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

No, that would be £27.95 per year in NI. Your calculation is off.

No NI is payable on the first £2,000

I have no problem with the NI rise in principle but I think the government is in reality just funding the nhs. To sort it out properly people need to know that the money is actually going at for the next 3 years at least the lions share is going to the nhs not social care. By the time it actually goes into social care we could well have a different government to sort the mess out.

@lannistunut

And they are not raising dividend income by the same 'amount' they are raising it by the same percentage.

The vast bulk of the annual (not liftime for obvious reasons) tax rise is going to land on working people.

But most of the people in the U.K. are working age and in work, so isn’t that fair? That most of the tax come from most of the people? As opposed to levying most of the tax on a minority?

Do not worry Op here is government bashing central. They can’t do right ever. Would you imagine the outrage if government say pensioners should sell their houses to pay for care.

@PlanDeRaccordement

No, what would be fair would be levying the tax rise in a fair way.

A pensioner paying £2.95 despite being significantly wealthier than a worker who is paying £200 is clearly not fair.

I do admire you, in a way, for resolutely going out to bat for the Tories here!

But all the analysis is that it is an unfair way to raise the money, they are heaping the costs onto the poorer workers and that is deliberately unfair.

Pensioners will take their income by selling shares instead.
Yes some will. And they’ll pay CGT on the sale profit. They won’t be avoiding all tax.

[quote lannistunut]@PlanDeRaccordement

No, what would be fair would be levying the tax rise in a fair way.

A pensioner paying £2.95 despite being significantly wealthier than a worker who is paying £200 is clearly not fair.

I do admire you, in a way, for resolutely going out to bat for the Tories here!

But all the analysis is that it is an unfair way to raise the money, they are heaping the costs onto the poorer workers and that is deliberately unfair.[/quote]
But they’re not significantly wealthier? On average, pensioners are poorer than the average worker. That’s why their contribution is low. The bulk of their income is from benefits....the state pension.

YANBU that a tax rise is needed

YABU that it comes from (NI), it should have been an income tax rise

It should be income tax not NI. I'm happy to pay. I'm very pro tax, staunch leftie in favour of raising taxes etc. But NI is unfair, it taxes the poor and not the asset rich folk, millionaire landlords, boomers on their huge pensions... My dad's pension is more than I earn...

@PlanDeRaccordement

If you think it is fair that a low-earning worker pays more than a wealthy pensioner that is your look out. But all the analysis is that it is unfair.

Have a chat with the 40+ Tory MPs who abstained, speak to Robert Halfon, speak to Jake Berry.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Pensioners will take their income by selling shares instead. Yes some will. And they’ll pay CGT on the sale profit. They won’t be avoiding all tax.

But they won't pay an extra 1.25% like low paid workers will on their meagre minimum wage.

That's the point people are trying to make.

@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

Why should workers pay it, and those sitting on benefits not pay it. Won't those on benefits also need social care when elderly?

I'm sorry but the pandemic highlighted that low earners can't survive as it is and have to use food banks, this will cripple those.

It's the usual rich get richer and poor get poorer.

Maybe he should have used the 350mil a week he promised the NHS (which has never materialised) when he was campaigning for votes

[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]
Then they should sell assets and pay for their care.

This whole thing is so that that the rich can carry on passing their wealth to their kids

[quote postingfortraffichere]@Revertion £325,000 is far from wealthy, that doesn't even cover average cost of property in the UK it's really not that generous of a threshold [/quote]
Really, averaging cost of property in my area is £140k

@PlanDeRaccordement,

Are you being deliberately disingenuous?

Wealthy pensioners will manage tax by investing in ‘growth’ shares and selling shares for income. They will have good professional advisers.

In addition they can put a substantial amount in trust for their children, knowing they won’t need it.

Yes, they will pay CGT (at 28%), but have suffered 0% tax RISE due to the change in NI.

It is also a flat rate tax, going down to a very low income, so it will impact far more on the less well off (and also act as more of a drag on economic growth).

You will inherit the £600,000 house your parents paid £100,000 for and their care will be funded by people who are renting and can never afford to buy. So unfair. High earners should be paying it not low earners.

This whole thing is so that that the rich can carry on passing their wealth to their kids

That's the crux of it.

An elderly parent up here in the north might own a house that's worth, say, £150k

This new scheme will 'protect' £66k of that, while their minimum wage earning - far more likely in the north - offspring struggle to pay the extra NI.

Someone with a £600k house - not at all unusual in the wealthy southeast but - will see £514k of their property value protected for their, invariably wealthier, offspring.

I don’t really mind paying extra tax myself - I can afford it and it’s got a good reason.

But many people will find the increase squeezes them into financial insecurity which I think it outrageous when Amazon, Google, Facebook etc aren’t paying decent levels of taxation.

Amazon will not leave The U.K. if they’re taxed properly. None of them will. It’s a ludicrous position to take.

@monkeysox

You will inherit the £600,000 house your parents paid £100,000 for and their care will be funded by people who are renting and can never afford to buy. So unfair. High earners should be paying it not low earners.

This is a fair summary of the policy.

Interestingly I see the Tories have fallen behind in the polls...

And apparently only 1% of voters - including pensioners - think the policy will leave them better off.

For a good reason, not got 🙄

From Rightmove:

The majority of sales in South East during the last year were detached properties, selling for an average price of £670,058.

Last year most property sales in North East involved semi-detached properties which sold for on average £167,313.

Remind me again who's going to benefit from this cap and the NI increase?

I think we have to pay for child and adult social care somehow.

I think the state should pay some and the individual should pay.

So the state has various ways of raising money:
National Insurance increase - including on pensioners who work.
Income tax increase.
More targeted tax increase- inheritance tax raised to 60% on estates over £500,000. No hiding it in trust funds- straight 60% of value of anything over £500,000 for anyone inheriting - apart from spouse or charity.

An annual banded social care tax based on every owned property tax- eg
For each property between £100,000- £400,000- yearly tax of £1000 per adult over 35 yrs in house - so about £80 a month each adult

" " " " £400,000- £700,000- " '' " £1500 per adult in house so about £125 each adult

" " " " ' " £700,000- £1000,000 " " " £ 3000 per adult in house - £250 each adult
etc

The numbers might not be right but you get the idea- those who own/are buying property pay a 'social care' insurance based on property value. If you own more than one property, you only pay for one adult on the additional properties. Taken across a lifetime from 35yrs + it would create capacity in funding and be more fairly raised.
Those who rent pay a basic insurance payment eg £50 a month.

These would cover care costs at any time in life . But we all have to pay.

The alternative is we all have a private insurance for social care that we pay from when we start working. I think it is a dreadful idea but some countries have it.

YABVU and a bit thick tbh if you think this is fair!!

The NHS won’t give up one penny of their extra no strings attached billions in 3 years. Presumably they’ll put the tax up again to get the social care money.

And I don’t understand why some people are saying it will improve social care, staff won’t be paid more, facilities won’t be improved, it’s all going to protect wealthier people’s assets, nothing else.