National insurance tax hike

newusername said:
Earn £25k & you'll pay £1800
Earn £50k & it is £4,800
£150k and it is £6,800

It should be rolled into income tax.
Click to expand...

So scrap NI and raise the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 32%? We can be pretty sure that that budget speech will never be heard.

Maybe we should look at returning to the principles behind the original reason for introducing NI which gave us sick-leave payments, a rudimentary health service and unemployment payments for working people. It was run on actuarial lines – you (and your employer) paid into a fund that would pay out should the person fall ill or lose their job. The contributory principle was at its core: you only received benefits if you paid in.

Those principles remain at the heart of most European welfare state models,
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
So scrap NI and raise the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 32%? We can be pretty sure that that budget speech will never be heard.

Maybe we should look at returning to the principles behind the original reason for introducing NI which gave us sick-leave payments, a rudimentary health service and unemployment payments for working people. It was run on actuarial lines – you (and your employer) paid into a fund that would pay out should the person fall ill or lose their job. The contributory principle was at its core: you only received benefits if you paid in.

Those principles remain at the heart of most European welfare state models,
Click to expand...
The more you help and support those at the bottom the better society becomes. It should be based on need and ensuring a decent level of existence for all. The greater number people out of poverty eases the tax burden for everyone as those at the bottom generally need services like the NHS more frequently which is all related to their lifestyle and poverty.

The fact is those at the top the high earners and big businesses should be funding this, businesses that profited from the pandemic especially if you are increasing your wealth by the billions whilst those at the bottom suffer the system is broken. With a tiered rate on NI and a tax rate of 90% on anything over a million pounds, close loopholes for businesses and cut back on the 80 billion a year the public subsidise private industry too would go a long way to funding this. Why the working class are expected to bail out billionaires, the elderly over and over again?
 
I tend to believe elderly people in the UK should contribute significantly to their own care. At present in England an elderly person can keep around £23k of assets that should be raised to around £80k, but they should not be allowed to keep all their assets when younger taxpayers are paying most their £1000/week care fees. At present most of us are paying for the care fees for Scottish residents in care homes, some could be very well off, but less so in England, which can't be right.
 
Last edited:
The tories are trying to maintain their core support. It is probably that simple. Also ni hikes bring in more because of employer contributions which I assume will also be effected.
 
Can't believe what I'm reading here.

Without quoting people there's several saying it's unfair that working age people should carry the can for older people who'll benefit from the care??
I'm gob smacked. I for one would be happy with a massive income tax or NI hike if the Pension was raised to something OAP's could actually live on and not spend their twilight years in poverty. Most of them have worked all their life so I'm hoping this might mean they don't lose their homes to pay for the care they need later in life which is truly barbaric.
We need to take better care of our old people, not whinge about contributing to look after them. We'll all be there one day, don't forget that.
 
The rise might be to pay for a reform of social care funding but only in as much as it will go towards Tory cronies who will skim it off using newly set up private social care facilities….
 
Gains said:
Without quoting people there's several saying it's unfair that working age people should carry the can for older people who'll benefit from the care??
Click to expand...
The issue is that some older people who need social health care can't afford to pay for it. What's the point of asking those very same people to pay more tax or NI to pay for their care? You are flogging the same dead horse. They can't afford it.

If the cost is borne by the taxpayer under a social contract so that those people know they'll benefit when their time comes, would they object? It may help some of them because they wouldn't have to contribute so much to their parents' care (money and or time) and they'd inherit a bit more when their parents die.

Seems like a no brainer.
 
Same_as_before said:
Is that the best you can up with, insulting the elderly. You really do despise the old.

You need to find a hobby, thinking of money 24 hours a day and finding ways of reducing the OAP pension is a bit sad.
Click to expand...

I wasn't insulting the elderly, I wasn't really even insulting you. And then you insulted me with your post. You're a hypocrite.

I was just pointing out you don't care about young people, as seen here and on every Brexit thread. And that you don't answer questions. Both just facts.

It turns out you've also go skin thinner than graphene. Insulting the elderly? Facts aren't insults.

As I said above, you bang on about the working class, but all you really care about is you and your mates in the club. It's just profoundly sad.

But you'll keep in thinking you're right, but I've got your number. And you know it.
 
Gains said:
Can't believe what I'm reading here.

Without quoting people there's several saying it's unfair that working age people should carry the can for older people who'll benefit from the care??
I'm gob smacked. I for one would be happy with a massive income tax or NI hike if the Pension was raised to something OAP's could actually live on and not spend their twilight years in poverty. Most of them have worked all their life so I'm hoping this might mean they don't lose their homes to pay for the care they need later in life which is truly barbaric.
We need to take better care of our old people, not whinge about contributing to look after them. We'll all be there one day, don't forget that.
Click to expand...
A quarter of UK pensioners have assets worth over £1m. Why should young working class kids pay a tax to keep them in their million pound houses?
 
LaPennaBianca said:
A quarter of UK pensioners have assets worth over £1m. Why should young working class kids pay a tax to keep them in their million pound houses?
Click to expand...
But their houses are the reason that many of them have assets of £1 million. Unless you say that they aren't allowed to own a house, lots of pensioners in the south have no more liquid assets than their counterparts in the north.
 
Soutra said:
But their houses are the reason that many of them have assets of £1 million. Unless you say that they aren't allowed to own a house, lots of pensioners in the south have no more liquid assets than their counterparts in the north.
Click to expand...
Of course they should be able to own a house - but is an increase in NI, an increase that will disproportionately affect younger people yet to get on the housing ladder themselves the fairest way to do it?

Social care needs reform, but this blanket proposal has a 27 year old on £25k a year, already paying rent and therefore transferring wealth to someone senior to them, paying more tax. That's money they could be saving for a deposit. All so that someone gets to keep their million pound house. A house that the 27 year old will never be able to own. And it wasn't down to hard work the house is worth £1m, it's because someone just sat in it for 30 years.

It's such a transparent means for protect the Tory electorate to the detriment of everyone else.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
It's in English, so perhaps.

This policy effectively stops retired people having to sell their houses to find their care. That's a noble cause, but not that noble when its paid for by people who are young and struggling to get on the housong ladder themselves.
Click to expand...
I would happily pay the extra if it meant working class people who had worked their entire lives to buy their hone, then didn’t then have to sell it to fund their care. It’s one of the most unfair policies we have in this country
 
JM14 said:
I would happily pay the extra if it meant working class people who had worked their entire lives to buy their hone, then didn’t then have to sell it to fund their care. It’s one of the most unfair policies we have in this country
Click to expand...

Fair enough - but what about WC people who by paying this tax will never be able to afford their own home?

From: Generations: Does When You’re Born Shape Who You Are?’ by Bobby Duffy:

In Britain: it would have taken an average family headed by a 27 to 30 year old just three years to save for an average-sized deposit in the 1980s; by 2016, this had ballooned to 19 years.

So now average working people spend almost half their working lives saving for a deposit, that's before they even start paying off the mortgage.

Is taxing them more to keep someone in their home fair?
 
LaPennaBianca said:
As I said above, you bang on about the working class, but all you really care about is you and your mates in the club. It's just profoundly sad.
Click to expand...
I’m late to the socialism thing, only really thinking it’s got it’s worth in my 40s but I’ve come to the belief that a lot of the old school labour voters had the same view LaPenna, they were only interested in socialism if they were getting something out of it, they didn’t care enough about those less fortunate to them… I’m not wanting to over generalise but they seem to have bought into the Tory line that they will be worse off if we all try to help each other…
 
I’m over 60 and in a 30+ year career as a Financial Adviser ended up specialising in Late Life Advice, that is Long Term Care, Depreciating Capital Investment ( spending Capital as income) and Inheritance Tax.
The Language used can be quite emotive so let’s get simple.

The very Wealthy or those who have lived on benefit need not worry about the “ cost” of care.
The average family could have a lot of their modest wealth impacted by Long Term Care costs.
Health Care is free in this country.
Old Age is not an illness.
The “ fees” people pay for are for the domestic “ hotel” facilities.
The better the facilities the more expensive the fee.
The more personalised the medical care , the more expensive the fees.
A Family or a Spouse have no financial responsibility for a Husband /Wife / Father or Mother
Only the person receiving Care is assessed as to their ability to contribute.
Your HOME is not viewed as an asset.
If you are “ in Care” what used to be your Home ( if it is now empty) is now just another HOUSE ( as the Care home is your HOME) and so, it’s now an ASSET.
If a surviving spouse or “dependent or long term resident relative” is still in your old HOME then it is still a HOME and not a financial ASSET.

To ensure no more than the absolute requirement is paid in the event of care do the following.
Change how the family HOME is owned, from the common Joint Ownership to “ Tenancy in common”. This mean both mam and dad own 50%. Joint ownership means any surviving Spouse ends up owning 100% of the HOME, or ,if the surviving spouse is in care 100% of an empty house that IS NOW AN ASSET. If the family home was purchased recently (after 1986??) you can change the ownership basis on line, if not , you’ll need a solicitor.

Once you’ve changed ownership redraw any Will to include a Discreasionay Will Trust to show that the 50% ownership of any deceased spouse goes into trust (and so eventually to the kids when the surviving spouse dies) and NOT directly to the surviving spouse.

Split ALL other investment into single ownership, this show exactly who’s money is who’s , this helps in the financial review once care is provided.
This will avoid you contributing over what you are due or “ wish” ( for a nicer CareHome) to pay.

To help clarify or confuse the issue, think on this,
Why should People NOT in Care (and their children) pay higher taxes to help fund a national Long Term Care scheme ( and so reduce their wealth) to allow those IN CARE to pass their biggest Asset onto their kids untaxed.

Take advice , I can answer some questions but specific costing and allowance amounts etc have all changed since I hung up my pen.

The Whole Tax system in the Country is flawed, and the financing of all social care is under direct attack by this Government.
 
Last edited:
2p in the pound is nothing, put 2% on the tax and ring fence it for the NHS while they're at it,no such thing as a free lunch and it's a good cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top