To think a national insurance increase is fair?

[postingfortraffichere]

Just that really - who else should pay for social care if we do not collectively pay for it ourselves.

I am highly likely to need care (currently fit and healthy and young but who knows what the future holds) Or someone in my family surely so why shouldn't we pay for it?

People seem to think there is endless money available to cover everything that is wrong with the country and there just isn't.

I feel like those expecting not to pay the cost are being somewhat entitled.

AIBU

There are quite a few threads on this already. You might get your answers/opinions from them.

Is that you again Carrie ?

The main controversy is not whether there should be a tax increase but upon whom the burden should fall. National insurance is paid only by people who work, but by everybody who works including very low earners. Pensioners escape. By contrast income tax is not paid by those on very low wages, but is paid by those who have income other than from work, for example people who are drawing pensions or dividends.

@Fallsballs no lol

YABU.

It should be done via tax, not national insurance. People that aren't earning enough to reach the tax threshold will have to pay extra NI, and people that have very high earnings that are officially over retirement age won't have to pay a thing.

No, not at all

@EverybodyIsInteresting those high earners if they go into care will likely have bigger homes and savings to pay more towards the cost of it - they won't escape necessarily!

YANBU
The first three years of the tax is to tackle the NHS backlog which everyone needs.

The poorest are protected as no NI on benefits or their first £9k of earned income.

Working pensioners will pay the 1.25% social care levy. So it’s equitable in that if you can work, you will pay no matter your age.

Then it will be for social care, the majority of which, or 60%, is to support disabled people of working age NOT PENSIONERS IN CARE HOMES. (Despite the media trying to whip up intergenerational hatred)

[quote postingfortraffichere]@EverybodyIsInteresting those high earners if they go into care will likely have bigger homes and savings to pay more towards the cost of it - they won't escape necessarily! [/quote]
Higher earners are much less likely to go into care, for a variety of reasons.

YA still BU

Why national insurance,why not income tax?

Why national insurance, why not a property/tax/inheritance tax?

people that have very high earnings that are officially over retirement age won't have to pay a thing.

Not true, they will pay 1.25% social care levy on any earned income plus an extra 1.25% tax on dividends from any investments they are living on/drawing down.

People seem to think there is endless money available to cover everything that is wrong with the country and there just isn't

There always seems to be money to pay for disastrous private companies to fuck up whatever scheme they are paid to do. Track and trace etc…

It’s clear the issue isn’t a lack of money it’s a mismanagement of it. The ‘we are all in it together’ wore thin a long time ago.

Yanbu, this was a long time coming.

My dad is in a care home, and has a substantial income from pensions, dividends, rent and capital gains on shares and property. Because we've juggled things around cleverly he pays very little tax (use of ISAs and the CGT allowance) and no National Insurance at all (doesn't work). His income is considerably more than the care home fees. By contrast the carers who actually work in the home on the minimum wage are being asked to contribute through their NICs.

The poorest are protected as no NI on benefits or their first £9k of earned income.
So are rich people who get paid via share dividends and don’t pay any NI

YABU - which bit of NO 10 do you work for? It must be as plain as the nose on your face that NIC was not the fairest way of introducing this funding. An increase in income tax - which could have been at a slightly lower level (say 1%) would have been far fairer as everyone who has an income over a certain level pays income tax. Whereas the blue rinse brigade don't pay NIC. SO guess what the Tories did.....

Is it really going to social care though ?

@DynamoKev

The poorest are protected as no NI on benefits or their first £9k of earned income. So are rich people who get paid via share dividends and don’t pay any NI

Not true, the 1.25% is also being added to taxes on dividends.

The poorest are protected as no NI on benefits or their first £9k of earned income

There is no tax on benefits or the first £12570 of earned income, which is why raising the money via taxation is a better solution.

@Fanfix Have you already seen the stamp duty and IHT rates?

When dead you pay 40% and you think that's not enough?

Stamp duty rates are ridiculous too, thousands of pounds just to move house.

I disagree those taxes are already enough - I don't agree with taxing the wealthier people more and more because when that happens they go elsewhere to invest their money and that means less jobs and infrastructure for us all. It just doesn't work.

Yabvvvu

Income tax would be the fair way.

@Penistoe yes I agree there is some serious mismanagement issues but unless things are privatised it's always going to be the case.

People do NOT care how money is managed when it isn't their own. Bottom line.

So tax the poor instead of the rich? Great idea...

Forcing people further into poverty is so 2021...

I swear I'm not working for the government and im not a journalist either 🤣

These are my genuine beliefs lol

@EverybodyIsInteresting

The poorest are protected as no NI on benefits or their first £9k of earned income

There is no tax on benefits or the first £12570 of earned income, which is why raising the money via taxation is a better solution.

Why? And how is this 1.25% social care levy NOT a tax? It is a tax. It’s just not an income or inheritance tax.

It’s a tax on earned income and on dividends.