Get over it

[TheCat]

Whether you like more tax or hate it...an extra 1pct for a good reason......let's move on.....

[KidKruger]

It?s an increase in NI though, isn?t it ?

[Alan Medic]

From the little I know about this, the main complaint about a rise in NI is that young people will be paying for old people. Yet those old people were once young people, and the current young people will hopefully become old people. So what's wrong with that?

[Spartacus]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From the little I know about this, the main

> complaint about a rise in NI is that young people

> will be paying for old people. Yet those old

> people were once young people, and the current

> young people will hopefully become old people. So

> what's wrong with that?

Especially as the old people who have paid their NI stamp when they were young actually ended up funding social care for the elders of their generation in the understanding that when they got old the young would be funding their care.

Saying that they shouldn't increase the NI rate to look after them because it's unfair on the young is like robbing Paul when he was young and then returning to kick him in the nads after

[Jules-and-Boo]

I thought most of our elderly are finding care through their savings. Everyone I know in a care home is

[Sephiroth]

I think the generational part of this is being overstated/overplayed

The main problem is if you go with NI rather than income tax or a wealth tax, you take proportionally more from already hardworking people on low incomes

[DuncanW]

Absolutely - NI hits people on lower incomes harder. But then that's what Conservative govt's do.

Stick 1% on basic rate tax - 2% on the higher rates, and bring CGT (closer at least) into line with Income tax.

[Sephiroth]

ANOTHER way to raise a lot of money would be to avoid the multi-billion hit to the economy because of Brexit

but no - let's put up trade barriers with our nearest neighbours, get rid of a million workers in the middle of. pandemic and charge whoever is left

[sjsl]

One fairly straightforward way to raise a lot of money is to apply the NI rate at 12% across the board, rather than reduce it to 2% for those earning over ?50k. This could potentially raise an extra ?14bn according to https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/ (if you're interested in the details). You could raise the threshold at the same time to make it fairer to the lowest earners.

[JohnL]

sjsl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One fairly straightforward way to raise a lot of

> money is to apply the NI rate at 12% across the

> board, rather than reduce it to 2% for those

> earning over ?50k. This could potentially raise an

> extra ?14bn according to

> https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/ (if you're

> interested in the details). You could raise the

> threshold at the same time to make it fairer to

> the lowest earners.

Can't see the Tories doing that

[JohnL]

Will the Tories even add the extra 1.25% to the 2% zone

You could have

13.25% or 12% all the way

or

13.25% then 3.25%

But I reckon it'll be

13.25% then 2%

[alex_b]

My main problem is the proposal is to tackle the problem by taxing income not wealth. This disproportionately hits the less wealthy, younger and lower paid. It also does this in order to preserve the inter-generation wealth gap in the property market.

Sure it would be nice for people to pass on their houses that they bought through right to buy in the 1980s to their kids in their 40s, 50s, or even 60s; but that shouldn?t be funded by raising taxes on their grandchildren.

[Pugwash]

I reached retirement age at 60 but carried on working until 66 and would have continued working in a job I loved for more years. During those 6 years I did not pay any NI contribution - I would have been happy to pay these contributions. I know that statutory retirement age has now changed, but those who continue to work after statutory age should still pay NI contributions.

I was at the top of my professional wage scale, many of my colleagues who were younger also were on the same pay scale, why should they be penalised because of their age.

Increase NI on those earning in excess of ?20,000 per year.

[KidKruger]

I?ve spent my entire working life so far believing (possibly my naivety?) what I pay into Govt will contribute to my welfare later, not that I?m contributing to the welfare of people who came before me - nor that people still at school now / at early stage of their careers are gonna pay for my welfare.

I think there?s a sleight of hand occurring here.

So it looks like this Govt is getting people less likely to vote for it (younger, less assets) to pay for the welfare of those who are more likely to vote for it (older, house owners, more assets to protect).

Guaranteed vote winner !

I think NI approach is unfair and actual income should be the consideration for increased contributions.

[malumbu]

Raising NI is preferable (or does less political damage) than raisin income tax. It may be wrong, but that wont nake any difference unless there is a significant rebellion.

[DuncanW]

Is the 1.25% being split between employee's and employer's contributions?

That, at least takes the sting out of it.

I read that people working above retirement age will pay in the future; does that include people who derive income from investments but aren't technically working?

And I think I saw something about a rise in the tax on share dividends, so not all bad...

[JohnL]

no additional employers - 2.5 in all

[JohnL]

then changes to a new tax type thing 2 years hence that pensioners will also pay - and NI reverts

[smooch]

thought brexit meant we had loads of money now? whats the problem....

[TheCat]

Well...if nothing else I have to give credit to Bojo.....his critics have been saying for years that he is a populist, cant make the hard decisions, and just wants to please everyone....well this announcement seemingly pleases almost no one....

It might not be the perfect mechanism (seriously, what would be?)...but critics who claiming that its purely an income metric are missing the asset means testing component that comes at the other end to determine what benefits are actually paid out.....

[JohnL]

smooch Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thought brexit meant we had loads of money now?

> whats the problem....

Either

(a) spent it all

(b) never had it

depending on your view

[Sephiroth]

If you think Johnson deserves credit for making decisions that please no one, the next couple of years are going to be wild (although I suspect this announcement will be popular with people. In short term anyway. So. True to form)

On the decision itself I?m currently agnostic - but the rush to push it thru in a hurry tomorrow suggests it hides a multitude of issues he wants out of the way before anyone realises. Very much his MO and always leads to problems

Not sure what cabinet or mps are even for these days given his disregard for scrutiny

[Nigello]

The National Insurance is in effect a 2.5% rise because employers match the employees? contributions, as stated and the 1.25% shares tax is new so it?ll add up to a fair bit, most of it going to health service shortfalls for the first year, I think.

[Pugwash]

BoJo keeps saying that NI increases will provide extra money for health and social care. Those of us who have worked in social care know that Social Services are the ones who contribute towards care Home costs for those who are eligible for funding. In reality, most care homes now charge between ?600 - ?1000 per week, and every social service depts in the country have a maximum fee limit. Very complicated way of explaining to people how placements are funded if social services assess someone in NEED (not WANT) of placement. With government cutbacks in funding local authorities - all Social Services Depts have to decide which services they need to cut and many home care receivers have had their hours reduced and costs increase. It is sometimes more cost effective to provide 24 hour care in the person's own home. A friend of our's mother had advanced dementia and he and his sister felt that remaining in her own home was the best option. They found a live in carer via an agency, our friend, a taxi driver, was home between 10pm and 8 am so carer got a break during these times although she still stayed on the premises and would help out in emergencies. Mother lived until 102 and had 3/4 years of live in carers. Costs were roughly ?150 - ?200 per week less than care/nursing home fees.

[TheCat]

Pugwash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BoJo keeps saying that NI increases will provide

> extra money for health and social care. Those of

> us who have worked in social care know that Social

> Services are the ones who contribute towards care

> Home costs for those who are eligible for funding.

> In reality, most care homes now charge between

> ?600 - ?1000 per week, and every social service

> depts in the country have a maximum fee limit.

> Very complicated way of explaining to people how

> placements are funded if social services assess

> someone in NEED (not WANT) of placement. With

> government cutbacks in funding local authorities -

> all Social Services Depts have to decide which

> services they need to cut and many home care

> receivers have had their hours reduced and costs

> increase. It is sometimes more cost effective to

> provide 24 hour care in the person's own home. A

> friend of our's mother had advanced dementia and

> he and his sister felt that remaining in her own

> home was the best option. They found a live in

> carer via an agency, our friend, a taxi driver,

> was home between 10pm and 8 am so carer got a

> break during these times although she still stayed

> on the premises and would help out in emergencies.

> Mother lived until 102 and had 3/4 years of live

> in carers. Costs were roughly ?150 - ?200 per week

> less than care/nursing home fees.

Thanks for the insight Pugwash....I think there are 2 key aspects to this whole thing - 1) funding of more social care and 2) improving the quality/provision of social care...clearly first the govt has to work out how its going to raise the money to fund more people who will be in social care, given the ageing population...its obviously announced how it wants to do that...thats step 1. I would hope (perhaps overly-optimistically) that further work will be done on actually examining the provision of social care, and at least trying to make sure the funds raised in some way also improve the overall quality (and access) of the care being provided as well, but it might be the case that the funds still aren't enough for both unfort..and the funding needs to be revisited again (lets hope not)

In anycase, without this second part (some may argue this should be done first, personally im fine with being done 'later', as long as its done) then just raising money to throw into a black hole of a sector which is not fit for purpose (that's not a criticism of the people that work in it before any jumps down my throat) is far from ideal.

Further, I do agree with the comment above, that its seems to be being rushed through, which is a concern. if the country has waited X many years for such an initiative, then a few weeks of review and examination surely wouldn't hurt.

Finally, as a aside....Labour and Keir Starmer...FFS....whether you agree, disagree, or are agnostic on this announcement, its clearly a big deal and a chance for an opposititon to make a mark, and Labour are once again no where, other than to say they dont like it....how inspiring....