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

Amazon were so proud of their benificence this year and have a fair amount of pandemic bounty sloshing about, perhaps they'd like to kick in a few percent of income tax to help out?

Hey Rishi, is it time for "Tax Out to Help Out?" This time we could put up billboards of a smiling Jeff Bezos handing over a fuck off cheque. Let's do this.

I didn't say it isn't a tax.

It isn't income tax.

And people earning between 9k and 12.5k that cannot afford it, are having to pay.

That is why I think it should be done on income tax and not NI.

I don't agree with taxing the wealthier people more and more because when that happens they go elsewhere to invest their money

So it's not fairness you care about. But expediency. Those are different.

Really?

Do you think by paying for ANYTHING NOW means that it will be there for you when you get old?

Or is it just there to give the elderly wealthy more money right now/protect their wealth ?

YABU.
First of all the government should recoup the vast majority of the £37 billion of public money paidfor a Track and Trace that didn’t work and for their ludicrous choices of PPE suppliers.
Then, if they need further funds they should increase taxes, rather than look to national insurance ensuring that the highest burden falls on the highest earners (I am a higher rate taxpayer myself and happy to pay a fair share). To take money away from the likes of nurses and teachers, who already struggle through not being paid a living wage is fucking disgraceful.

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.

Not true, you're talking about seriously wealthy people who there are vanishingly small amounts of, most well off people won't leave the country or invest elsewhere. There are loads of them, my own Dad is one of them, they're just canny with what they do and don't pay, tax avoidance rather than evasion. I think he should pay more and I'm happy to pay more too as we're all going to need it long term.

@EverybodyIsInteresting

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

Forcing people further into poverty is so 2021...

It’s taxing both. Because it’s a tax on earned income and on dividends which hits the rich who don’t need to work. But the poorest and unemployed will not have to pay.

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.

But pensioners who work tend to do so because they cannot afford not to work. Those wealthy enough not to need to work won't be contributing. I'm not sure what is so equitable about that.

@LaurieFairyCake

Really?

Do you think by paying for ANYTHING NOW means that it will be there for you when you get old?

Or is it just there to give the elderly wealthy more money right now/protect their wealth ?

Or disabled and the number of people with a disability goes from 5% under age 20 to 54% over age 50....

Don’t forget that’s a lot of working age people getting disabled and social care is MOSTLY SPENT on them....children and people of younger generations who are disabled.

It’s taxing both

I get that. But I was replying to the op who said

I don't agree with taxing the wealthier people more and more

It was specifically an observation about op's attitude towards taxation, rather than the increase in NI.

@DontMakeMeShushYou

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.

But pensioners who work tend to do so because they cannot afford not to work. Those wealthy enough not to need to work won't be contributing. I'm not sure what is so equitable about that.

But at least they CAN work. Most pensioners who do not work, it is because they CANNOT work due to disability and age. Very few are well off and not working by choice.

Income tax would be fairer IMO. A particular family member - fairly well of - the couple have state pensions, 2 large final salary pensions, 3/4 (not sure if they replaced one they sold) rental properties in expensive areas, plus big stock and bond portfolios. They'll feel minimal impact - just the tax on dividends.

Meanwhile those with far lower income will be paying more than they are purely because they earn their income through employment or self employment.

Plus many small businesses are already on their knees and can ill afford it.

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

Well that's bollocks. When you're dead you don't p[ay anything because, well ... you're dead. And there is a whopping amount of inheritance to benefit from tax-free before your beneficiaries will have to start paying 40%.

YABU .
It disproportionately affects the young and the low paid.
Should be funded through income tax, capital gains and inheritance tax.
But Boris Falafel won’t want to upset his wealthy donators and friends

I wouldn't mind paying more inheritance tax when I die....because I will be dead.

No-one is entitled to inheritance - it is a nice thing to receive but it isn't like we deserve it. Especially if that wealth can be distributed across the community rather than falling into the hands of a few, somewhat privileged people.

@postingfortraffichere

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

These are my genuine beliefs lol

Why is your genuine belief that the working poor on minimum wage should pick up the tab whilst incredibly wealthy people making a living from investments shouldn't?

That poor young people with zero assets and no chance of ever even getting on the property ladder should pick up the tab to secure the property inheritances of the multi-millionaire families?

That wealthy pensioners on huge pensions, far in excess of what the majority of working people can ever hope to earn while working, let alone have a fraction of it as their own pension in retirement, should not pay extra but the poor should?

@DontMakeMeShushYou I guess you'd be dead lol yes I see you're point. But it's still a hell of a lot to have to pay.

@PlanDeRaccordement

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)

You dont know that. The Treasury will decide how it's spent.

Working pensioners will pay. Pensioners who are wealthy enough that they don't need to work won't pay. NI is regressive compared with income tax. Corporations that have employees will pay more than those who use 'self-employed' eg zero hours contractors, such as Uber, Amazon, and Deliveroo.

Homeowners in richer areas will have enough to pay and still leave a legacy. Homeowners in poorer areas will not.

if we do not collectively pay for it ourselves.

Except that we aren't collectively paying for it though are we? because the increase in NI only impacts the working population.

You haven't answered the question several posters have posed @postingfortraffichere why not just put the 1.25% increase on income tax, then it really is everyone collectively paying it?

As a pp said this comes out of people who are working. What about people who are claiming UC and claim not to be able to work but can? I know a few people like this. And when I got pregnant I had to claim MA for a bit, I had worked for years but wasn't entitled to statutory maternity pay. When I moved and had to claim JSA for a couple of weeks I wasn't entitled to it because I had no NI credits left. Surely NI is there to assist YOU as an employee.

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

That is sooooooo nifty going to happen.

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

Has it ever been tried?

I don't understand the issue with raising inheritance tax. Nobody needs money when they're dead. Inheritance isn't a right, lots of people don't get anything, and some people will lose out on any of the inheritance that they might have had due to care costs anyway. Why not just pool the risk by taxing inheritance much more heavily?

@DontMakeMeShushYou I guess you'd be dead lol yes I see you're point. But it's still a hell of a lot to have to pay.

It really really isn't! Although I suppose that depends on your definition of what is a lot to inherit. It is pretty easy to leave your beneficiaries £1,000,000 before you have to pay inheritance tax. It seems a little churlish to complain about paying 40% on anything above that.

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

We could start with the people due to inherit anything up to £325,000 tax free? £500,000 tax free if you leave a home to children or grandchildren?

That's a pretty ludicrous amount of money to be handed without paying any tax on it when you consider how much money you're allowed to work for without paying any tax on it?

Why the X35 (X52 at £500k) difference between the two?

I can earn £9586 before I have to pay NI but I can be gifted £325,000 before I have to pay tax.

It's a nonsense.

You dont know that. The Treasury will decide how it's spent.

That’s what it is spent on. Look up the social care budget statistics.

Pensioners who are wealthy enough that they don't need to work won't pay.
Yes they will because the social care levy is also being added to dividend taxes. Plus you are forgetting most pensioners who don’t work it is because they cannot work due to disability, not because they are well off.

Homeowners in richer areas will have enough to pay and still leave a legacy. Homeowners in poorer areas will not.
But this law actually introduces a low cap of less than half the average U.K. house value such that many homeowners in poorer areas will now be able to leave a legacy. Before there was no cap. So the law improves this for homeowners in poorer areas.