National insurance tax hike

[Soutra]

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.

That's not how income tax works. I don't have kids, but part of my income tax goes to fund education and nursery provision. You can't pick and choose what your money is spent on.

And - although the tax is system is flawed - it's probably as good as it can be at present. 1% of the population contributes almost 30% of all income tax revenue, and almost half of the population pays no income tax. If you really go after high earners, you may start to lose a lot of that 30% of tax revenue. Whatever the ins and outs, income tax is levied according to your ability to pay, so it's fair and it's progressive. Chase the tax evaders and multi nationals by all means, but for most individuals, income tax is fair. You can argue about whether it could be levied more or less, but the people who earn more pay more, which is the fundamental thing.

 

[Laughing]

I am a bit ambivalent about this. We have to pay for care and its one easy of raising the money. I would like to see it ring fenced as pfc says but that won't happen.

I think most people are happy to pay for society we just don't want to see the money siphoned off.

Is it the fairest way to raise the money? Probably not.

 

[Same_as_before]

Avoiding answering every question. Because you don't have an answer. Showing contempt.

Now you have confirmed I despise the young and you the elderly how does this fit into that?

Make tax start at £15000, then 20% for say £50,000, then 45% on everything above that, including profits on houses sold within say 5 years of purchase. Taper the house profit tax down to say 20% at 10 years and then leave it.

Penna is right use house values to pay for care down to say £50,000 the money only goes to wealthy people.

 

[JM14]

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?

The entire concept of home ownership needs to change to be more accessible to everyone. It’s not fair but I think it’s even more unfair that someone who has worked their entire life to own a home, can loose that and have nothing to pass onto their children despite paying into the system their entire lives.
Im not talking about those who have millions, this mainly concerns working class people.
If that’s the case then what’s the point in working and building towards anything, where’s the incentive if you will just loose it all anyway?

 

[Redwurzel]

The elderly deserve and very much should get decent care. The issue is often when they are in care home permanently, so they don't physically need their house, should it be left to their family etc or used toward the cost of care fees.

Typically fees in the UK are £1,000 per week, say an elderly person has pensions of £250/week that leaves £750 per week to be paid. The elderly person may have a house worth £250k and savings of say £30k. Lets say they stay in the home for 200 weeks, where should the 200 times £750 come from? That's the debate.

 

[Osboro]

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.

That's not how income tax works. I don't have kids, but part of my income tax goes to fund education and nursery provision. You can't pick and choose what your money is spent on.

And - although the tax is system is flawed - it's probably as good as it can be at present. 1% of the population contributes almost 30% of all income tax revenue, and almost half of the population pays no income tax. If you really go after high earners, you may start to lose a lot of that 30% of tax revenue. Whatever the ins and outs, income tax is levied according to your ability to pay, so it's fair and it's progressive. Chase the tax evaders and multi nationals by all means, but for most individuals, income tax is fair. You can argue about whether it could be levied more or less, but the people who earn more pay more, which is the fundamental thing.

Sorry Soutra, I made my point poorly, I was talking about the principle of funding.
Long Term Care costs money, it’s not about income tax or choice.
The average Daily Mail reader cries over their home being sold to pay for care but doesn’t consider that ultimately via local and national taxes they would pay to allow someone to pass on an asset to there kids.
Your point about not having kids is just as silly, my daughters a doctor, you helped fund her education and she will help you when you need it.
Passing on an asset is not a NEED.

 

[LaPennaBianca]

The entire concept of home ownership needs to change to be more accessible to everyone. It’s not fair but I think it’s even more unfair that someone who has worked their entire life to own a home, can loose that and have nothing to pass onto their children despite paying into the system their entire lives.
Im not talking about those who have millions, this mainly concerns working class people.
If that’s the case then what’s the point in working and building towards anything, where’s the incentive if you will just loose it all anyway?

This stil raises the question - what is fair about someone working their whole life and never getting a house to own, let alone pass on to anybody, so that someone else can keep theirs?

 

[Same_as_before]

The entire concept of home ownership needs to change to be more accessible to everyone. It’s not fair but I think it’s even more unfair that someone who has worked their entire life to own a home, can loose that and have nothing to pass onto their children despite paying into the system their entire lives.
Im not talking about those who have millions, this mainly concerns working class people.
If that’s the case then what’s the point in working and building towards anything, where’s the incentive if you will just loose it all anyway?

Jam I agree to a degree but people worked to pay the mortgage, that is no where near the value of the house at death. I would estimate and I am guessing that the average house is at least 100% above that was paid for it. far higher in the South it could be 500%. The balance is inflation. Don't forget interest rates have been low for almost a decade. What happens to the money. It's given to 50 to 60 'children'

 

[Ex pfc wintergreen]

The govtcan take any revenue raised from increase in tax and N I and use it to fund social care, that's how govts work. It's there choice where the money goes.

 

[Same_as_before]

NIC should be merged into tax, it's a good knows how old a concept. It was a way of getting employers to contribute.

You could add a sales tax on everything of 2% that would create more than enough cash. Vat is a daft idea it can be reclaimed by House Builders on building new houses, but not an individual putting in house repairs. So a bath to a new house builder is 20% less than you and I. Don't say prices will increase when Permission paid £150 milion bonuses to its 2 top directors in one year.

 

[newusername]

NIC should be merged into tax, it's a good knows how old a concept. It was a way of getting employers to contribute.

I agree with removing employees NIC & merging into income tax.
I don't see the logic in removing the employers contribution though, unless say it was legislated that employers had to pass 100% of the saving onto employees through their salary.

 

[Same_as_before]

I agree with removing employees NIC & merging into income tax.
I don't see the logic in removing the employers contribution though, unless say it was legislated that employers had to pass 100% of the saving onto employees through their salary.

Apologies I did mean for employer share to stay.

 

[Nero]

It's typical of this country to fail to deal with a massive issue properly and end up in a desperate situation that a government (regardless of colour) will apply any sort of fix too.

Since 2010 Local Authorities have had huge funding cuts imposed on them from Government and in that time Social Care has suffered. It's no bloody surprise if the policy is to force LA's to make cuts.

What has happened with the Tory Austerity is to remove the state's responsibility. Local Authorities now charge more tax in an attempt to get more cash for local Social Care. It isn't enough but will continue to increase annually.

 

[JM14]

This stil raises the question - what is fair about someone working their whole life and never getting a house to own, let alone pass on to anybody, so that someone else can keep theirs?

That’s the situation with tax and NI though, where’s the fairness of someone who doesn’t drive paying for roads to be maintained, someone with no kids paying for schools etc

 

[locomansimon]

Catch up with the wealthy tax dodgers, make them contribute for a change !

 

[LaPennaBianca]

That’s the situation with tax and NI though, where’s the fairness of someone who doesn’t drive paying for roads to be maintained, someone with no kids paying for schools etc

It's nothing like that, as this is a tax specifically dedicated to upholding structures of wealth and reinforcing generational differences in wealth.

If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Osboro]

It's typical of this country to fail to deal with a massive issue properly and end up in a desperate situation that a government (regardless of colour) will apply any sort of fix too.

Since 2010 Local Authorities have had huge funding cuts imposed on them from Government and in that time Social Care has suffered. It's no bloody surprise if the policy is to force LA's to make cuts.

What has happened with the Tory Austerity is to remove the state's responsibility. Local Authorities now charge more tax in an attempt to get more cash for local Social Care. It isn't enough but will continue to increase annually.

Tory long term policy, this results in a poor LA raising rates on depleted wealth base to fund social issue that are greater. Due to its depleted wealth base , and so it repeats. ie North east

wealthy LA with solid wealth base has less social issues and so needs to spend less on said social issue ie many South East Authorities.

On the subject of Long Term Care this also means many London Boroughs send LTC recipients to Brighton as it’s a cheaper option than London based homes.

 

[JM14]

It's nothing like that, as this is a tax specifically dedicated to upholding structures of wealth and reinforcing generational differences in wealth.

If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

That’s absolutely not the case, admittedly the rich will also benefit but that’s not really the point.
I completely understand your argument but a society that lets someone work their entire life to afford a property to then get it taken away in their retirement to fund their care is just wrong.

What’s the point in working hard and paying into a system your entire life to get absolutely nothing back in your retirement the second you fall into ill health?


If anything not bringing this in would increase the wealth gap, parents work their entire lives to leave something for their children to allow them greater wealth and freedoms in their own lives. Taking this away will hit those who are working class the hardest

 

[Same_as_before]

That’s absolutely not the case, admittedly the rich will also benefit but that’s not really the point.
I completely understand your argument but a society that lets someone work their entire life to afford a property to then get it taken away in their retirement to fund their care is just wrong.

What’s the point in working hard and paying into a system your entire life to get absolutely nothing back in your retirement the second you fall into ill health?


If anything not bringing this in would increase the wealth gap, parents work their entire lives to leave something for their children to allow them greater wealth and freedoms in their own lives. Taking this away will hit those who are working class the hardest

It's not wrong if it's based on inflation.

We bought our house for circa £85k 20 years ago, now it's worth about £230k that's not hard work , it's inflation.

 

[bear66]

Unearned income (investments, capital gains, inheritance etc.), which is taxed at less than earned income, should be taxed more.