay for parents. That is kind of the culture too of most other cultures never mind what most of us naturally do anyway with those whom we love. I would prefer it.

@BoredZelda

“Everyone else should pay for this, except me” is pretty much the flavour of the response here. I’ve just had a really small pay rise, half of which will pay for this increase. They could take the other half if they like. Sure, they need to make sure the lowest paid aren’t impacted, but people here saying they will be 50 quid a month worse off, that means you are earning around 3k a month. If you begrudge giving 50 quid to pay for social care, your priorities are out of whack.

I don’t mind paying extra for this, but what I do mind is it only being the working population being hit. We are the generation hardest hit by house prices, student loans and general high cost of living. Why aren’t pensioners, on guaranteed high pensions being hit too? What about the wealthy who don’t have to work? This isn’t fair.

No issue with Boris raising taxes but it should be for the higher earners only (and I say it as a high earner myself). Would take a significant tax rise for this, completely the right thing to do.

Perhaps an unpopular opinion alert.

I do think we need to increase NI for working age people with a view to going on their care in the future.

The problem is that health and social care costs over someone's lifetime have increased in relative terms as we live longer and our health care has become more complex and costly as a result.

We pay less per head on health than many other Western European countries and this shows.

The rise is long overdue imho.

In addition to that we also have the fall out financially on the NHS from covid.

HOWEVER

And this is where I put some of this into context.

Young people will over the course of their life times put more money into the system than they get out to subsidise then their older relatives even before this. Those over 65 will take more from the system than they have put in over the course of their life time.

This also needs to be rectified and there needs to be a rebalancing in the system.

Therefore I strongly support another controversial decision - axing the triple lock.

People over 65 are much much more likely to be home owners than the young. They financially are in relative terms much better off than their younger relatives even though they have retired. They dont need as much support from the state for other things compared to the young simply because they have the assets and have benefitted most from equity gains on assets. They should be taking up some of the short-fall from what they will cost society rather than passing it on the future generations.

And yes, inheritance does need to be tinkered with.

I would also say there needs to be uplift at the bottom of the pay scale too, so that the poorest workers aren't disportionately putting in more and that those pensioners who are in genuine poverty aren't particularly badly hit.

The basic problem is the entire taxation structure needs an overhaul to reflect todays demographics and needs. No one has been brave enough to do this yet.

So in theory I'm ok with the change provided other changes to rebalance the whole system is also done.

I don't think hitting income tax would necessarily be sufficient to do this (especially since the ultra wealthy can either off shore or have good accountants). It has to be more than that. It has to take into account the issue with housing equity which younger generations will never get the benefit of.

Equally i dont think you can take social care out of assets for those who need it only. The 'dementia tax' was a nuts idea that didn't solve the problem either.

There isn't a simple solution here. Taxation has to be raised to cover our health and social care costs. There isnt a way around it. (Other than putting people down...) Everyone is going to be unhappy at paying more at some point. And we all SHOULD be paying more tax.

(Also the gap between executive pay and workers needs to be addressed. But thats an entirely different argument).

Johnson in deciding to do some addressing of the social care issue is at least taking one of those difficult decisions which frankly should have been done 20 or 30 years ago but subsequent governments have been too chicken to address. Especially when he has complaints that the electorate won't like it. Something does need to be done. Its a complex issue and frankly I think the revenue needs to come from multiple sources (including big business and ultra wealthy too). I am hoping this is the first of several steps and announcements. If its the only step, I think its deeply problematic.

(I told you it was a controversial opinion!!)

Good point above - if elderly person has moved into a care home, they don’t need the house so why can’t it be sold. I must admit there is a perverse IHT rule allows the transfer of a house from parent to child to be IHT free if done on death, but not before, meaning homes lying empty for a few years sometimes to save on IHT.

@Xenia

The effect of this is that most people with a house will have to pay 100% of their care and the state will not help by way of even a penny (as most people don't need more than £86k worth of care - and you have to pay all that yourself), despite having to pay 1% extra NI from age 18 to 70!!! Whereas those who never work a day in their life pay nothing and those who do work but have no savings pay the extra NI pay nothing other than that for the care. As ever the harder workers and higher earner savers are shafted and the idle and lazy benefit from the hard work of others.

So you don't think lower earners (care home workers for example) work hard?

We could massively learn from northern europe, claude, but the usual suspects call it socialism.

It's almost as if the forelock tugging British cannot help but try to make themselves feel part of the nobility by rubbing their hands with glee

Oh stop it. Ridiculous comments like this just detract from your argument.

@BrozTito

We could massively learn from northern europe, claude, but the usual suspects call it socialism.

God forbid! Wash your mouth out Broz!

Should be more tax on assets. Capital Gains Tax should be increased to same level as income tax. Tories won’t though.

(I told you it was a controversial opinion!!)

It's sad that paying more taxes to get better healthcare, social care and everything else (absolutely the right thing to do IMO) has to be flagged up as a "controversial opinion" on here!

I certainly thing removing the triple lock is a good thing. Pensions are still rising at 2.5% which is way above my 1% salary increase. Given the rising cost of living we are in real terms taking a pay cut every single year.

I also agree with PP who said it’s unfair that if someone with 20 years unblemished taxpaying behind them lost their job, they would be expected to sell their house and downsize if needs be to make ends meet (even if they have kids).

Yet there’s uproar if anyone suggests pensioners should sell their house to pay for care, even if 1. They are going into a care home and no longer need it and 2. It’s far too big and unmanageable for them to live in anyway

@bluelavender

I am not sure that I trust that in 30 years time, people paying into this now will benefit from the plans that have been set out.

NI feels like a ponzi scheme where people's contributions pays for NHS and other care that is needed now; not an actual National Insurance scheme that people can trust that they will benefit from at a future date.

Perhaps there needs to be a law that would give people paying in how a guaranteed benefit in future if they need it

I thought everyone knew - it is very well known - that your (and mine) NI contributions were not put into a box with your name on it. My NI paid for the pensions on those who retired before me - my parents generation. NI was originally mooted as providing insurance for unemployment but morphed into a general tax.
It would indeed be fairer if one's NI was earmarked as for the individual but that is not the case

user149720719 well they haven't been in power for over a decade so not really relevant! But all politicians court the grey vote. If young people got out and voted in higher numbers, politicians might start to court the young vote more.