Politics Today

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,309
The ordinary people of today pay more tax than their predecessors. I'm saying, that it isn't fair to charge them more to pay for older people.

I believe in one tax rate for all,no personal allowances and no in work benefits. As a pay off you lose vat, council tax and most other taxes.
I believe the tax burden should mirror what a so called civilised country like ours wants to provide for its people.
Part of the social care scandal is that for some reason we are prepared to help without thinking teenage cancer sufferers yet when older people (in increasing numbers) develop conditions like dementia and Alzheimer’s, all of a sudden we start asking for their cash to pay for it. It wasn’t an issue 30 years ago as most folks snuffed it of other conditions before they developed dementia, it’s a big issue now and needs sorting.
We either live up to the ‘cradle to grave’ commitment or we don’t.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
24,032
I believe the tax burden should mirror what a so called civilised country like ours wants to provide for its people.
Part of the social care scandal is that for some reason we are prepared to help without thinking teenage cancer sufferers yet when older people (in increasing numbers) develop conditions like dementia and Alzheimer’s, all of a sudden we start asking for their cash to pay for it. It wasn’t an issue 30 years ago as most folks snuffed it of other conditions before they developed dementia, it’s a big issue now and needs sorting.
We either live up to the ‘cradle to grave’ commitment or we don’t.
Nobody as far as I've read is saying young people shouldn't pay, but increasing NI is costing the young more. There are fairer alternatives to do this.
 

Grecian2K

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
27,798
Location
We are the grandchildren of apes, not angels
No, I'm saying young. Because you're more likely to be self employed, or pay the 2% rate of NI when you're over say 35.
And the stamp duty holiday/"help to buy" (expensive homes in the tax havens for the buildco's top management) has really helped the "aspirational poor"

Especially those on precarious zero hours contract who, as I'm sure Tavares will be assuring us, the banks and building societies are queuing up to offer mortgages.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,309
No, I'm saying young. Because you're more likely to be self employed, or pay the 2% rate of NI when you're over say 35.
I thought the 2% rate only applies on your earnings over a certain threshold? IE, the rate applied on the rest of your earnings below that threshold is still 12%?
Apologies if I’ve got that wrong.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
24,032
I thought the 2% rate only applies on your earnings over a certain threshold? IE, the rate applied on the rest of your earnings below that threshold is still 12%?
Apologies if I’ve got that wrong.
Nope, you're spot on chief.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,744
I believe the tax burden should mirror what a so called civilised country like ours wants to provide for its people.
Part of the social care scandal is that for some reason we are prepared to help without thinking teenage cancer sufferers yet when older people (in increasing numbers) develop conditions like dementia and Alzheimer’s, all of a sudden we start asking for their cash to pay for it. It wasn’t an issue 30 years ago as most folks snuffed it of other conditions before they developed dementia, it’s a big issue now and needs sorting.
We either live up to the ‘cradle to grave’ commitment or we don’t.
Yes, we should love up to it, I'm just surprised you're so happy for it to be paid for in a manner that will impact the working class more than anyone else.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,309
Yes, we should love up to it, I'm just surprised you're so happy for it to be paid for in a manner that will impact the working class more than anyone else.
Because when you look at the whole picture as regards taxation I’m not sure low earners are being unduly impacted.
Income tax for example doesn’t kick in until you earn circa £12.5K per year.
I also don’t get AU’s argument that because high earners only pay 2% NI on their earnings over £50K they’re being looked after, it still means they’re paying 12% on their earnings below £50K (I think!) to listen to AU you’d think high earners were paying a flat 2% for all their earnings.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,744
Because when you look at the whole picture as regards taxation I’m not sure low earners are being unduly impacted.
Income tax for example doesn’t kick in until you earn circa £12.5K per year.
I also don’t get AU’s argument that because high earners only pay 2% NI on their earnings over £50K they’re being looked after, it still means they’re paying 12% on their earnings below £50K (I think!) to listen to AU you’d think high earners were paying a flat 2% for all their earnings.
I'm sure the Northern working class are going to be delighted that they're paying for the social care of wealthy Southern pensioners. Why not raise income tax instead to distribute the cost more evenly? Oh wait, because it will upset the Conservative-voting pensioners and Conservative-funding landlords.

Edit: additionally you start paying NI at 9500, compared to 12500 for income tax as you said. Putting the tax on NI rather than income tax does therefore impact the lowest paid more.
 
Last edited:
Top