Politics Today

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,323
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.
I’m beginning to think I’m the only proper ‘progressive’ on here. 🤷‍♂️
Our tax system doesn’t recognise regions or class if you meet certain thresholds as regards your earnings you pay into the pot. So yes, lower earning working northerners help pay for the state pension of wealthy southern pensioners, just as lower earning southerners pay for the wealthy northerners state pension.
Unless you means test universal benefits like state pensions and don’t pay it out to everyone then I don’t see a way round it.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,767
I’m beginning to think I’m the only proper ‘progressive’ on here. 🤷‍♂️
Our tax system doesn’t recognise regions or class if you meet certain thresholds as regards your earnings you pay into the pot. So yes, lower earning working northerners help pay for the state pension of wealthy southern pensioners, just as lower earning southerners pay for the wealthy northerners state pension.
Unless you means test universal benefits like state pensions and don’t pay it out to everyone then I don’t see a way round it.
I believe most of us aren't against a tax rise to pay for social care, we're against this tax rise. I'm almost certain that if you looked at this objectively, you'd agree. But you won't, because you'll support the government on virtually everything.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,323
I believe most of us aren't against a tax rise to pay for social care, we're against this tax rise. I'm almost certain that if you looked at this objectively, you'd agree. But you won't, because you'll support the government on virtually everything.
I believe in a progressive tax system were everyone pays if they are likely to benefit, which is why at the time I was against the Osborne tactic of lifting the lower paid from income tax altogether. By all means tax them a minimal amount, but it’s important (for me) we’re all tax payers.
Given what you’ve written so far on this proposed tax, how would you raise the cash and who would you target?
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
24,045
I believe in a progressive tax system were everyone pays if they are likely to benefit, which is why at the time I was against the Osborne tactic of lifting the lower paid from income tax altogether. By all means tax them a minimal amount, but it’s important (for me) we’re all tax payers.
Given what you’ve written so far on this proposed tax, how would you raise the cash and who would you target?
But you've said you don't want older people paying.

Statistically, they are more likely to need social care. If they don't receive enough from their pension, they won't pay. That seems fair to me.

To me it's about percentages, those on less than 50k a year, on PAYE and under pensionable age will pay a higher percentage of their salary. The rest will pay less, or not at all. I don't see how you can construe that as a fair progressive tax
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,767
I believe in a progressive tax system were everyone pays if they are likely to benefit, which is why at the time I was against the Osborne tactic of lifting the lower paid from income tax altogether. By all means tax them a minimal amount, but it’s important (for me) we’re all tax payers.
Given what you’ve written so far on this proposed tax, how would you raise the cash and who would you target?
Raise income tax, not NI. Paid at a higher threshold, and more importantly paid on dividends, interest, trusts, rental income etc. so the wealthy pay as well as the ordinary working person.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,323
But you've said you don't want older people paying.

Statistically, they are more likely to need social care. If they don't receive enough from their pension, they won't pay. That seems fair to me.

To me it's about percentages, those on less than 50k a year, on PAYE and under pensionable age will pay a higher percentage of their salary. The rest will pay less, or not at all. I don't see how you can construe that as a fair progressive tax
I’m saying that the people that currently pay NI should pay for social care as per the Government’s proposals for a 1% or 1.25% increase. Sounds eminently reasonable to me.
I don’t get why people are happy to finance every other citizen with their medical needs but when you get old, they have to pay for their care unduly through the sale of their house. Incidentally even with this policy it only means the amount of money it costs to look after someone is being capped at £60K. Imagine saying to a house owning working age cancer sufferer, you need to spaff up £20K before we’ll start looking after you.
 

manc grecian

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
19,675
Location
following through
I’m saying that the people that currently pay NI should pay for social care as per the Government’s proposals for a 1% or 1.25% increase. Sounds eminently reasonable to me.
I don’t get why people are happy to finance every other citizen with their medical needs but when you get old, they have to pay for their care unduly through the sale of their house. Incidentally even with this policy it only means the amount of money it costs to look after someone is being capped at £60K. Imagine saying to a house owning working age cancer sufferer, you need to spaff up £20K before we’ll start looking after you.
Why should a generation of people who are having massive struggles affording to rent let alone buy a house have their disposable incomes hit by a tax rise when there are fairer ways of doing so. They aren't going to have the luxury of selling a house.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
24,045
I’m saying that the people that currently pay NI should pay for social care as per the Government’s proposals for a 1% or 1.25% increase. Sounds eminently reasonable to me.
I don’t get why people are happy to finance every other citizen with their medical needs but when you get old, they have to pay for their care unduly through the sale of their house. Incidentally even with this policy it only means the amount of money it costs to look after someone is being capped at £60K. Imagine saying to a house owning working age cancer sufferer, you need to spaff up £20K before we’ll start looking after you.
I'm merely saying I want fairness it how the tax rise is brought about. In my humble, NI isn't the way.

Social care in this country has long been a disgrace.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,323
I'm merely saying I want fairness it how the tax rise is brought about. In my humble, NI isn't the way.

Social care in this country has long been a disgrace.
As someone who has spent the last fifteen years and continues to deal with dreadful English social care system, knowing what I know now I would’ve been so grateful as a younger taxpayer to pay an extra 1-2% NI.
I wonder if the opposition to this policy is primarily from those who’ve yet had to deal with elderly sick parents in need of social care.
 
Top