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.

many, many ordinary people were clamouring for a 1% tax to fund the NHS.

Was it really "ordinary" people clamouring for this though? Or was it comfortably off people?

The fact that Boris has applied this particular tax to all workers (including those still working past 66) is one of the most egregious things about it IMO.

If you are lucky enough to have been able to retire early on a good pension at 55, you won't pay this tax.

If you are 68 and scraping by on a meagre pension, supplemented by part-time work, you will pay this tax.

How on earth can anyone possibly think that's ok?

'Is it really fair though ? What about a compatriot of hers who earned well but lived life to the full with many holidays and has no savings, no property to sell?'

They still would've had to live somewhere and have probably paid more in rent than their peers have in a mortgage.

Claudethecat, only the boomers born before 1955 are eligible for the state pension this year...... those born from 1956 - 64 still have time to work. Some lucky ones retired early, on generous pensions, usually because their employers made it worthwhile in order to promote younger people, or to prevent their defined benefit pension benefits continuing to accrue.

This. I'm really quite staggered at how short-sighted and selfish some people are.

There is nothing selfish about pointing out NI hits the poorer hardest. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that point. People who earn over 100k pay less NI so will be less impacted by this increase.

And the 15% rates weren't long term either. They were for a VERY short proportion of the full mortgage term

Base rate was over 10% for 20 years. There are some people who paid very high interest rates for virtually the full term of their mortgage. It was high inflation that helped erode the debt.

It simply should not come from the poorest in society who are already struggling.

I don’t think it is? People who earn just under £10,000 don't have to pay National Insurance or the new levy. The 1.25 percentage point increase means somebody on
£20,000 a year would pay an extra £130 per year,
£30,000 a year would pay an extra £255 per year
£50,000 would pay £505 per year.
£100,000 would pay £1,130.

You can see it doesn’t disportionately affect lower earners at all.
And working pensioners are being required to pay full NI when they didn’t have to pay NI at all before. They’re being hit with the biggest loss of income.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-58436009

@BashfulClam

So where ate the savings we were promised would go to the nhs after Brexit?

The wake up call for those who still needed it.

There is nothing selfish about pointing out NI hits the poorer hardest. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that point. People who earn over 100k pay less NI so will be less impacted by this increase.

Fair enough, I do see your point on that. I just get really upset by the inevitable horrible comments on threads like these where people seem so uncaring about older and vulnerable people. Anything that helps the elderly and disabled is very welcome in my book, though I do agree that the money should have been raised through income tax, not national insurance.

Social care & the NHS does need to be improved & Im sure most want that. I also highly dubious this money will filter through to where it's needed.

I'm one of the pensioners you're all hating on. And I'm livid about this NI increase. Young people on low salaries should absolutely not be being targeted. They're suffering enough.

It's the wealthy (of all ages) that should be contributing here. But of course that would mean that Tory party members and MPs would be hit hard, so no chance of that.

People who earn over 100k pay less NI so will be less impacted by this increase.

People earning over 100k are in the top 1%...so agree the rich are being protected. It’s the 99% that are paying the most, not the “poorest” because the poorest have very little NI due as the first £9k or so is free of NI tax.

Was it really "ordinary" people clamouring for this though? Or was it comfortably off people?

Exactly. It was obviously only people who could afford it who were saying it. People who have to budget very carefully to make it to next payday would not have been saying it. You don’t offer money you don’t have, you CAN’T offer money you don’t have.
A potential good thing about this rise will be that hopefully the next government will not be Conservative. This rise really does tell us how little they care for the poorest in society, if there was anyone left with any doubt. I don’t know how far they think they can push people before they break, there’s only so much people can cut back their outgoings.

If you stuck an extra 1% or 1.5% on income tax, it would cost some more than the NI increase. It would cost me more on my salary.

People earning over 100k are in the top 1%...

Top 1% of PAYE which imo is not the same as the top 1% but that's another thread.

@thegcatsmother

If you stuck an extra 1% or 1.5% on income tax, it would cost some more than the NI increase. It would cost me more on my salary.

It would also include those of us who don’t pay NI. Which would be only right and proper.

@lllllllllll I don’t think anyone is saying the money itself isn’t needed or ‘worth it’. One completely unanimous sentiment across the thread is that social care is deeply lacking and there needs to be a shake up of the system.
The complaint people have is that NI is what’s been chosen to raise those funds and how this disproportionately impacts the working poor. I appreciate that the amount isn’t huge if you’re on a very low income but for those on over £20K money can still be very tight and that additional tax will make a difference.

@usernamealreadytaken

Haven't RTFT, but comments about boomers buying their houses for £50k in the 80s seem to forget that interest rates were at 14%, people struggled and didn't have holidays or takeaways or new cars largely, they consumed less but put their money in to their homes. In the scenario of somebody lucky enough to have secured social housing, they may well have earned the same, but lead a much easier life with holidays and such, but will qualify for "free" care for their full time of need - how on earth is that fair?

There's no such thing as fair in this life, we just have to suck it up, and be grateful we live in a country which provides care at all.

100% this.

Growing up, we were seen as pretty comfortably off, but my parents stressed over every quarter percent interest rate increase. We never had takeaways and had a couple of meals in restaurants per year, only ever two pairs of shoes each (school shoes and a pair of trainers) plus one coat, parents had one bottle of wine between them a week (Friday night). Everyone they knew was in the same situation. After paying the mortgage there wasn’t much money left for “treats”.

@WinTheNight

Was it really "ordinary" people clamouring for this though? Or was it comfortably off people?

Exactly. It was obviously only people who could afford it who were saying it. People who have to budget very carefully to make it to next payday would not have been saying it. You don’t offer money you don’t have, you CAN’T offer money you don’t have.
A potential good thing about this rise will be that hopefully the next government will not be Conservative. This rise really does tell us how little they care for the poorest in society, if there was anyone left with any doubt. I don’t know how far they think they can push people before they break, there’s only so much people can cut back their outgoings.

It is no more ordinary to have to budget to the last penny than it is to have loads of spare cash. Both are extremes. Most people are in the middle - they can afford 1% but will have to adjust their budgets to do so, and it's a question of whether they feel it's a worthwhile cause.

@PlanDeRaccordement. You're wasting your time. Sadly no one is going to want to engage with your figures because it doesn't support their misconceptions.

There's an easy answer to this. It'll give the level ground that those who only have access to social care rather than continuing health care packages. It'll stop the 'the elderly have all these assets so why don't they pay up and let the youngsters have less of a tax burden'.

Everyone who has assets has to pay for care, in the home or in a home, from their assets until they either die or the money runs out. As I've already said, the chances of either or both DH and I getting dementia is pretty high as both sides had it (my dad died from cancer too early to show signs so I have no idea whether he had a 'gene'). I'm happy for DS not to inherit as long as he doesn't have to look after us, physically, and can get access to all the help he needs when he needs it.

And those who are 'lucky' enough to inherit without having to access care have to pay an increased inheritance tax to help fund the next generation who won't have parents or grandparents homes to get them on the housing ladder.

Problem solved. Everyone happy?

@Xenia

I have been against all CV19 compulsory measures since March 2020 and against the incurred debt and against higher taxes.

Also most people are not in a care home very long so having to use £80k of your own money up before you get a single penny in practice means if you save up over 40 years you still won't get help with social care so we might as well leave it all alone and look at reducing taxes to fairer levels.

Not strictly true. I have friends whose mothers house was sold to pay for her care with dementia. £400,000 was spent before she died leaving enough for her funeral. Just reading the report and the new levy will be paid by pensioner. Plus they are increasing tax on share dividends which will affect pension savings. Personally, I am quite happy for my house to be sold to pay for my care. That is what I have saved for. I think they need to look at Inheritance tax, and lower the level it is paid at, so if you are fortunate enough not to need care, you will still be paying something towards it from your estate, and if you benefit from the £86k cap, and still have a sizeable estate, you will may more towards it. Just a point with everyone saying the rich should be taxed more. I have been retired 3 years now, and I have already received more back in pensions and healthcare than I paid in 50 years working NI contributions. Most of that time in being paid the equivalent of £30+in todays money. So thanks to the higher taxpayers. If you are 20 now, in the next 45 years working at the average wage, the extra levy will be around £12,000 at todays prices. If you need care, that amount will be spent in 4 months in a care home.

I wonder if they've done this to protect the housing market as they have run out of props & they are increasingly products where people use their house as leverage etc for dc to get on the ladder.
Or they recognise that so many of the young won't ever own or will be still be paying mortgages off in their 70s so housing won't be enough to fund it.

Everyone who has assets has to pay for care, in the home

@LondonJax rather difficult to pay for care in the home when your asset is your home.

I am not questioninf the view that it is unfair on the young.. but regarding the comment that wealthy pensioners wont be affected .. help me out here ,but wont they pay more tax on their pensions etc.. sorry i dont understand ? Genuine question