• Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)
  • Hello guests - don't forget that by registering and signing up for Pasoti you'll see less adverts plus receive extras like free match tickets, taking part in polls, joining in the chat room and more. Come and join us!

So how do we finance social care?

Seems to me Johnson is in a pickle if he insists on raising funds through an increase in NIC. All but his most extreme right supporters are beginning to question the idea of getting the least well-off to pay the extra funding required, which would be avoided if he simply and sensibly raised income tax instead. Might this not be the right time to get rid of NIC entirely? The concept of a separate tax to pay for healthcare is a nice one, but as the finances raised have never been hypothecated surely now is the time to merge the two and simplify the taxation system. This would then make the solution to the problem a little easier, although every solution (bar doing nothing) results in the Tories breaking their manifesto tax pledge.
 
Dec 27, 2004
764
34
Bidford on Avon
We'll pay £150 Bn for the white elephant that is HS2 and isn't even needed (based on the project's own figures), but with an ageing population we won't try and grasp the nettle with social care.

Why would anyone object to paying more NI to help social care? That's supposed to be the point of society. Helping the weakest members. Absolutely beggars belief to me 😖
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
It’s the fact that ni mostly affects the poor and the young paying for care for the elderly who have disproportionately a greater share of the wealth.
 
Dec 27, 2004
764
34
Bidford on Avon
That's what society does - the constant ageist BS is just crazy.

The constant media trolling of older people as somehow undeserving is pretty pathetic.

Many older people have paid more in to the system than many others will ever hope to.

When I lived overseas older people were cherished, we seem to have the opposite opinion in this country and view them as a hindrance.

We have some of the poorest pensioners in Europe - the idea they're all loaded sitting on oceans if cash is quite disappointing.

For the reasons above the whole furore about the triple-lock is sad.

We'll all get there someday

The poor and the young will also benefit from having more robust services as they age.

We can't have something without being willing to pay for it - all of us!
 
May 8, 2011
4,716
67
The reason they appear to have chosen NI over income tax is that any income tax increase wouldn’t apply to Scotland but NI would.
The Scot Nats are just waiting for Boris to go ahead with it. The headline being Scots paying for the English.
What would be fairer rather than raising the rate of NI would be to increase the age you pay to pension age. I retired 6 years ago so haven’t paid NI since then but do pay income tax on my pension.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
It’s nothing to do with ageism, I’m nearly there.

it’s that nics hit the poorest the most, you only pay 2% in the higher income brackets. Other countries have models where you pay an additional social security contribution when you are 40, hopefully when earning a wage you can afford it.

the fact that it was another Tory party manifesto pledge like foreign aid and the triple lock hardly raises an eyebrow . Like the social care plan they lie about what they can deliver , they lie in their manifesto and they keep on lying but enough people either don’t care or like the lying.
 

GreenThing

Administrator
Staff member
Schuey Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
Pasoti Donor
Sep 13, 2003
3,946
319
Plymouth
It’s nothing to do with ageism, I’m nearly there.

it’s that nics hit the poorest the most, you only pay 2% in the higher income brackets. Other countries have models where you pay an additional social security contribution when you are 40, hopefully when earning a wage you can afford it.

the fact that it was another Tory party manifesto pledge like foreign aid and the triple lock hardly raises an eyebrow . Like the social care plan they lie about what they can deliver , they lie in their manifesto and they keep on lying but enough people either don’t care or like the lying.
I might be wrong so maybe an accountant can put me straight on this. How I understand it, everyone pays 12% upto £4K a month, then 2% on any earnings over that. That means that the more you earn the more you pay, no high earner will pay less than a lower earner as anyone who qualifies for the lower rate still pays the higher rate on the first £4K.
 

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,261
47
Brighton
I might be wrong so maybe an accountant can put me straight on this. How I understand it, everyone pays 12% upto £4K a month, then 2% on any earnings over that. That means that the more you earn the more you pay, no high earner will pay less than a lower earner as anyone who qualifies for the lower rate still pays the higher rate on the first £4K.
If that's correct I think that's what MKF is saying, isn't it? Earn £48K, £20K, £10K or whatever a year and you pay the full 12%; earn £1M, £5M, £10M or whatever a year and you pay a tiny fraction over 2%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithB

GreenThing

Administrator
Staff member
Schuey Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
Pasoti Donor
Sep 13, 2003
3,946
319
Plymouth
If that's correct I think that's what MKF is saying, isn't it? Earn £48K, £20K, £10K or whatever a year and you pay the full 12%; earn £1M, £5M, £10M or whatever a year and you pay a tiny fraction over 2%.
But if someone earns £1M they still pay the 12% on the first £48k. There’s also a threshold of about £700 a month, so the lowest earners don’t pay anything.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
Yes I am an accountant and nics is a regressive tax, the more you earn the less you pay ie 12% up to roughly £48k then only 2% after , the poorer you are the greater proportion of your earnings goes to nics
 

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,261
47
Brighton
But if someone earns £1M they still pay the 12% on the first £48k. There’s also a threshold of about £700 a month, so the lowest earners don’t pay anything.
Of course, but they pay peanuts (in their terms) on the £9,952,000 extra if they earn £10m a year. (Glad to hear about the £8,400 p.a. zero rate, anyway!)
 

Pogleswoody

Kate Sponsor
Schuey Sponsor
Pun Master
50/50 Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
NHS Cake Donor
T.O Support
Foodbank Donor
Jul 3, 2006
17,069
558
70
Location Location
If that's correct I think that's what MKF is saying, isn't it? Earn £48K, £20K, £10K or whatever a year and you pay the full 12%; earn £1M, £5M, £10M or whatever a year and you pay a tiny fraction over 2%.

But as long as everyone pays the 12% on the first 50k (ish) then that is fair isn't it?? Everyone contributes. Rich people pay more, I don't particularly want them to pay £120k more if they earn a £1m. The issue is rich people, companies who avoid (evade!) paying most or all tax!!

It's the same argument in reverse when better off people complain about the Income Tax rates being 'higher'. Maybe but they've already had the same allowance as me on the first £40k.

I want everyone to pay what they should, the Government doesn't aim for 100% 'recovery' rate, once they hit their budget they often let it go. Just be 'fair' across the board and prosecute tax evasion!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreenThing

GreenThing

Administrator
Staff member
Schuey Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
Pasoti Donor
Sep 13, 2003
3,946
319
Plymouth
Maybe the percentage goes down, but high earners still always pay more pound notes than low earners. There is no circumstance when someone earning a comfortable wage pays less than a low earner. (Maybe some tax avoidance scheme, but that’s a different topic). Also 2% of £1M is an awful amount of money.

*edited to add that my post crossed with pogles, who made my point better than I did*
 
Last edited:

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,261
47
Brighton
2% is relative peanuts to anyone who has enough spare cash to buy a pint and a packet of fags now and then, whereas 12% is not. 2% to someone earning millions a year is a Louis Vuitton handbag or two, with a garage full of Rolls and Lambos to spare.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
Not the point, everyone should pay at least the same proportion of tax vis a vis income and with nics they don’t , millionaires pay next to nothing as a percentage of income, you may think that’s fair but every western civilisation in the world operates a progressive taxation system- as we do other than nics - which is why even many red wall Tory mps and some cabinet ministers say it’s unfair. Which it is