Politics Today

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,768
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.
Seen as you didn't respond to my point re. income tax, I suppose you're happy with people earning £10k a year paying extra, while those earning millions from things like rental income don't have to?
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,325
Seen as you didn't respond to my point re. income tax, I suppose you're happy with people earning £10k a year paying extra, while those earning millions from things like rental income don't have to?
Totally happy.
NI seems to me to be the correct vehicle for raising money for social care, for the reasons I’ve already stated.
I take it those earning millions from rental income are still liable for income tax on those earnings?
Low earners are already excused paying any income tax, I don’t see a 1-2% increase in NI being as onerous as you say it is.
BTW you can disappear up your own jacksy thinking about how wealthier people don’t deserve universal benefits, I prefer to think of it as ‘everybody pays in, everybody gets a bit back’.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
24,052
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.
I'm dealing with it X2 chief. The main issue is that it isn't the NHS so it's chargeable. Luckily, one of the relatives gave their house away to their daughter and son 15/20 years ago so they can't take it and she's under the 20k barrier and the other never owned a property.

I'm happy to pay more, just don't like that everyone doesn't pay.
 

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
40,391
Location
Hunkered down
Totally happy.
NI seems to me to be the correct vehicle for raising money for social care, for the reasons I’ve already stated.
I take it those earning millions from rental income are still liable for income tax on those earnings?
Low earners are already excused paying any income tax, I don’t see a 1-2% increase in NI being as onerous as you say it is.
BTW you can disappear up your own jacksy thinking about how wealthier people don’t deserve universal benefits, I prefer to think of it as ‘everybody pays in, everybody gets a bit back’.
Tavy. The point is that NI is not levied on rental income, as well as some other classes of income. So the proposal to raise NI is manifestly unfair.

The solution is simple. Abolish NIC and charge Income Tax instead. NI can be kept for employers contributions if desired.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,768
Totally happy.
NI seems to me to be the correct vehicle for raising money for social care, for the reasons I’ve already stated.
I take it those earning millions from rental income are still liable for income tax on those earnings?
Low earners are already excused paying any income tax, I don’t see a 1-2% increase in NI being as onerous as you say it is.
BTW you can disappear up your own jacksy thinking about how wealthier people don’t deserve universal benefits, I prefer to think of it as ‘everybody pays in, everybody gets a bit back’.
I haven't said wealthy people don't deserve benefits, my point is by levying on NI and not income tax those wealthy people will not be paying any more for it. Ordinary working class people will. I really can't understand why you're happy with that situation.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,325
I haven't said wealthy people don't deserve benefits, my point is by levying on NI and not income tax those wealthy people will not be paying any more for it. Ordinary working class people will. I really can't understand why you're happy with that situation.
Ordinary working class people on average earnings will pay double if the tax hike is applied to income tax and not the mooted NI. As a good ‘socialist’ I would much rather the burden were shared between worker and employer which would be the case with a NI rise.
The low paid are already looked after by paying minimal or no income tax, a small uplift in their NI contributions is neither here nor there IMO.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,768
Ordinary working class people on average earnings will pay double if the tax hike is applied to income tax and not the mooted NI. As a good ‘socialist’ I would much rather the burden were shared between worker and employer which would be the case with a NI rise.
The low paid are already looked after by paying minimal or no income tax, a small uplift in their NI contributions is neither here nor there IMO.
Why would they pay double? 1% extra is the same whether it's on income tax or NI.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,325
Why would they pay double? 1% extra is the same whether it's on income tax or NI.
A 2p increase in the basic rate of income tax brings in the required £10BN, payable wholly by the employee.
A 1p increase in NI brings in approx £11BN, £6.5BN of that payable by the employer, the remaining £4BN or so by the employee.
According to the Guardian anyway. 👍
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,768
A 2p increase in the basic rate of income tax brings in the required £10BN, payable wholly by the employee.
A 1p increase in NI brings in approx £11BN, £6.5BN of that payable by the employer, the remaining £4BN or so by the employee.
According to the Guardian anyway. 👍
The income tax figure doesn't take into account dividend taxes, which should be raised in line with income tax. And I'm sure employers will happily pay 6.5 billion out of the goodness of their hearts, and not pass that cost into employees.
 
Top