Bozo wants to hike National Insurance to pay for social care

[Save me from the madness!]

I find this policy of a rise to NI absolutely awful. Effectively this tax targets PAYE employees and labourers only. Self employed Ltd Co will dodge via dividends. Ultra rich don't pay NI already as income is from assets. Pension payments attract no NI, and obviously benefits escape all taxes. 

This idea that the young eventually benefit from inheritance is wrong too. Some young people do, and for those that do, perhaps they are no longer young when they benefit. My Dad is nearly 70 and still not had any inheritance as incredible my Grandpa is still going strong in his 90s. I'm 40 with 3 kids, there is a very good chance my kids will have left home before I get any inheritance, at which point you wonder what is the point in it? Would have been far better to have lower house prices and higher disposable income during the stressful years of getting a family home and raising kids when that money could have transformed our lives rather then when I'm a wrinkly myself and it just means posher holidays.

Far better for each generation to stand in its own merits rather then rely on luck of parents giving you a large lottery win at some semi random point in time but probably far later then would be most use. 

[bartelbe]

It is the wrong tax and typical of the Tories. It hits younger workers and older people, even in work, are exempt. So the heavily taxed younger people, who are already being crushed by the housing market, get hit again for something for the elderly.

If there is going to be a tax increase, it should be income tax, so the old pay their fair share.

[mattyboy1973]

29 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

The reason for that is the original idea is it's a contribution to a compulsory pensions and insurance scheme.

Rich people don't get more State pension or more unemployment benefit - so why should they pay a higher contribution to the scheme?

Rich people already pay proportionately more income tax overall. 

That might have been the original idea, but NI has long gone straight into the general taxation coffers - nothing is "put aside" from NI for any special purpose. Far better IMO to get rid of NI completely, have a payroll tax for employers and adjust income tax to compensate, which would be far more progressive. Of course, that would end the lie that we are a low tax economy, since the lower rate of tax is really 32% once you factor in NI. We should really expect a much higher standard of public services and pensions for the money we already pay.

[scottbeard]

9 minutes ago, mattyboy1973 said:

That might have been the original idea, but NI has long gone straight into the general taxation coffers - nothing is "put aside" from NI for any special purpose. Far better IMO to get rid of NI completely, have a payroll tax for employers and adjust income tax to compensate, which would be far more progressive. Of course, that would end the lie that we are a low tax economy, since the lower rate of tax is really 32% once you factor in NI. We should really expect a much higher standard of public services and pensions for the money we already pay.

If people wanted to roll NI into income tax then fine - my point was more that criticising NI because in isolation it's regressive is false logic because really it just a part of the overall income tax regime which in totality is progressive.

I don't think I've ever read that we are a low tax economy for WORKERS, perhaps sometimes for COMPANIES?  It's not a lie that's actually peddled to my knowledge.

[markyh]

3 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Not sure if this is the usual testing the water, but Bozo want to break the Tory tax pledge and hike National Insurance to pay for adult social care so pensioners don't have to sell their houses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9953203/Boris-Johnson-break-manifesto-pledge-raise-National-Insurance-pay-old-age-support.html#article-9953203

How is a tax on young workers justified when many pensioners are sat on substantial housing assets?

I thought this, the retired of state pension age no longer pay NI , put 1p it on income tax, and everyone pays, then it could be 1p, not 1.25p.   Or would the 1.25p be on both employee and employer NI ? So really 2.5p extra tax on the economy? 

[Insane]

17 minutes ago, mattyboy1973 said:

Of course, that would end the lie that we are a low tax economy, since the lower rate of tax is really 32% once you factor in NI. We should really expect a much higher standard of public services and pensions for the money we already pay.

+1

When I went to work in 1979 Thatcher had just been elected. 

Basic Rate Income tax was 33% and NI was under 6% , I remember my first pay packet looking at the Tax Taken and then this other deduction questioning what it was. A colleague explained what it was and said

" don't worry about that it is just your state pension and health care only a few quid " 

Successive Governments have lowered the Basic Rate of Income Tax while  raising NI , giving in one hand and taken back in the other. 

Over the years when NI has been raised ( funny enough often not in the main budget but on the sly , quietly at another time) the Government raising it tells us NI is not income tax so is not a Tax Rise , while the opposition cry that it is a Tax rise. Later the opposition now in Government has also raised it telling us it is not Income Tax while the now opposition tell us it is. MADNESS !!!  

We should have much better services for the money we pay and lets not forget Income Tax and NI are just two of the many taxes we have in the UK. 

[winkie]

On Income tax rather than NI tax or from capital gains tax or even inheritance tax?......definitely not on a compulsory private insurance....look to how effectively our tax money is being spent wherever it comes from, is it being spent wisely?

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by winkie

[anonguest]

3 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Not sure if this is the usual testing the water, but Bozo want to break the Tory tax pledge and hike National Insurance to pay for adult social care so pensioners don't have to sell their houses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9953203/Boris-Johnson-break-manifesto-pledge-raise-National-Insurance-pay-old-age-support.html#article-9953203

How is a tax on young workers justified when many pensioners are sat on substantial housing assets?

It's not.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Said it before a thousand times but it's always worth repeating.

Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never ever vote Conservative.

But we wanted to be Brexshit winners Zugs. 

[Insane]

22 minutes ago, winkie said:

.look to how effectively our tax money is being spent wherever it comes from, is it being spent wisely?

We all know there is huge waste in Government on top of the things that should not be paid for with our taxes like HELP to BUY. 

[spyguy]

59 minutes ago, mattyboy1973 said:

That might have been the original idea, but NI has long gone straight into the general taxation coffers - nothing is "put aside" from NI for any special purpose. Far better IMO to get rid of NI completely, have a payroll tax for employers and adjust income tax to compensate, which would be far more progressive. Of course, that would end the lie that we are a low tax economy, since the lower rate of tax is really 32% once you factor in NI. We should really expect a much higher standard of public services and pensions for the money we already pay.

No, there is a NI fund - 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts

[spyguy]

31 minutes ago, Insane said:

+1

When I went to work in 1979 Thatcher had just been elected. 

Basic Rate Income tax was 33% and NI was under 6% , I remember my first pay packet looking at the Tax Taken and then this other deduction questioning what it was. A colleague explained what it was and said

" don't worry about that it is just your state pension and health care only a few quid " 

Successive Governments have lowered the Basic Rate of Income Tax while  raising NI , giving in one hand and taken back in the other. 

Over the years when NI has been raised ( funny enough often not in the main budget but on the sly , quietly at another time) the Government raising it tells us NI is not income tax so is not a Tax Rise , while the opposition cry that it is a Tax rise. Later the opposition now in Government has also raised it telling us it is not Income Tax while the now opposition tell us it is. MADNESS !!!  

We should have much better services for the money we pay and lets not forget Income Tax and NI are just two of the many taxes we have in the UK. 

Look at employee NI is only half the story.

Theres employer NI contributions too. 

This is whats causing the problem with self employed v PAYE.

[Insane]

13 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Theres employer NI contributions too. 

 I know , crazy a tax on Employing someone MADNESS. 

[mattyboy1973]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

No, there is a NI fund - 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts

OK, yes - more accurate perhaps to say that this money isn't ringfenced in any particular way.

[Freki]

59 minutes ago, Insane said:

 I know , crazy a tax on Employing someone MADNESS. 

A tax on a service provided to the employer, MADNESS!!!

[GregBowman]

5 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Not sure if this is the usual testing the water, but Bozo want to break the Tory tax pledge and hike National Insurance to pay for adult social care so pensioners don't have to sell their houses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9953203/Boris-Johnson-break-manifesto-pledge-raise-National-Insurance-pay-old-age-support.html#article-9953203

How is a tax on young workers justified when many pensioners are sat on substantial housing assets?

Because its inequitable if you pay in all your life and when you need help you get nothing yet you have an asset and that is taken from you to pay for your care. Will the extended families of all our new immigrants be paying for their care, despite contributing nothing to the system ?

So that is  how the tax is justified.

In reality it is more complex, there is a case for a one off insurance payment against asset stripping and all workers whatever age paying NI as starters 

 

[GregBowman]

1 hour ago, anonguest said:

It's not.

I sent my children to private school and have private health care do I get the money I saved the  tax payer back then ? Doesn't really stand up that argument does it ?

By the way as my other comment there are other ways to do it but just to say I don't use the  service currently doesn't stand up as an argument in a broad based tax system.

Edited September 3, 2021 by GregBowman

[GregBowman]

2 hours ago, markyh said:

I thought this, the retired of state pension age no longer pay NI , put 1p it on income tax, and everyone pays, then it could be 1p, not 1.25p.   Or would the 1.25p be on both employee and employer NI ? So really 2.5p extra tax on the economy? 

We should put NI on people working after retirement age of course, but not on pension income which is taxed at a very low threshold, my mum pays tax on her total £15k so for all the younger generations the older ones are paying. Still doesn't get over how fair is it that you contribute nothing all your life and get everything for free ?

[Freki]

6 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

We should put NI on people working after retirement age of course, but not on pension income which is taxed at a very low threshold, my mum pays tax on her total £15k so for all the younger generations the older ones are paying. Still doesn't get over how fair is it that you contribute nothing all your life and get everything for free ?

Are you describing the actual generation that is receiving 2p for every p they put in? this sort of fairness you are trying to describe?

[Si1]

3 hours ago, scottbeard said:

 

Rich people already pay proportionately more income tax overall. 

that's a terrible selective stat

 

 national insurance and council tax are heavily skewed to punish those on lower incomes

[Si1]

15 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

Because its inequitable if you pay in all your life and when you need help you get nothing yet you have an asset and that is taken from you to pay for your care. Will the extended families of all our new immigrants be paying for their care, despite contributing nothing to the system ?

So that is  how the tax is justified.

In reality it is more complex, there is a case for a one off insurance payment against asset stripping and all workers whatever age paying NI as starters 

 

I don't have a problem with everyone paying in extra to make sure they're covered, it's just that NI is such a loaded tax disproportionately against the poor that it's inappropriate in its current form for this purpose.

As a rule those on the higher incomes have benefited a lot from the comparatively good business environment in the UK, how much tax do you suppose that's worth to maintain? 

[Fromage Frais]

3 hours ago, spyguy said:

The NHS *and* the care industry.

Id guess that 80%+ of my GP time is spend on the over 75s.

The local hospital is 50% OAP bed locking.

 

Its unsustainable and a demographic time bomb.

Immigration in a way is human cheap money and in itself is a Ponzi scheme as they themselves will become old.

Maybe the better way is to be like Dubai and say to folk come here earn more and then once you reach x age you have to return no ifs no buts unless you can pay your own way/medical insurance.  Maybe even give them a tax free allowance to say thanks when they go home.

How long will the young put up living in a country where they are working to pay for x times more older people.

 

[Locke]

1 minute ago, Fromage Frais said:

Immigration in a way is human cheap money

Very expensive human money.

They consume welfare at a higher rate than natives and have lower incomes. Stopping all immigration would be a net positive for the budget.

[Insane]

3 minutes ago, Fromage Frais said:

How long will the young put up living in a country where they are working to pay for x times more older people.

Plus people their own age and younger. Many immigrants are in low paid employment and therefore receive in work benefits.  Cheap Labour is cheap at the point of use but has to be paid for somewhere. 

[Insane]

47 minutes ago, Freki said:

A tax on a service provided to the employer, MADNESS!!!

A service that employer's constantly try cutting to the bone in order to reduce the tax ,thus producing more unemployed or semi employed the tab being picked up by the Tax Payer. MADNESS.