My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

To wonder why the National Insurance increase was reversed

68 replies

Musicalmaestro · 24/09/2022 09:37

As I thought it was meant to provide much needed funds for social care.

OP posts:
Report

Am I being unreasonable?

59 votes. Final results.

POLL
You are being unreasonable
29%
You are NOT being unreasonable
71%
Miffee · 25/09/2022 08:57

rockyg · 25/09/2022 08:55

A lot of people in this thread are under the impression that they have also cancelled introduction of the care cap.

They have not.

So some are still very disadvantaged

Well to be fair the NI increase wasn't going to cover the cost of the care cap anyway.

Report
FinallyHere · 25/09/2022 08:59

NHS and social care even further into the ground so it is eventually privatised

Well, it's just possible that some of the people making the policy can (a) afford to pay privately for healthcare and support in old age and (b) are set to benefit from the contracts which will become available as the former NHS provision is increasingly privatised.

While benefitting from tax cuts.

For them, it's win win. For the overall health and well-being of the nation, it's a bit pants.

Report
Autumn2022 · 25/09/2022 09:01

properdoughnut · 24/09/2022 09:40

They have some extra funds now

From where? The cabinet meeting for our local council didn’t know where the extra was coming from and the budget was planned on the 1% increase.

Report
FinallyHere · 25/09/2022 09:01

And I'm guessing that many of those care workers might be influenced by the line flogged by tabloid newspapers

Report
Autumn2022 · 25/09/2022 09:03

I have to admit I don’t disagree with the elderly having to use the equity in their homes bought for a pittance to pay for their care. I also recognise in saying that that my inheritance might be spent this way - I’m ok with that too.

Report
Miffee · 25/09/2022 09:05

Autumn2022 · 25/09/2022 09:01

From where? The cabinet meeting for our local council didn’t know where the extra was coming from and the budget was planned on the 1% increase.

They had still yet to give local authorities solid figures. They gave figures for the pot but didn't say how it would be distributed. Even without the breakdown it was clear it feel short and central government had told LAs there was more to come but hadn't specified this amount at all.

Tories are now saying general taxation.

Nothing has changed for LAs really they didn't have solid information anyway and were told to just get on with it.

Report
sashagabadon · 25/09/2022 09:09

rockyg · 25/09/2022 08:45

I'm not disagreeing about younger home owning generations in London, I am one!

But I thought we were talking about the generations needing care in later life? Like my parents who payed 40k for their London home in the 80s & they now sell for 1.8m

You’ll need care in later life too! There’s far more southerners that paid £500k plus for their homes than 80 year olds that bought their homes for £2000 in 1965

Report
Miffee · 25/09/2022 09:09

Autumn2022 · 25/09/2022 09:03

I have to admit I don’t disagree with the elderly having to use the equity in their homes bought for a pittance to pay for their care. I also recognise in saying that that my inheritance might be spent this way - I’m ok with that too.

They are still going ahead with it. It's only 3 months until implementation (there are a number of LAs doing it early).

There have been millions spent on this already. So far there is no indication they are reversing it.

My personal guess? I reckon they will go ahead but then changes the thresholds.

Report
rockyg · 25/09/2022 09:12

@sashagabadon I'm not denying I will need care in the future but posters were discussing those who need care now & high mortgage costs.

Report
rockyg · 25/09/2022 09:14

I have to admit I don’t disagree with the elderly having to use the equity in their homes bought for a pittance to pay for their care

The care cap hasn't changed

Report
Sushi7 · 25/09/2022 09:24

purpleme12 · 24/09/2022 12:22

@Fladdermus someone said that the lower paid people are less likely to vote.
And higher paid are more likely to vote and also more likely to vote Tory.
Which is how they get away with it?
I don't know how true this is.
Does anyone know if people who are lower paid are less likely to vote?

Unfortunately, the privately educated Labour MPs are not “for the people” anymore. They don’t care about the working class who work really hard but are paid poorly. They just care about the taxes they can take from the working class. It is always the same two parties that come on top and neither of them help the working class, hence why many don’t bother voting.

Report
Blossomtoes · 25/09/2022 09:28

StripyHorse · 24/09/2022 09:39

Because the govt don't care about social care.

They care about making money for themselves and their friends / donors.

This. And they’re using it to bribe us to vote for them.

Report
crossstitchingnana · 25/09/2022 09:35

speakingofart · 24/09/2022 13:19

Because it would yet again have benefitted the boomers at the cost of millennials and quite frankly I've had enough. I don't particularly agree with the tax cuts, but I didn't agree with paying for the care of older, richer people so that they could pass on inheritance intact so I do agree with this particular one.

But if you go into care, and have assets (ie a house) then you pay for it, not the state. My parents are boomers and as poor as church mice. It's not one size fits all.

Report
Octomore · 25/09/2022 09:46

RoseAndRose · 25/09/2022 08:37

Have those Southerners necessarily paid a fortune in mortgage repayments? I would imagine that most of those who are of the age to go into care at the moment would have bought decades ago when prices were more reasonable and have benefitted from huge capital gains

Yes - prices may have been lower, but with interest rates at 15%, monthly repayments were (in real terms) considerably higher.

Exemption from CGT is only if you have bought and sold, or on final sale (which, if at death, would mean IHT for the heirs). So it depends more on how many times you've switched rung on the housing ladder, and that's not necessarily age related

What on earth has CGT got to do with it? We are talking about people's primary residences - there is no CGT on capital gains on your primary residence.

The fact is that the average elderly person in SE England will not have paid anything like the value of their home in mortgage payments over the years. Not even close.

Report
MargeSampson · 25/09/2022 09:59

Reversing it lets people keep more of the money they earn through working. It's fair.

What is unfair is taxing people's earnings heavily and giving it to other people, some who can't be bothered to work full time jobs. Benefits should only be for those who can't work through disability.

Report
OnlyFoolsnMothers · 25/09/2022 10:02

MargeSampson · 25/09/2022 09:59

Reversing it lets people keep more of the money they earn through working. It's fair.

What is unfair is taxing people's earnings heavily and giving it to other people, some who can't be bothered to work full time jobs. Benefits should only be for those who can't work through disability.

Tax creates a decent fair society- I would rather be £30 down a month and not have a 30hr wait in A&E or my child to wait 2years to see a consultant!

Report
Miffee · 25/09/2022 10:11

MargeSampson · 25/09/2022 09:59

Reversing it lets people keep more of the money they earn through working. It's fair.

What is unfair is taxing people's earnings heavily and giving it to other people, some who can't be bothered to work full time jobs. Benefits should only be for those who can't work through disability.

I sincerely doubt this will make a difference to your view but the taxation and the redistribution of wealth it allows is in recognition that we live in a grossly unfair society.

What you parents (and indeed ancestors) did makes more difference to how much wealth you have than any other factor. How is that fair? Even if you take fairness and justice out of it how is it good for society that we have that level of stratification? Can you not see how that would completely stagnate development?

Report
DomesticShortHair · 25/09/2022 10:21

OnlyFoolsnMothers · 25/09/2022 10:02

Tax creates a decent fair society- I would rather be £30 down a month and not have a 30hr wait in A&E or my child to wait 2years to see a consultant!

How about being £30 down a month and having no discernible change to your £30 wait in A&E? NHS England has a £153 billion budget this year. Why do you think that the £12 billion that would have been raised by the increase will make a massive difference to the current outcomes?

Though I believe £30 a month could mKe a massive difference to some at the moment.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.