To be pissed off at paying more tax evdn though it is 1.25 percent?

[Fancymice]

So I get paid 1430 a month, then
-76.40 income tax
-75. 96 national insurance
-36.40 pension

And then this new 1.25 percent health and social care levy will be by my calculation 17.88

Total deductions 206.63 so take home will be £1223

I know it's only £17, but It just feels like the cherry on top of a year of being financially pummelled. The price of everything is going through the roof, food, petrol, rent. A pay rise is out of the question "because of covid" and now I have to part with even more money for our shitty useless government to misnanage.

@Undisclosedlocation

Tax seems to be kept deliberately complicated, just so we don’t know how much we really end up paying as a percentage, or how we compare to other countries.

And to maintain employment in HMRC

@Bluntness100

Well be grateful we haven’t a Labour government who were going to tax everyone up the yahoo to pay for their multitude of mad ideas.

You’re got exactly the same thing. Highest taxes for 70 years.

I’m pretty pissed off it’s an increase in NI rather than tax. A tax increase would see tax paying pensioners (I’m one) pay our share and it would have fallen on income outside PAYE like rental income as well. As it is the burden is falling on those who can least afford it.

Oooh - it's like the govt read some of my suggestions on a different thread the other night, there's a lot more to it than just increasing worker's Tax/NI contributions, eg:

"will also apply to individuals working above State Pension age, who are not liable to pay NICs on their earnings at present. The Government also plans to increase the rates of income tax that apply to income from dividends, to help to fund these plans."

Raising of thresholds before care costs kick in, which does help the retired, previously hard-working but low-paid workers who scrimped and saved to pay for a very modest home.

Also mentions more integration between NHS and Social Care, which is moving closer to the 'nationalisation' of Adult Social Care rather than the profit-based, mostly private provision we have now.

A bit of a bold move for a Tory Govt really and since Labour dropped Clause 4 (a commitment to Socialism) we can't rely on them for that.

Only mentioned once on this thread, but Care Workers are some of the lowest paid people in the UK with the worst T&Cs going, they need to be paid more and that needs paying for too.

I found this link useful to clarify things:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0139/

Of course... the answer to greater prosperity is communism... why didn't I think of that
And what, exactly, is wrong with the state owning some things? There is a problem at the moment - and it’s where capitalism will always take you - is that wealth ends up concentrated in the hands of too few. So let it swing back the other way a bit.

Capitalism in its current form clearly isn’t working - or have you missed that memo?

And where did I suggest communism.

Ffs.

I've just been listening to the debate, the amount that the NIC increase with raise for social care is a joke, they could have raised more for the NHS by getting rid of executive management.

@StrangeToSee

I’m annoyed too, because it seems like the more we earn the more tax gets taken and nothing seems to change!

I’ve had to go private for healthcare and surgery because the NHS waiting lists are so long. The NHS is haemorrhaging money and staff all the time, so pouring more money into a broken system feels wasteful.

How do we know this extra tax gets spent on social care, and what sort of social care? Shouldn’t tax payers have a choice?

It also annoys me that it’s based on individual income not family income. So you can have 2 families with the same income but one family pays minimal tax as both parents work in average-paid jobs; yet bring home a collective income of 100k. Another family might have one main earner; suppose mum earns 100k and dad is a SAHP, putting them in the highest tax bracket!

But the family with 2 working are likely doing so as unable to afford to have one as a SAHP, and paying childcare fees etc. If the family with one high earner feels disadvantaged then the SAHP could get a job and bring in an extra salary at low level tax rate 🤷🏼‍♀️ meaning they would be better off than the first family, even with childcare fees. I'm sure most families would choose to have one parent SAH if they can afford it, realistically many cannot.

Yanbu. I'm on a high income and would have preferred them to target only higher earners, even if it meant adding 3% etc instead of only 1.25%.

Very happy to pay but as we are higher rate tax payers I would prefer to pay more .

@NotPersephone

Every single one of you on here who voted for that prick honestly make me sick to my stomach.

But you understand that people felt exactly the same about Corbyn. I’m no Boris fan girl - he is, as you say, a prick - but I also do a full body cringe at the idea of a walking lobotomy like Corbyn representing us on the international stage. The problem is the quality of politicians, across the board.

And is there anyone who really believes that Corbyn would only have taxed people on over 80k? Because that wouldn’t raise tuppence, never mind the funds for the largesse he promised to the gullible masses. Every bit as fictional as the damn Brexit bus.

Yeah remember when Corbyn proposed this tax increase and people absolutely lost their shit? I'm sure there's irony here somewhere.

Well said Iggly - "why shouldn't the state own some things?". They still 'own' the NHS and no one screams 'communism' at that?

Why does it have to be an either/or situation? Why can't we take the best bits from the public and private sectors and make social structures that work for most people most of the time with contingencies in place for people and circumstances that fall through the net, which should be the exception rather than the rule..

I don't subscribe to any 'ideology', political party or religion but think

" I am personally happy to pay more tax to support the NHS/social care. "

But you aren't paying for the nhs. You are paying for furlough. Some of which probably didn't need to be paid. Plus, What about all the Accountancy firms who paid back their furlough?

@Oblomov21

" I am personally happy to pay more tax to support the NHS/social care. "

But you aren't paying for the nhs. You are paying for furlough. Some of which probably didn't need to be paid. Plus, What about all the Accountancy firms who paid back their furlough?

How are we paying for furlough with the tax increase? The tax increase just goes into the big pot. Furlough was probably funded from borrowing 🤷🏻‍♀️

[quote NotPersephone]I think people lost their shit @Morgan12 because it was demonstrably ridiculous to suggest that vast sums could be raised by taking the

@Bythehairywartsonmywitchychin

Except they've just lost £1000 a year UC People claiming UC have not just lost it, it was a temporary increase and was always publicised as being so.

BTW, I do not agree with it ending. It’s a lot of money for people to lose each month especially as lots of people/families struggle. However it’s a hell of a lot of money for the government to pay out for each month and it needs subsidising some other way. I have experience of both claiming UC and supporting people on UC.

I like the comments at the end of the post, you suppor people on UC, I live on UC, I know exactly how it is Making £1000 a month stretch was bad enough, especially as rent takes half of it straight away, it's going to be even harder after September.

To those people saying that they would willingly pay extra tax, you can!
www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government

This says it all really .

[quote CourgetteGlutTony]To those people saying that they would willingly pay extra tax, you can!
www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government[/quote]
The government is not a fucking charity seeking donations.

It needs a proper system of fair taxation in place.

We need to become realistic that too many people who contribute little are expecting too much - the lower paid need to pay much more tax. People should get access to better services as they contribute more, not less.

Foreign aid needs to be fully stopped and immigration completely rejected other than for very wealthy people entering the country. If people wish to sponsor people, they can fully pay for them.

I want to be responsible for myself as far as possible - and should be able to choose which insurance schemes the government provides I wish to join and pay for. I'd choose to opt out of this scheme and its benefits - others may wish to join.

We need to become realistic that too many people who contribute little are expecting too much - the lower paid need to pay much more tax. People should get access to better services as they contribute more, not less

Why are you assuming that the lower paid are expecting too much?

The lower paid are generally exploited as those at the very top hoard so much wealth for themselves.

Let’s take Jeff Bezos for example. Now, the last time I checked, he was not the one packing boxes and delivering everything - he had (low paid!!!) employees to do it while he became a billionaire.

He did not create that wealth alone. But he chose to hold down wages so he could benefit. Why should those people on lower wages pay even more tax? They don’t have the power to fight for higher wages - unions have been crushed for example.

@Iggly

He did create that wealth - and paid people what they were happy to offer their time for - nobody forced them, they could have created wealth themselves or worked for another person.

They should pay more tax as they should pay their own way in life. Why should anyone live on someone else's toil unless they reach an agreement to do so?

@chipsandwine76

We need to become realistic that too many people who contribute little are expecting too much - the lower paid need to pay much more tax. People should get access to better services as they contribute more, not less.

Foreign aid needs to be fully stopped and immigration completely rejected other than for very wealthy people entering the country. If people wish to sponsor people, they can fully pay for them.

I want to be responsible for myself as far as possible - and should be able to choose which insurance schemes the government provides I wish to join and pay for. I'd choose to opt out of this scheme and its benefits - others may wish to join.

Wow, your a peach

[quote chipsandwine76]@Iggly

He did create that wealth - and paid people what they were happy to offer their time for - nobody forced them, they could have created wealth themselves or worked for another person.

They should pay more tax as they should pay their own way in life. Why should anyone live on someone else's toil unless they reach an agreement to do so?[/quote]
No, he came up with the idea.

If no one worked for him, he wouldn’t be a billionaire. He would be nothing without the employees of his company. So let’s not pretend otherwise.

You can’t have it both ways - suggesting that people “pay their way” and say that “no one forced them to work there”. What if that was the only job that they could get? They couldn’t have haggled over the wages. It doesn’t work that way, and you know it.

Jeff Bezos has lived off the toil of all of his employees

Bezos could only “create” his wealth by paying people less than their labour is worth and taking the rest for himself. That’s how capitalism works.

And, no, most of his employees could not have just done the same as him. His parents gave him $300,000 to fund Amazon.