• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Politics Today

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
27,489
By young are you meaning anyone of working age? 🤷‍♂️
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.
 

Grecian2K

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
32,829
Location
Busy knitting muesli
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

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,915
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
27,489
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

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
6,342
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

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,915
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

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
6,342
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:

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,915
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

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
6,342
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

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,915
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?
 
Top