This NI increase for Social/Health Care

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Maggy

So we go back to the old system where the poor had to hope that the wealthy would put their hands in their pocket voluntarily to support the workhouse from time to time?

My goodness how many Scrooges do we have on CF?

Well no. You make people pay tax to fund it in their own lifetimes - or at worst raise inheritance tax / adjust thresholds to claim it back at the end.

The myth you can have quality public services and a low tax economy is just that. Everyone is a capitalist until it comes to social care and they don’t want to pay.

Originally Posted by jfman

So by any other measure it’s a pyramid scheme, with each generation hoping to squeeze the one after it by more than they paid out themselves.

Except that it isn’t, because the NI fund has never been ring fenced, nor has welfare spending ever been isolated from the Treasury’s general tax take. Moreover, no government has ever claimed that was the case. NI was introduced in order to create a sense of ownership and fairness. Everyone paid in, everyone could take out. It was important, especially in the early days, to ensure the programme succeeded.

All taxation in a modern welfare state is inherently redistributive. Wealthy corporations and individuals pay in more, poorer individuals and economically deprived regions receive more.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Quite a few apparently, seems they begrudge paying an extra £5 a week . . . the price of a decent pint in some places, or a weeks worth of mobile data, or 5% of the price on a new tyre needed for the big expensive motor

ps . . don't mention roaming charges when they jet off abroad either

You won’t find me complaining about taxation to fund quality public services. However I don’t see why the generation that lowered taxes to their lowest ever levels while enjoying the one off windfall of privatisation is exempt from putting their own hands in their own pockets along with the younger generations who will be lucky to see any pension at all at this rate.

Originally Posted by jfman

You won’t find me complaining about taxation to fund quality public services. However I don’t see why the generation that lowered taxes to their lowest ever levels while enjoying the one off windfall of privatisation is exempt from putting their own hands in their own pockets along with the younger generations who will be lucky to see any pension at all at this rate.

Ah, boomers …

With the necessary caveat that blaming boomers is a sweeping generalisation because they didn’t all get rich buying shares in BT, British Gas and their local electricity board, this is one of those rare, epoch-defining points on which I suspect we are in broad agreement.

However, the fact that boomers understand you influence governments by actually voting in elections rather than posting hashtags on the internet means that governments tend to be more responsive to their priorities.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Carth

Quite a few apparently, seems they begrudge paying an extra £5 a week . . . the price of a decent pint in some places, or a weeks worth of mobile data, or 5% of the price on a new tyre needed for the big expensive motor


ps . . don't mention roaming charges when they jet off abroad either

Why should people pay that extra whatever for people who effectively have a few £100,000 in the bank? Nobody is begrudging providing for those who don't have a large stash "in the bank".
Perhaps if the question was asked of people as to whether they were prepared to pay for people who had £100,000+ in cash in the bank, the answer might be different.

Second, there has been a recognition – through the establishment of the 1998 Royal
Commission – of deficiencies in the way social care was funded at the time. The main
recommendation to provide free personal care was rejected; the government’s argued
concerns were that the extra resources required would not necessarily improve services
and would not help the least well off (Department of Health 2000c).

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Except that it isn’t, because the NI fund has never been ring fenced, nor has welfare spending ever been isolated from the Treasury’s general tax take. Moreover, no government has ever claimed that was the case. NI was introduced in order to create a sense of ownership and fairness. Everyone paid in, everyone could take out. It was important, especially in the early days, to ensure the programme succeeded.

All taxation in a modern welfare state is inherently redistributive. Wealthy corporations and individuals pay in more, poorer individuals and economically deprived regions receive more.

I know it isn’t that’s my point. While the system moves money around at the margins it fundamentally redistributes debt downwards to younger generations to cover the fact the generations who preceded them had no interests in funding public expenditure adequately.

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Ah, boomers …

With the necessary caveat that blaming boomers is a sweeping generalisation because they didn’t all get rich buying shares in BT, British Gas and their local electricity board, this is one of those rare, epoch-defining points on which I suspect we are in broad agreement.

It’s a sweeping generalisation to claim they all got rich because I didn’t claim that at all.

You can personally remain poor while still benefiting from a low tax economy, and get handouts that you made negligible contribution towards.

However, the fact that boomers understand you influence governments by actually voting in elections rather than posting hashtags on the internet means that governments tend to be more responsive to their priorities.

Yes, the voting system means it’s far more likely successive generations will kick the can down the road that seek to resolve the issue and make the tough choices on taxation required. Which is the crux of this thread - making it exclusively a working age tax.

[papa smurf]

I reach pension age 66 next june [should be getting pension now but gov moved the goal posts] any hoo all i can say to the younger generations is get yer hand in your pockets and quit moaning, we've all had to pay so suck it up.

[Carth]

Can't be bothered with quotes, but to answer a few points.

Local councils (ours anyway) sold off most of it's care homes . . well when I say sold off, they stated they were old and 'in need of extensive maintenance & refurbishment' or that they'd 'discovered dangerous materials' in the building. They were then demolished and the land sold for housing . . well, rabbit hutch housing anyway. This obviously led to a rise in demand for private care homes, and the costs inherent with that.

People with 'a few £100,000 in the bank' will have to pay towards any care they receive, but they're still entitled to their state pension.

If we make all people needing care sell their homes - the ones they've worked hard for and maintained themselves - won't this drive people back into the rental sector? Maybe the Govt should purchase all privately owned houses, and let tax payers pay when they need new central heating boilers, double glazing, wiring, structural repairs, fencing etc . . the sort of stuff a house owner has to pay for (no grants here, move along folks).

NHS . . . stop funding (or partially funding) people who want a sex change, or nose job, boob enhancements etc, it's probably quicker to get a facelift than a hip replacement nowadays .

enough mild ranting, I'm off back gaming

[Sephiroth]

Does anyone know what the Brexit bus banner money is to be wasted on? ( and no, no regrets about Brexit, just the lamentable government)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Does anyone know what the Brexit bus banner money is to be wasted on? ( and no, no regrets about Brexit, just the lamentable government)

Upskilling lorry drivers.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Does anyone know what the Brexit bus banner money is to be wasted on? ( and no, no regrets about Brexit, just the lamentable government)

migrants.

[mrmistoffelees]

So a 1.25% rise that will hurt those near the breadline with least assets most whilst the wealthy/wealthier or those with significant assets are able to absorb the increase with ease.

Hardly levelling up and i say this as a highest rate tax payer & who has to pay both NI & Employers NI (on stock sales)

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Does anyone know what the Brexit bus banner money is to be wasted on? ( and no, no regrets about Brexit, just the lamentable government)

Paying all the 4* hotels ?

It’s happening then. 1.25% on NI from next April.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58473078

Apparently from 2023 it will be separated out on payslips as a ‘Heath and social care levy’. Though further to my earlier post I think it’s vastly unlikely the money will be legally ring-fenced as that would be quite complex to achieve.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So a 1.25% rise that will hurt those near the breadline with least assets most whilst the wealthy/wealthier or those with significant assets are able to absorb the increase with ease.

Hardly levelling up and i say this as a highest rate tax payer & who has to pay both NI & Employers NI (on stock sales)

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------



Paying all the 4* hotels ?

I think we just witnessed bojo losing the next election.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s happening then. 1.25% on NI from next April.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58473078

Apparently from 2023 it will be separated out on payslips as a ‘Heath and social care levy’. Though further to my earlier post I think it’s vastly unlikely the money will be legally ring-fenced as that would be quite complex to achieve.

It does provide the Guvmin with the opportunity to reduce income tax and move the difference to the hypothecated (I hope) levy.