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

Higher earners are much less likely to go into care, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, but statistically they are just as likely to have children disabled by a wide variety of conditions - who will need care! DH has been a higher earner for over 30 years, and we cannot afford DD’s care.

Income tax should be merged with national insurance, and CGT should be charged at the same rates. All overseas owners of second homes here, who are not UK taxpayers should pay 30% of the capital cost in tax a year.

@LuluJakey1

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.

Or we could just use income tax instead of NI, which owuld be fairer.

Can I also add as I'm not sure this has been mentioned yet, corporation tax is also going up - which will affect all limited companies quite significantly.

Property investors who trade using ltd company, business owners etc so this isn't just about taxing the less well off.

So therefore those drawing dividends not related to shares etc will be affected likely as they'll have ltd companies.

@HalzTangz exactly - they would have to sell their homes and use savings to pay for their care that's my point. Currently if you go into care and own your own home and savings those things will be taken to pay for your care, so those people are not escaping it either really.

It's going to hit the majority of people at some point in one shape or form

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

No they don't. It's another lie put about by the better off that the gullible swallow.

[quote postingfortraffichere]@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.[/quote]
Hahahah - cos privatisation is always the best way to get proper management of money and good services??? Hahahah. Ok so you're a Tory. How's that been working out for the UK? Services improving through increased privatisation? Better economy? Less porverty. Er no.

@NoPinkPlease local authorities are a shit show. And so is management of money in the NHS, because no one takes responsibly or cares - it's not their cash. How else can you shift that kind of mentality?

Op, have you ever worked in the nhs?

How's that been working out for the UK?

With falling life expectancy (pre covid) in certain communities during the ten years of Tory rule.

@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)

well said - I agree totally and have been saying this on the numerous other threads on this topic. But people on here do love to spout the hatred towards the 'pensioners' as if they are one amorphous group

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

I wonder how many pensioners are doing so because the state pension is inadequate.

@SofiaMichelle

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.

This is totallyy wrong - so many people are misunderstanding to get in a good pensioner bashing. The £86k cap does not mean that that is all any care resident pays and the rest is left untouched. The cap relates only to care element - which is a lesser percentage of the care home cost. Someone calculated that at current cost the person in care will have to pay in something like £400k to reach the cap.
The upshot is that working age people who need care and have no assets will be funded over and above their benefit income. People who have no assets will be funded over and above their benefit income - this includes pensioners.

People who live on benefits pay no NI

People who earn pay NI above the threshold on their earnings (this will now include pensioners) .

The social care levy (like the one that is attached to lots of council tax bills already) will affect lots more types of income - rightly so.

@echt

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

I wonder how many pensioners are doing so because the state pension is inadequate.

Actually working pensioners index wealthy - they have the health to keep going, work is less likely to be manual and more likely to be flexible, and it's a bigger drop from their usual salary to the pension (and they aren't eligible for as many other benefits that top it up like housing).

Not sure where some think the money was coming from.
Putting it in NI is fairer than tax as many people don’t pay tax but will still want the benefits in later life.

I also disagree with taxing the wealthy more. We need more tax payers given our benefits system allows people to not work or do a token few hours.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

Even fewer people pay NI!

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

Not sure where some think the money was coming from. Putting it in NI is fairer than tax as many people don’t pay tax but will still want the benefits in later life.

I also disagree with taxing the wealthy more. We need more tax payers given our benefits system allows people to not work or do a token few hours.

It's not actually insurance. NI is paying for the care that's given right now. It's not being put away for the future, and the cupboard is guaranteed to be bare once Gen X needs care, let alone the younger people paying this now. Meanwhile plenty of older people bought houses via Right to Buy or at low prices, benefited from a booming housing market, and now want to protect their already privileged kids by making younger and poorer people fund them.

@bunnybuggs

This is totallyy wrong - so many people are misunderstanding to get in a good pensioner bashing.
The £86k cap does not mean that that is all any care resident pays and the rest is left untouched.
The cap relates only to care element - which is a lesser percentage of the care home cost. Someone calculated that at current cost the person in care will have to pay in something like £400k to reach the cap.

No, it's not totally wrong.

People most likely to go into a care home while having assets are pensioners.

The average life expectancy in UK care homes is 24 months for care homes without nursing and 12 months for care homes with nursing.

So no idea where you're getting your £400k from.

The fact is, the people who benefit most from the cap are the inheriting relatives of wealthy pensioners in the south east as that's where by far the most property wealth is.

I kind of agree with the OP, I don’t think it’s that terrible that NI is being raised when tax on dividends is being raised as well. That way it hits the rich that get dividends and those high earners will be paying an increase in NI too. The working, low wage population (that I’m included in) are the majority, so they’re also the people who will have that money spent on them eventually. It’s good that we all pay in for what we expect to receive. The problem isn’t with making us pay, it’s that we’re provided with shit services in return.

The older pensioners that could afford to lose some of their income will either already be paying for care or won’t need care but will contribute to other people’s when they die and are taxed then.

That way it hits the rich that get dividends and those high earners will be paying an increase in NI too.

Dividends is a bit of a red herring.

Most wealth from investments isn't from the dividends, it's from the growth of the stock value. That incurs CGT on the sale of the shares, but that's not going up.

Likewise, interest earned on investments is not, for the most part, taxed as dividends. It would incur income tax, but again that's not going up either.

I'm possibly what you'd consider a 'big earner' in that I pay income tax at the additional rate. I'm more than happy to pay more tax but I'd have preferred an increase to the higher rate and the additional rate, leaving out lower earners altogether or, if they really must, an across the board income tax increase instead of NI because at least that picks up on earnings from interest, etc.

@NailsNeedDoing

I kind of agree with the OP, I don’t think it’s that terrible that NI is being raised when tax on dividends is being raised as well. That way it hits the rich that get dividends and those high earners will be paying an increase in NI too. The working, low wage population (that I’m included in) are the majority, so they’re also the people who will have that money spent on them eventually. It’s good that we all pay in for what we expect to receive. The problem isn’t with making us pay, it’s that we’re provided with shit services in return.

The older pensioners that could afford to lose some of their income will either already be paying for care or won’t need care but will contribute to other people’s when they die and are taxed then.

This is why the rich with large share holdings get to hold onto them.

1. As per the pp here, dividends are not the main form of share income. Many don't pay dividends at all. If I bought a tech stock at £100 and it's gone up to £1000, I will only pay 20% tax on that £900 profit, giving me . A nurse on £30k who gets given a payrise of £900 will likely end up losing nearly half of it in tax, once NI and a student loan repayment are taken out.

1. There are older pensioners who have incomes under the threshold for paying for care, but massive assets in the form of houses. When they die, some of this will go in inheritance tax, but most of it will go on to their inheritors, giving further advantage to their own families and far less to the bulk of the low wage population you describe. Far fairer if there was a charge on their estate, so they can stay in their house while they live, but the young, who gave already been so hit by house prices rises, Brexit and covid.

More money needs to be raised to pay for social care.

I am happy to pay more for social care.

However NI isn’t a fair way. And lower earners will pay a higher proportion of the income on NI than higher earners. That is not fair.

Income tax increase would have been the obvious way.

However, my other issue, a lot of this money is going to be wasted. For the first three years it’s going to the nhs. Massively mismanaged organisation. Half the money will be wastes on ineffective middle management (but that’s a while new thread I guess!).

When they die, some of this will go in inheritance tax, but most of it will go on to their inheritors, giving further advantage to their own families and far less to the bulk of the low wage population you describe.

I think it’s worth remembering that people who want to be able to pass their assets down to their children feel so strongly about doing that that because they can see how much harder it is for young people to house themselves nowadays and they want to be able to help with that. It’s not that they want to pass their riches onto their already rich children, there will be plenty of people that have a house to leave to their children (if it doesn’t get sold for care) because their children are low and middle earners.

There seems to be a huge amount of angst about inheritance on MN, but all the people I know that have had an inheritance are teachers, police officers, nurses and other people in normal middle income jobs that society needs but underpays. I can’t see why they are begrudged some help from their own parents as much as they are.

Two things.
However, my other issue, a lot of this money is going to be wasted. For the first three years it’s going to the nhs. Massively mismanaged organisation. Half the money will be wastes on ineffective middle management (but that’s a while new thread I guess!).

The WHO consistently ranks the NHS as one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world delivering excellent value for money. I'm sure there is wastage and always room for improvement but compared to just about every other system, it's doing well.

I think it’s worth remembering that people who want to be able to pass their assets down to their children feel so strongly about doing that that because they can see how much harder it is for young people to house themselves nowadays and they want to be able to help with that.

Once again, the average age to receive an inheritance in the UK is 61. These are not young people getting a start in life.

No I don't think it's fair at all!! Inheritance is a privilege not a right. I've always intended my house to be part of my pension and pay for care if needed and my children know that! If they want more inheritance they'll need to look after me! One of my children is now in work (low paid) and he is now going to be paying NI to pay essentially for his rich granny (she won't be leaving him money) for her care if she needs it when she'll have well over £500k in her house when she dies even after the £80k care cap is taken out. Her money will be divided between me and my brothers and some May filter down to him but not enough or soon enough to make up for the NI he's paying! One of our DD's currently at uni will now be paying back student loans at 9% apr and increased NI. I'm very strongly against the increase. There needs to 100% transparency and accountability for the money care gets before any more is taken from tax payers.