You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
so I expect them to have stretched the numbers to show the most favourable outcome (that the rich are oppressed by the workshy poor).
Yes they have and its given away by the title of the thread. Income tax is only one of the taxes people pay.
Fair point, people will continue to talk up the NHS, most won’t be do keen to fork out more for it though.
Always have been and have very forcefully said so, sadly many don't see that point. 🙁
Tories gonna Tory
Thinking about it, for a country running fiscally neutral (no surpless or deficit annually) and a progressive tax system, you’d expect half the population to pay in less than they use and half to pay in more than they use.
Arithmetic fail.
what’s fundamentally wrong is people who fund their own care also end up subsidising people paid for by the state, no wonder care homes are so bad, the publically funded people should be paying the real cost.
So in order to make public care homes better the users should have to pay more from funds they don't have? 🤔
why should someone else’s kids pay for your parents care through their taxes
??
My money pays for loads of stuff I don't use. This is how taxation works. How can you not know that?
My preferred option is that we budget properly for social care, education, the NHS and to rehouse the homeless and every November we organise a national charity telethon to fund trident missiles and nuclear subs.
Best idea ever...
The NHS is the worlds 10th largest employer. No offence to every nurse and doctor out there, who are obviously amazing etc but is there really a need for that many?
You realise that if you treated healthcare in other countries as a single employer you would see even bigger “employers” - it doesn’t look that way because they are made up of multiple chunks.
I’m not convinced people are necessarily ‘living longer’. It just looks like they are ‘statistically’ because so few people die at a young age now (no TB, plague, smallpox etc).
Well the overall statistic is certainly affected by the improved infant mortality rate, but that’s not the effect we see in 21st century Britain driving up the life expectancy. This stuff is relatively easy to check if you are interested, and you either believe you are a genius who has spotted the statistical error all the actuaries and government planners have missed or are naively reposting crap you read from social media without giving it more than a moments thought to say, “why has nobody else spotted this”…
This thread is highly predictable! In fact as predictable that post pandemic we would need to increase tax, and that the tories would dress it up as a way to look after their voters: the ageing, and the inheriting.
1. Plenty of people who will have to pay more “tax” saying - I think the government should raise more money in tax, just not from people like me.
2. Plenty of people suggesting that they want to leave a legacy to their children; children who are going to have to pay more tax today so that one day when they are not that far off retirement themselves you can leave them a big windfall.
3. Plenty of people complaining that NI is unfair. Very few people suggesting that Inheritance Tax thresholds are far too generous and “unfair” on those who aren’t lucky enough to have a wealthy parent; and that since this will boost inheritance we should also fix that!
4. Nobody questioning if the increase in employers NI will make employers hesitant to recruit, or create problems for public sector employers who will then be less able to pass on salary increases to staff.
5. Almost everybody saying it’s good it applies to dividends too, but nobody asking if it shouldn’t be applied at double the rate for dividends as there is no employer NI contribution there?
6. People calling for a wealth tax, actually just setting capital gains tax at a fairer level, applying it to people’s homes and being less generous with inheritance tax would achieve those things without needed new ways to make the wealthy hide their assets!
The government managed to find hundreds of billions to waste on leaving the EU.
Why not reverse that stupid decision and stick some more money into the NHS.
I hear £350m a week would be a good figure.
🙂
Devil in the detail as always
BBC News - Why the cap on care costs is not all it seems
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58442991
I fear this is a half arsed attempt to solve a major problem by tinkering with what they hope is the least unpopular option, rather than properly resolving it with a sustainable longterm solution that will get cross party support.
+1 on the CGT thing, treat it like income.
I have no issues paying extra to fund people with less than me
I have a massive issue paying extra to fund pensioners sitting on vast property wealth that they have accumulated through buying a house 50 years ago for a pittance, which they refuse to sell
how naive - you think the tax rise will go to NHS and care homes? Sucker! It will go to make the Eton chums even more wealthy and idle than they are today.
pay more from funds they don’t have?
I meant the council or whoever is paying for the publically funded care should pay what it really costs, not expect people who are funding their own care to subsidise the council care when the people paying their own bills will have already contributed into the shared pot.
My money pays for loads of stuff I don’t use.
Talk about selective quoting and put a different spin on something. That's it what I said at all. If you can't understand what I put first time I can't be bothered explaining it again.
It will go to make the Eton chums even more wealthy and idle than they are today.
I think alot of it will disappear in beuaracracy and managing the spending of the extra money, that's even assuming it's real money and isn't just existing funding reannounced or a lot of creative maths.
Still think we need no more staff, but better deployment of the existing ones.
Based on what? That the NHS is the world's 10th biggest employer? You know that has no bearing on how many doctors and nurses there are per capita in other countries where they have either more private healthcare or a different employment structure. People within the NHS (management and front-line) consistently say they need many more people (and there are a crazy amount of vacancies) - trouble is the government grossly under-values and under-pays them so they aren't likely to fill those vacancies any time soon.
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions,
This has probably been said but this is completely wrong and a misunderstanding of how the pension system works at a basic level. The working population pays for the non working population. There is no fund like a private pension. This is why dependency ratios matter. This is so basic I am amazed every time it has to be stated to anyone past school age.
The solution is simple, a tax on wealth.
Look at council tax rates in London. Flats etc that were valued at pennies but now worth millions attract an absolutely derisory council tax rate, while at the same time leaching income from the rest of the country.
I meant the council or whoever is paying for the publically funded care should pay what it really costs, not expect people who are funding their own care to subsidise the council care when the people paying their own bills will have already contributed into the shared pot.
Sorry, I've read that three times and it still doesn't make sense. Seriously, not ripping it I'm just tired.
It's dead easy isn't it.
As soon as you have an incurable disease or are unable to look after yourself, you are destroyed.
Just like Alpacas.
Then all the people who are working in care homes can fill the vacancies in the hospitals thus fixing the waiting list issues!
I'm a genius. You are welcome
😁
(Sorry Mum, I will visit soon...)
Look at council tax rates in London. Flats etc that were valued at pennies but now worth millions attract an absolutely derisory council tax rate, while at the same time leaching income from the rest of the country.
Not sure about this. Council tax property valuation rates are just about proportionality. New builds in England are valued at their 1991 equivalent price (2003 in Wales). If you increasing the values of the houses to 2021 prices the same number of houses would be in each band, just the band values would change. The local authority work out how much they want to raise through council tax and then work out the band value to get that number knowing the number of properties in each band for their LA. The actual market value of the prosperities is pretty immaterial as is the value that property would have in a different LA.
The government managed to find hundreds of billions to waste on leaving the EU.
Not to mention the Track and Trace billions.
boriselbrus
Full Member
It’s dead easy isn’t it.As soon as you have an incurable disease or are unable to look after yourself, you are destroyed.
Just like Alpacas.
Yeah, and if they ever mention the words 'i've paid NI all my life' then they are instantly disqualified from using the NHS or other social services ;o)
If we can also try and stick in some rule about OAPs and driving during daylight hours that would be appreciated as well!
This has probably been said but this is completely wrong and a misunderstanding of how the pension system works at a basic level. The working population pays for the non working population. There is no fund like a private pension. This is why dependency ratios matter. This is so basic I am amazed every time it has to be stated to anyone past school age.
Love that some people seem to think there's a pot of billions of pounds sat there waiting to be paid out...
Nope. Money comes in (NI/Tax etc) and it goes straight back out again (pensions/NHS etc etc etc).
For someone on 30k it's an extra £22 a month. I've saved far more than that the last 18 months not having to drive to work every day. A 1% pay rise covers the extra cost.
1. Plenty of people who will have to pay more “tax” saying – I think the government should raise more money in tax, just not from people like me.
I'm happy to be paying more tax. People on way less than me (and I'm on well below average) should not be paying more tax. Those earning much more than me should see their overall tax rate increase by more than me, not less. Small businesses struggling with increased red tape and the problems of the pandemic should not be paying more tax on their staff costs. Large businesses that have done very nicely out of the pandemic shouldn't be paying such low amounts of tax.
3. Plenty of people complaining that NI is unfair. Very few people suggesting that Inheritance Tax thresholds are far too generous and “unfair” on those who aren’t lucky enough to have a wealthy parent; and that since this will boost inheritance we should also fix that!
Well, politicians are avoiding that... because of what happened to May. It does need addressing though. Why have we just increased the amount people can pass on tax free, and then soon after raised taxes on the working poor?
This change in taxation is nothing to do with the NHS. It is nothing to do with care. It is all about shifting the burden of taxation onto medium and low earners, and away from medium and high owners. It is about plugging a gap in our finances caused by Brexit, and making sure the cost of that is born by workers and small businesses.
After listening to PM's questions I see the government is about to open a new revenue stream for insurance companies (tory mates perchance?) to offer policies against a possible need for care in the future, win/win for the tories on that one and opens the door for American style health insurance.
Starmer as usual was utterly ****ing useless.
I’m happy to be paying more tax. People on way less than me (and I’m on well below average) should not be paying more tax. Those earning much more than me should see their overall tax rate increase by more than me, not less. Small businesses struggling with increased red tape and the problems of the pandemic should not be paying more tax on their staff costs. Large businesses that have done very nicely out of the pandemic shouldn’t be paying such low amounts of tax.
Agree's with Kelvin
<nearly falls of chair..>
If people want these services, then someone has to pay for them.
The burden of these costs should fall on those with biggest weatlh, probably via some kind of wealth based tax (Capital Gains, Dividends, Inheritance, etc...)
By going down the NI route it passes a lot of the burden onto the working population, especially those on low incomes. Those Carers earning near to NLW who we want to provide that care.
Unfortunately many of these people are going to loose £1,000 of Universal Credit payments soon and then another ~£100 a year in increased Tax.
Sorry, I’ve read that three times and it still doesn’t make sense. Seriously, not ripping it I’m just tired.
@squirrelking I suspect that is because you are not understanding how care is actually funded.
Let’s say a particular level of care costs 100/day for a private provide to provide. The local authority say - we will only fund 80/day for our users. So the private users have to pay 120/day for the same service. You can think of it as a bulk discount for the LA for paying for multiple users but often below the true cost of the service.
You might ask why provide any service for LAs and the quick answer is it’s complicated. You might have users who start off private, their money runs out and go local authority. Your home might be in an area where the user demand is local authority or you might just feel a moral duty not to only look after the wealthy.
Let’s have a bit less of “the young subsidising the old”. The “old” have paid for their care throughout their working lives via NI contributions, the young are simply being asked to pay for their own; because yes, they will be old one day.
I would agree with this argument if the rate had stayed the same but it hasn't. And fact is I wont be retiring for another 30+ years (if ever) which im sure in that time I will still be paying for your care.
They could have got this money in so many other ways but why would a bunch of rich people vote for a wealth tax, tax on second homes, or hell even a more fair NI tax.
I agree with everything written by everyone in every post since my last one.
Agrees with Kelvin
Yep me too. I'll probably benefit hugely from this change and I think it stinks. It's horrifying how they can so blatantly take from the poor and give to the rich, and then get re-elected by a worrying proportion of those self same poor.
Even just the cap itself is stupid. Looking at the tranche of people who do end up needing loads of care costs, say £100k.
The [relatively] poor ones with only £185k to their name end up losing 50% of their cash but the rich ones only lose a much smaller percentage.
Plus ca change
I agree with everything written by everyone in every post since my last one.
Thanks, not sure why you felt the need for the dig. but cool. cheers! 👍
Or do you just not agree they could have raise this money in other ways?
I wasn’t having a dig! I was being genuine. And your post summed it up the most succinctly. I agree with you completely. They are increasing tax on low income workers and benefiting those with high capital/wealth.
Im guessing the tories have cottoned onto the fact that the red wall vote is swayed by single issue politics like Brexit, rather than nuanced long term tax changes. By recycling a Dave C policy they're just getting ready for when the red wall moves back to red again and they're acknowledging that it will only be so long before they become reliant on the older generation again as they were in Diddy Dave's days.
Im guessing the tories have cottoned onto the fact that the red wall vote is swayed by single issue politics like Brexit, rather than nuanced long term tax changes. By recycling a Dave C policy they’re just getting ready for when the red wall moves back to red again and they’re acknowledging that it will only be so long before they become reliant on the older generation again as they were in Diddy Dave’s days.
You are making an assumption that the red wall volters won't think this is a good deal for them. I'm sure it can be spun in a way that aspirational tory voters in the north of England are made to believe this was for "THEM".
For the Scottish policy aware people -
how does this affect Scotland beyond the Barnett link increase in funding?
Could Scottish government choose to spend the increase in a different way?
I thought we have devolved income tax, but I don't think we have devolved NI?
My preferred option is that we budget properly for social care, education, the NHS and to rehouse the homeless and every November we organise a national charity telethon to fund trident missiles and nuclear subs.
Similarly, I like that we have a Government supporting hypothecation of taxes. They just need to expand it a bit so we can vote on how much we allocate to Westminster refurbishments, London transport improvements and MPs remuneration.
Could Scottish government choose to spend the increase in a different way?
I suspect that the Tories will try to bypass Holyrood and spend the Scottish sums some other way
Im guessing the tories have cottoned onto the fact that the red wall vote is swayed by single issue politics like Brexit,
Inheritance tax and the right to pass on your home etc to you kids will go down very well with red wall voters, even those who don't have a home. It's a really contentious subject which most voters hold very strong opinions on.
Inheritance tax and the right to pass on your home etc to you kids
Funny that people still see it as their kids. With people now living till 80 their 'kids' are typically going to be 55 when they pass their house on to them. I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.
I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.
given the reports on pension fund sizes, they're probably well set for now but have no chance to stop working. Maybe this round of inheritance will just plug that hole.
I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.
From my perspective I'll be using it ( if it ever comes to pass) to get my kids a bit of house.
( which I appreciate is contentious in itself)
given the reports on pension fund sizes, they’re probably well set for now but have no chance to stop working. Maybe this round of inheritance will just plug that hole.
I suspect those averages (around £60-£80k for over 55s based on a quick Google) are crude means, hiding the reality that:
(i) there are plenty of over 55s who have been high earners for decades, own a nice property or two and have very healthy pension pots; and
(ii) at the other end of the spectrum there are those over 55s who have no real pension pot and - given inter-generational similarities in wealth in families - probably stand not to inherit anything much anyway.
A more robust IHT system would progressively impact the former, who can afford it, not the latter.
A more robust IHT system would progressively impact the former, who can afford it, not the latter.
not denying that, but the higher you raise IHT the more people will do to avoid it - which outside of primary residence wealth is pretty easy to do
Funny that people still see it as their kids. With people now living till 80 their ‘kids’ are typically going to be 55 when they pass their house on to them. I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.
Yep, I'm 50 and my parents are still going strong, so probably won't inherit till I'm in my 60s and retired!
As for the 'leave it to the kids' belief, like a lot of beliefs it is both incorrect (or irrational) and yet very strongly held at the same time.
not denying that, but the higher you raise IHT the more people will do to avoid it – which outside of primary residence wealth is pretty easy to do
Other than the 7 year rule (which should be scrapped), how is it easy to avoid inheritance tax?
The extremely rich seem to be able to use Trust funds, but I suspect they're not applicable / too expensive to administer for the masses.
I don't get why they didn't just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners. Leave it at 12% but for all money earned instead of dropping to 2% over whatever the threshold is. Do that along with all dividends, bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there's a shed load of extra cash.
I don't see it as irrational to expect to pass some of the money to your children or grandchildren that you have put into paying for a nice home, and the costs of updating and maintaining it over 50+ years.
If owning your own home was merely a social care pot for later life, then I imagine a lot of people may consider blowing this soon after retirement on enjoying what good years they may have left - and do as those who were unable to get on the housing ladder will be doing; letting the government pick up the full bill.
I doubt Labour / lib Dem could do any better.
I doubt Labour / lib Dem could do any better.
Kind of moot really given that they seem to be doing their best to ensure they never get elected so we can find out
If owning your own home was merely a social care pot for later life, then I imagine a lot of people may consider blowing this soon after retirement on enjoying what good years they may have left – and do as those who were unable to get on the housing ladder will be doing; letting the government pick up the full bill.
The problem with that strategy (and pension planning in general) is you never know how many good years you have left until its too late to do anything about it! Also, blowing the equity in your main house is quite hard to do....
Kind of moot really given that they seem to be doing their best to ensure they never get elected so we can find out
Yes Starmer seems to be aiming to loose the next election by around 20 seats (a modest target) whereas Momentum, buoyed by JC's success, want to go for broke and are trying to get Labour to aim for triple digits and loose by over 100 seats! That way they can say they won 'the argument' by a really big margin 😉
Social Care reform has been talked about for too long without anything actually happening whilst the care sector slowly gets worse and worse. It's about time something was done as too many previous PM's have just ignored the issue, though I'm not convinced this is the right way to go about it.
One of the interesting things due to be introduced is self funders being allowed to access the same social care rates as local authorities, this could have a serious impact on the care market.
One of the interesting things due to be introduced is self funders being allowed to access the same social care rates as local authorities, this could have a serious impact on the care market.
It will collapse it as unless LAs can stomach a 50% price rise over night, as there's no way care homes can survive making a 50% loss on every client!
I don’t get why they didn’t just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners. Leave it at 12% but for all money earned instead of dropping to 2% over whatever the threshold is. Do that along with all dividends, bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there’s a shed load of extra cash.
that would lead to everyone in the upper tax bands paying between 52 and 72% tax on each pound earned. Regardless of your views on the laffer curve, I think there's something deep-seated that people would feel about the government taking more than 50% of their money, and would probably lead to losing votes and possibly tax income as well.
It definitely would be sensible to just bundle all tax into a single tax, which doesn't have wierd spikes up-and-down as it goes, but I guess there's political reasons and optics as to why national insurance and council tax are separate.
I would think a lot of people are fairly well set by 55 although still nice to have the money.
Judging by the figures of how many people have 30 year mortgages, remortgaged regularly, and low pension pot's, I think a lot of people are planning to use the inheritance to fund later life...
For the Scottish policy aware people –
how does this affect Scotland beyond the Barnett link increase in funding?
Could Scottish government choose to spend the increase in a different way?
I thought we have devolved income tax, but I don’t think we have devolved NI?
Swinney was on GMS this morning talking about it, thinking is that it would be spent in the same way although that's dependent on negative consequentials. Waiting for more details before making any commitment.
… bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there’s a shed load of extra cash.
Hate to break it to you but they already are, or at least mine are. Both are considered to be income and are taxed (and NI) accordingly.
As this move is going to be primarily aimed at funding the NHS 'backlog', with comparatively little going to SC, am I cynical to think that we'll see a series of 'fast-track' decisions soon that bring in 3rd party private HC providers- and that all of this fluff is just designed to signal to them that their investments are going to be highly lucrative?
Thinking like a current Tory minister here for a bit, and that this is just heavy privatisation by the back door.
that would lead to everyone in the upper tax bands paying between 52 and 72% tax on each pound earned. Regardless of your views on the laffer curve, I think there’s something deep-seated that people would feel about the government taking more than 50% of their money, and would probably lead to losing votes and possibly tax income as well.
To be fair, there's so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.
There is a very disingenuous article in the FT this morning, claiming that gradautes in the basic tax rate bracket face a 50% marginal tax rate (if you include student loan repayment), although they only achieve that number by adding in employer's NI contribution which is very poor journalism for the FT!
From next April, graduates such as teachers or marketing executives earning £30,000 will only get half of any pay increases granted by their employers despite paying an income tax rate of 20 per cent.
If their salary goes up £1,000, they will pay £200 in additional income tax, £132.50 more employee national insurance, and £90 in extra student loan repayments. Their employer will pay another £150.50 in employer national insurance. The total tax payments on £1,150.50 in additional employment costs will therefore be £573, a tax rate of 49.8 per cent of the additional pay bill.
The correct number should be £200 + £132.50 + £90 = £422.5 / £1000 = 42.25%
https://www.ft.com/content/bbaf099a-0b5b-48ad-9ca5-fee26844c1df
Hate to break it to you but they already are, or at least mine are. Both are considered to be income and are taxed (and NI) accordingly.
There are various schemes for start ups which offer tax breaks on share options / shares - although they seem to change almost every year.
https://www.taxinnovations.com/business/rewarding-employees/share-schemes/
The biggest tax dodge is carried interest on Private Equity / Fund managers.
https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/partnerships/1827-tax-loophole-tax-on-carried-interests
Funny how the government can print money for the past 10 years but it's covid that needs paying for. National debt was about 80% of GDP before covid and is about 100% after. The rates for the debt are historically low. That 80% was as a result of the 2008 crash. Source: R4's 'more or less' last week.
This hits the poor but they'll still vote in 'good old Boris' next time. Tw4ts.
I don’t get why they didn’t just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners. Leave it at 12% but for all money earned instead of dropping to 2% over whatever the threshold is. Do that along with all dividends, bonuses, share options etc being taxed the same as income and there’s a shed load of extra cash.
So you want anyone earning over £55kish on PAYE etc to pay another 10% in tax?
You've really not thought this through have you...
but it’s covid that needs paying for.
This tax hike doesn't actually pay for Covid, none of the new money is going to paying off the massive increase in national debt as a result of furlough etc.
To be fair, there’s so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.
So few?
About 4 million of us...
ignore - forgot about the 45% rate, lol
About 4 million of us…
in the 45% bracket at over £150k?
You sure?
Less than 1% of tax payers according to HMRC....
To be fair, there’s so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.
The last time we had marginal tax rates that high (pension allowance taper so only a couple of years ago) it causes NHS waiting times to increase as the surgeons made the decision to not work overtime due to massive tax bills they received. I imagine this would have similar if not worse unintended consequences.
So you want anyone earning over £55kish on PAYE etc to pay another 10% in tax?
You’ve really not thought this through have you…
You may be unhappy about the idea but that doesn't mean it hasn't been thought through.
Perhaps a better way to frame the idea would be as a removal of the 10% reduction lower earners don't benefit from.
This hits the poor but they’ll still vote in ‘good old Boris’ next time. Tw4ts.
This. All day long.
You said:
in the 45% bracket at over £150k?
You sure?
Less than 1% of tax payers according to HMRC….
He said:
I don’t get why they didn’t just abolish the drop off in NI payments for higher earners.
It drops off at about £55k salary.
well if we're playing that game...
I said:
To be fair, there’s so few people in the highest income tax bracket, that loosing their votes is not going to make any electoral difference.
To which he said:
About 4 million of us…
Well its 33 years until I retire - I hope its sorted by then
I would put the chances of "a normal world" (i.e. one without major societal changes caused by climate change rendering all this tinkering ridiculous) being here in 20 years at abotu 1 in 3.
I'm putting my pension money into chainsaws and 4x4s
Well its 33 years until I retire – I hope its sorted by then
LOL. As if people will be allowed to retire in 30 years. The retirement age will be going up 2 years every year 🙂
Yes things may be a lot different, and a lot worse by time I get close to 68.
A society that turns on their older generation as we see happening for the last few years(even on the pages here) does not bode well for other vulnerable groups in society; how long before those with disabilities get identified and scapegoated for voting differently and causing all the bad things in the world?
A society that turns on their older generation as we see happening for the last few years
We have had 40 years of selling "futures" down the drain, now those "futures" are the present generation they want some of the proceeds of those sales.
A society that turns on their older generation as we see happening for the last few years(even on the pages here) does not bode well for other vulnerable groups in society; how long before those with disabilities get identified and scapegoated for voting differently and causing all the bad things in the world?
There is a big difference between a set of people who have done very well out of historical pension schemes, large house price rises and 'earning' more per month via their pension than people who are working than a set of disabled people. Not sure how you made the leap to disabled people?
although they only achieve that number by adding in employer’s NI contribution
Well, that's because plenty of employers will ask employees to cover both sides of the increase in NI.