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.

Personally I’m fine with the assumption that wealth built up during my lifetime should be used to fund my own care. Why is there a cap of 80 odd thousand on care costs? Obviously there are more complex situations with people who will make a recovery and then need a house to live in etc. The state should fund it when the savings are gone. I guess the problem is that people will ‘hide’ assets.
Health and social care are by their nature very employee heavy businesses. Increasing NI is going to make them worse off, and disproportionately so compared to other businesses that have less employee burden. Makes no sense to me

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.

Do you really believe this? We are in that top bracket, so our day to day life will not even be affected, we will spend the same and just save less money. My friend earns about £30k...losing just over £20 each month will affect what she can spend on food. She budgets well but doesn’t earn enough to save. We could afford to pay double, triple, even more without it negatively impacting our lives in any real way, while my friend will be looking for even cheaper ways to feed her children whilst still being able to afford her house and other bills. It’s absolutely disgusting but unsurprising, this is what Tory governments do.

[quote Millicentsparty]@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.[/quote]
I am seeing that. Apparently those claiming it disproportionately affects the poorest must have failed GCSE maths. It gives them a sense of righteous anger though, when really it’s the above average but not over £100k incomes that are most affected. So middle class people pretending they’re defending the poor.

It’s actually happened. They’ve done something which means I can’t even vote for them to keep out a worse bunch of mismanaging idiots. Sigh.

There's always the Raving Monster Loony Party.

@lllllllllll

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.

No it isn't. There are various equity release options available.

@WinTheNight I agree

BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand but wont a good pension be taxed???

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

I'm fed up too op. NHS payrise of 3% and now almost half of it straight back to NI. I get it in a way but it sucks. I didn't suppose lockdowns either and worked through the latter ones. Shite isn't it.

Yes I feel for my poor colleague, had to go down a band due to no fault of his own, the pay rise helped him cope, but this new NI increase will mean he will struggle. Even 10 pounds a month loss affect some poepl living in their overdraft

@WinTheNight

Yes, I believe the figures and they show it is not disproportionately affecting lower incomes. I think you do not understand what disproportionate means. It doesn’t go into impact, it refers to poorer people paying a higher % of their income than higher earners. The amount extra someone on £50k pays is less than half what the £100k person pays. Ergo, it is disproportionately high for above average but below top 1% earners. It’s basic maths.

@Tiddleandplonk

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

Pensions are not subject to NICs.

@BungleandGeorge

Personally I’m fine with the assumption that wealth built up during my lifetime should be used to fund my own care. Why is there a cap of 80 odd thousand on care costs? Obviously there are more complex situations with people who will make a recovery and then need a house to live in etc. The state should fund it when the savings are gone. I guess the problem is that people will ‘hide’ assets. Health and social care are by their nature very employee heavy businesses. Increasing NI is going to make them worse off, and disproportionately so compared to other businesses that have less employee burden. Makes no sense to me

Same here. I save and pay my mortgage down so that I will have something to live on when I retire. Once I get to the point where I can no longer live in my home, I will sell and use the proceeds to fund the best standard of care that I am able to afford.

The whole point of saving money during my working life isn't to hoard wealth, but to make sure I have something when I really need it. And when I am old and need care and support, that's when I'll really need it.

There are no pockets in a shroud, and I would rather pay for good quality care than hoard assets that I have no use for any more.

@Paquerette
"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”.

This was my childhood to a T. We were comfortable. But life bore no resemblance to how people live today and the things they spend money on. Meal out on New Year's Day and the cinema. When I got to my mid teens, maybe a meal out on my birthday. Yes to one coat. I had basic clothes but if I wanted other clothes, I used my Saturday job money. No three to four activities a week at judo and the pony club. My mum would have fainted at the cost. Haha. My dad was super careful with money. In his 80s he drove a 30yo car because it worked fine. Status didn't seem to be as important as it is now.
I wish now they'd spent all their money instead of saving for their old age.

I am seeing that. Apparently those claiming it disproportionately affects the poorest must have failed GCSE maths. It gives them a sense of righteous anger though, when really it’s the above average but not over £100k incomes that are most affected. So middle class people pretending they’re defending the poor.

I guess it depends on what you classify the poor as. Imo plenty who earn enough to pay NI are still poor despite working. It's not a progressive tax.

No it isn't. There are various equity release options available.

@BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand I don’t know much about those - are they ethical and fair to those who take them out? Or do they come with a nasty catch?

@Tiddleandplonk

BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand but wont a good pension be taxed???

Yes, but you don't pay NIC on a pension.

Both the worker and the non-worker will pay income tax. But only the worker will pay NIC as well.

@lllllllllll

No it isn't. There are various equity release options available.

@BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand I don’t know much about those - are they ethical and fair to those who take them out? Or do they come with a nasty catch?

Like anything, you have to research exactly what you are entering into, but yes there are fair schemes. You can also enter into a Deferred Payment Agreement with your local authority.

The point is - it is perfectly possible to use your assets to fund care and support in your old age without selling your house immediately.

@weresouth

But I’m sick to death of young (and not so young) people saying that everything’s the fault of the “boomer” generation, we’ve caused climate change, we’ve caused the NHS/ social care problems, we’ve caused the financial crisis, we had it all - when all we’ve bloody done is not ask to be born and got on with what life’s thrown at us.

The trouble is the Boomer generation have benefited massively although this is not their fault. And we have an ageing population so younger generations do have less. Acknowledging that isn't a slight on older people it's just a fact.

And when you’re paying over 15% mortgage payments, I can assure you there’s no chance of savings.

well my parents managed it & again how long did you pay 15% for?

Yes, I agree that some of us “Boomers” benefited massively, but not all. Less people went to uni, most of which were academic courses. Many people from my grammar school went into family businesses or vocational training like nursing, teacher training, radiography.....all low paid a5 the time.

Good for your parents, we certainly couldn’t. I can’t remember now how long we paid over 15% for now, probably 4 years? but it broke us, we had bank loans of over £ 20k (In the early 90’s) Our 2nd house cost £99k in 1989, but we bought it to accommodate my elderly dad who didn’t contribute anything. It was sold it in 2013 for £265, having spent over £150k on it in the previous 8 years. Not a massive killing really

The average care home fee is around £40k p a (£50 here where I live) and the average stay in a care home is 2 years so for most people they will be paying for most of their care. 1 in 4 will be in a home up to 7 years and it is those they are protecting.

Care is never straightforward or desirable for anyone, it's that end of life care that most people had with their families. We are not best placed to look after family members and so this cap is fair and will help out families. This will not be for the rich but those who have saved to have a home and perhaps given up things to buy a house.

Yes, I believe the figures and they show it is not disproportionately affecting lower incomes. I think you do not understand what disproportionate means. It doesn’t go into impact, it refers to poorer people paying a higher % of their income than higher earners. The amount extra someone on £50k pays is less than half what the £100k person pays. Ergo, it is disproportionately high for above average but below top 1% earners. It’s basic maths.

But I’m talking about real life affects. I’m very uncomfortable that poorer people will actually have to deal with those real affects in their daily lives because of this rise. Anyone on a high income that thinks people earning under say average wage, should have to pay anything towards this are very selfish in my opinion. They are struggling as it is, the stories we heard in lockdown of people struggling to feed their children were heartbreaking. They can’t afford to lose money, how can people not see that, how are they expected to live and feel anything but stress. I feel really fucking angry this.

Less people went to uni, most of which were academic courses. Many people from my grammar school went into family businesses or vocational training like nursing, teacher training, radiography.....all low paid a5 the time.

But degrees are now prerequisite for many jobs, that's not young people's fault.
Do less people go into teaching & nursing today? I wouldn't say they are highly paid today either.

@BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand

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?

Absolutely. If at 50/55 you have huge investment portfolios, multiple properties and don’t work you don’t have to pay this new tax. This is disproportionately going to effect the working poor and those who just about make their monthly budgets tick over. It’s blatantly unfair.

@BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand
"Same here. I save and pay my mortgage down so that I will have something to live on when I retire. Once I get to the point where I can no longer live in my home, I will sell and use the proceeds to fund the best standard of care that I am able to afford."

The problem is you think like this now but this is not how you might think as you get older. I'm astonished how my mums thinking patterns have changed as she has aged. There is a lot more fear and paranoia that plays into your decisions as you're pushed into making decisions that are changing your life as you know it. You might find that your assessment of being able to cope is very different from the assessment of others and decisions are made for you that make you feel disempowered. What I've realised from watching mum and her friends is that clear-headed, well thought out plans made when you're younger often don't play out as you expected when you're older.

@sst1234

Yes OP, you are paying for the privilege of allowing others people to pass on inheritance to their children. It’s absolutely bonkers.

So what? I've worked for 41 years, paid my mortgage and have not had housing benefit or council house. My next door neighbor gets free housing and will pay no are costs. Why should workers pay twice?

But degrees are now prerequisite for many jobs, that's not young people's fault.

Like a bitch for everything in Enterprise rent a car. Off topic, but that needs bloody sorting...

Funny how houses are so precious, and the thought of selling them so unimaginably cruel, until it becomes an inherited asset and the kids can't wait to get probate through and cash in their banks.