National Insurance

Lala said:
If you want to exist as a nation without economic growth, then you can only dream of survival if every other nation is marching to the beat of the same drum. Otherwise you can’t compete ergo you can’t survive because you wouldn’t have the means to afford vital imports.

Imports required for the basic survival of life. Never mind fund environment projects.

That’s just too big an ask.
Click to expand...
Well I agree we don’t live in a bubble.

But over the last 18 months or so the global economy has been pretty much closed down. And there have been few flights in the air. And for a long time the motorways have been empty of cars.

But somehow food has still arrived on our plates. Gas and electricity has arrived in our homes. And the vast majority of us have stayed alive.

Now I know that various P&L accounts and balance sheets of countries and businesses may look a bit scary. But frankly aren’t accounts just a complete fiction? Like money? A human construction? Are they any more real than any other invented God? Or do we just worship them because that’s what we’ve been told since we were nippers?

Just one of those ideas that occasionally is worth kicking around.
 
Of course you need growth to to cope with population dynamics. If your population is growing, you need more resources to service it. If your population is static, it is likely that it is becoming more elderly and less economically active, but you still need growth from the economy to service it, including the needs of the elderly.
I am all in favour of taxing / capping the super rich more than now, but the reality is that such people move their wealth or themselves around globally, preventing an effective and material recovery from such people (we should still try though). The other reality is that we are generally a comparatively low taxed country and successive governments (and ourselves) have been avoiding the issue of propery funding adult social care and retirement / pensions for decades.
 
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider said:
Well I agree we don’t live in a bubble.

But over the last 18 months or so the global economy has been pretty much closed down. And there have been few flights in the air. And for a long time the motorways have been empty of cars.

But somehow food has still arrived on our plates. Gas and electricity has arrived in our homes. And the vast majority of us have stayed alive.

Now I know that various P&L accounts and balance sheets of countries and businesses may look a bit scary. But frankly aren’t accounts just a complete fiction? Like money? A human construction? Are they any more real than any other invented God? Or do we just worship them because that’s what we’ve been told since we were nippers?

Just one of those ideas that occasionally is worth kicking around.
Click to expand...
But that’s the global economy working in sync accidentally and with restrained options to grow.

You’d have to persuade the rest of the globe to scale down with us to make that work long term post covid.

Can’t ever see that happening. A Brexit solution has been nigh on impossible to reach, never mind a global agreement to shrink our economies simultaneously for the sake of the environment.

Ain’t never gonna happen.
 
Could all this and much more not have been avoided had we not sold off all our assets and kept ourselves as an industrial country. How much money would now be in the countries coffers had we kept all our utility services and not sold them off to private investors.
How cheap would our utilities be now, and would there be anybody having to choose between food and warmth?. Would we have enough houses for everyone if we had kept steel and other manufacturers going. Or even had a fabulous amount of skilled tradesmen had we not told every one that could write thier name they could go to University and study 17th century folk music get a degree and a highly paid job when they leave.
Would this country not now be able to afford and have the qualified staff to not only look after the sick and old but all of us in a utopian place to be living. Or is that just to simple a thing to have been dreaming about for many years??
 
Lala said:
But that’s the global economy working in sync accidentally and with restrained options to grow.

You’d have to persuade the rest of the globe to scale down with us to make that work long term post covid.

Can’t ever see that happening. A Brexit solution has been nigh on impossible to reach, never mind a global agreement to shrink our economies simultaneously for the sake of the environment.

Ain’t never gonna happen.
Click to expand...
I suspect you’re right. Although the last 18 months (when economic activity around the globe was brought to a halt by government diktat) shows it’s certainly possible.

Whether it’s desirable to live in a permanent or semi lockdown is a different question. Although if a relentless drive for continual growth is indeed destroying our planet, a curtailing of economic activity might be the least worse option.
 
Camberwell1 said:
Well I worked on the Dilnot Report, DWP benefits input, and it’s not simpler- it was, about the best report ever, on this topic (Funding the Nations Social Care) but like many of these reportsxwas anything but ‘Peter Perfect’ - so it being such a huge decision why not have a referendum on it ! ha ha the Okdies would loser!

I don’t care as I am a Gardener now and probably leave Dump UK
Well if increasing NO
Click to expand...
 
Lala said:
You need economic growth to fund society and environmental issues.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to believe that's not the case. A stable economy that reinvests normal profits for the benefit of the population can feed itself. It's the insistence on building surplus profit - that then funds the super-rich, or which finds its way into a growth in armaments - that can be made redundant.
 
Bisphamtang said:
Going back to the op
Raise income tax that way the cost is more evenly spread
The young have enough financial woes - paying back student loans,high rents or mortgage etc


1% on income tax and treat tax evasion akin to benefit fraud
Click to expand...
Tax evasion is already treated as fraud. It's tax avoidance that is the problem - I think you meant that anyway.
 
They need to raise money somehow, but how much will go into Social Care and is that the real reason or just a smokescreen?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
It’s rumoured it might be going up to pay for social care.

Fair or not?
Click to expand...
Don't suppose it matters that it's in breach of a manifesto promise. Nothing less than we'd expect.

The issue is when the threshold kicks in. If too low, you'll have people on low income paying for some wealthy pensioners' care.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I'm beginning to believe that's not the case. A stable economy that reinvests normal profits for the benefit of the population can feed itself. It's the insistence on building surplus profit - that then funds the super-rich, or which finds its way into a growth in armaments - that can be made redundant.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the idealism that spawned communism, which didn't work because it failed to take into account human nature?
 
So a huge day in Cabinet and Parliament for the UK’s lying PM

He breaks 2 Manifestoe commitments just today !

The big one, is Social Care, but £5 a week NI increase is not something many can afford and is still not fair on poor compared to rich people erm like Boris Liar for example. It’s also unfair on struggling businesses

I strongly suggest to the PM he reads the Dilnot Report on Funding Social Care the ‘death tax’ is simply a better idea for people who remain alive today but face problems in later life starting tomorrow.

everyone needs to do more but this simplistic approach is flawed once again !
 
EagleDay said:
Agreed, but let's pick on the oldies, eh? They already take our saving and our houses, what else can we give?
Click to expand...
I'm sick to death of the continued insinuation that the young will be paying for the old in care. This has always been the case. These oldies, in the main, have already contributed a great deal towards the running of the country, most of them have contributed towards the NHS through their NI over the years. That there is not enough in the pot to sustain them through their later years is not their fault. They already survive on a pension that is below the expected minimum wage, never mind the living wage, but are expected to sell whatever they have to sustain their lives if social care is required.

I've personally seen both sides of the argument. As an administrator of a care home, it was my job to ensure that bills were paid, and briefly, in a 36 bedded home the first 32 residents bills paid for the running of the home (wages, running costs, equipment etc) whilst any profit was made from the last 4 residents contributions. It was imperative therefore that bills were paid on time and that when someone died, their room was decorated and re-let. I have seen grown men cry, as well as women when the realisation that their parents' home will have to be sold has hit them. I did all I could to assist them, but it was heartbreaking when the person selling was not particularly well off, living in a council house or flat, and expected to take over their parents' house, on their death, which they had been promised.

On the other side of the coin, my wife had two maiden Aunts who were in care, one for 3 years and one for eight years, the bills were horrendous and their property was sold to cover them, a lifetime of hard work through self-employment was lost to the care system. My stepfather was in care for 9 months before being transferred to a Hospice due to cancer and my mother was in a care home, due to Dementia, for 7 years again their property had to be sold to pay the bills. So, instead of living the life of Reilly, as a pensioner, I'm thankful that we have during our working life put as much aside as possible to look after ourselves in older years.

We, in turn, have helped our children buy their homes and still assist them, where possible if they need help. we're determined that what little we have will be theirs when we are gone.

A solution has to be found, and for a start, I would extend the NI contributions to those earning in excess of the current ceiling. What else apart from raising the amount paid I do not know. But as Gorden Brown used to preach, prudence is what is required all around.
 
The red wall Tories are up in arms about the proposed increase apparently (quietly supported by the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg apparently). After today’s announcement, Johnson, Sunak and Javid may try to rush through the vote on the increase this week before the rebellion gains too much traction.
 
It's a difficult one.

On the existing system;
In principle and if you are a true meritocrat then you should perhaps believe that someone's home should be used to pay for care because it stops some wealth being inherited, which in turn makes for a more even playing field because the unfair advantage of inherited wealth is diminished. However, in reality it just feels very unfair and also gives an incentive not to save for your old age which is not good for the individual or the state.

If Johnson is going to raise tax to pay for this (fair enough) then surely income tax is a better instrument because it is proportional to earnings. Red wall rebellion on its way by the looks of it, he is making enemies in his own party all over the place. The Afghanistan debacle last week and now this, this decision was not discussed in cabinet and looks like Johnson will try to shunt it through the commons. Brave or reckless?
 
Boris is not the first PM to break manifesto promises, and won't be the last.

Just take a look at the Blair/Brown period in Govt.
 
Lala said:
With a contracting economy though there wouldn’t be credit available as it is now. The well and all it’s options would run dry.
I take your point regarding austerity as it’s used today, but we don’t have a long term contracting economy.
Click to expand...
and credit not being available in the way it is today would be a good thing. The way banks are set up today, credit and debt in general is a mega boost to size of the economy, but outside of cosumer spending the majority of debt goes to asset aquisition rther than productive purposes. its much easier to find debt to buy a business and exploit that asset (break it up, sell it off, exploit the pension fund etc), than it is to borrow money to build the business in a productive manner.

Also the pursuit of growth particularly in terms of GDP is now starting to be seen as problematic, and many economists are starting to think about economic sustainability as a better measure / model. A long term contracting economy wouldnt necesarily be a bad thing, even if done in isolation, as long as the economy was focused on productive output rather than asset aquisition / exploitation.
 
bfcpete said:
Of course you need growth to to cope with population dynamics. If your population is growing, you need more resources to service it. If your population is static, it is likely that it is becoming more elderly and less economically active, but you still need growth from the economy to service it, including the needs of the elderly.
Click to expand...

what you need is productive growth, not capital and asset growth which simply transfers wealth back to the wealthiest. Most western economic models are based around asset growth which is why everyone is obsessed by the stock market, and the real growth is happening in countries like Korea, and china.

the UK along with most of Europe has a shrinking population, and a population skewing to older people, and has decided that it doesn't want immigrants to make up the shortfall in the population requirements.
 
A few radical options

Instead of the two tier tax system; standard and higher rate, introduce an increasing sliding scale, so that those with high incomes gradually pay more tax. Say start at £50k, then another for £75k etc, etc.

Introduce national service. Puts those on benefits in employment, who then pay tax and gives them career options.

Sliding scale reduction of employment seekers allowance after 6 months.

1% increase in corporation tax over £1,000,000 profit.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
It's a difficult one.

On the existing system;
In principle and if you are a true meritocrat then you should perhaps believe that someone's home should be used to pay for care because it stops some wealth being inherited, which in turn makes for a more even playing field because the unfair advantage of inherited wealth is diminished. However, in reality it just feels very unfair and also gives an incentive not to save for your old age which is not good for the individual or the state.

If Johnson is going to raise tax to pay for this (fair enough) then surely income tax is a better instrument because it is proportional to earnings. Red wall rebellion on its way by the looks of it, he is making enemies in his own party all over the place. The Afghanistan debacle last week and now this, this decision was not discussed in cabinet and looks like Johnson will try to shunt it through the commons. Brave or reckless?
Click to expand...

you know, ive been thinking about this thing of inheretance in realtion to old age social care a lot recently, as an economic problem and particularly as a sustainable economic problem.

the most extreme version is in the US but its happening more slowly in the UK and across europe.
As a student you aquire debt, even those getting skills training are often aquiring debt to get the training, think of nurses for example in the UK. You start work with a significant amount of debt around you neck, which means you will be later onto the property ladder if at all.
The student debt is secured by government, and i think the figure is that less than 30% is ever paid off, and the government makes up the long-term shorfall to the banks. for those students / trainees who do not fall into high paying jobs quite quickly research is showing that graduate salries are stalling at the limit where student debt needs to be paid off. This also pushes down the ability to get on the housing ladder for younger people.

in many countries now banks are promoting family planning finance, sometimes underwritten by government, where populations are falling. this occassionally extends to fertilisation treatments as well.

at the other end of life reverse mortgages and seniors equity release are generally only worth around 70% of the value of the property. Also with mortgages being extended to 40 years or longer and having multi generational securitisation, we are getting close to having transferable debt within families.

the outcome is that we are acquiring debt, free from risk to the banks, and we spend the whole of our lives paying it off so that we can have three or four years worth of care in our old age.
 
No one has mentioned the fact that care is split.

Part one is accommodation and part two care. Pensioners who enter a home pay for their accommodation as far as possible, through their pension, so, in effect their pension is taken off them with just a small amount being left for the little things they may want during their time in the home.

Part 2, is the care, which is provided for them as it would be if they were in Hospital.

Wealthy pensioners will obviously go into better homes, but the cost is higher on the accommodation side, this has to be found by the resident. Councils have for years reneged on their expected contributions, and this has been all shades of councils and under all shades of government. However, once the wealthy pensioners assets run out, they are expected to depart the home they have been in for however long and go to a bog standard home, if they can find one.

As a footnote, homes are not just for the elderly, there are many who look after people with special needs. Are we going to have a collective go at them as well.
 
Curryman said:
No one has mentioned the fact that care is split.

Part one is accommodation and part two care. Pensioners who enter a home pay for their accommodation as far as possible, through their pension, so, in effect their pension is taken off them with just a small amount being left for the little things they may want during their time in the home.

Part 2, is the care, which is provided for them as it would be if they were in Hospital.

Wealthy pensioners will obviously go into better homes, but the cost is higher on the accommodation side, this has to be found by the resident. Councils have for years reneged on their expected contributions, and this has been all shades of councils and under all shades of government. However, once the wealthy pensioners assets run out, they are expected to depart the home they have been in for however long and go to a bog standard home, if they can find one.

As a footnote, homes are not just for the elderly, there are many who look after people with special needs. Are we going to have a collective go at them as well.
Click to expand...
You obviously have knowledge Curryman. Purely in terms of retirement and care homes for the elderly, what change or addition to national social policy do you think would address your concerns?

PS. A full answer would run to pages, of course. I'm just after the headline bullets here.
 
Fargo99 said:
Don't agree with this generation paying for baby boomers care needs.
Slam it on inheritance tax that will sort out some of the South East wealth and make sure Crooks like the Duke of Westminster who left £12 billion in trust for his son and not a penny in tax pay their dues.
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't agree, but I'll guarantee you will be whinging and whining about how poorly pensioners are treated when you, hopefully. get to pension age, the same as many of my generation were doing when they were young and are now complaining about poor pensions.
 
EagleDay said:
Maybe you don't agree, but I'll guarantee you will be whinging and whining about how poorly pensioners are treated when you, hopefully. get to pension age, the same as many of my generation were doing when they were young and are now complaining about poor pensions.
Click to expand...
I am a pensioner, our generation have been the most prosperous since the war. Stick inheritance tax upto 50% this will pay the Social care and NHS bills.
 
Fargo99 said:
I am a pensioner, our generation have been the most prosperous since the war. Stick inheritance tax upto 50% this will pay the Social care and NHS bills.
Click to expand...
Only because of works pensions? But thinking logically, after 50+ years of work shouldn't pensioners be better off than the young who are just starting out in life? A lifetime of paying into pensions, mortgages and insurances etc. But as so many are keen to point out, the UK is still the poor relation in Europe as far as pensions are concerned. As far as the inheritance tax is concerned, many will not have any inheritance to leave once they have used their life savings and sold their homes to pay for their care.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
You obviously have knowledge Curryman. Purely in terms of retirement and care homes for the elderly, what change or addition to national social policy do you think would address your concerns?

PS. A full answer would run to pages, of course. I'm just after the headline bullets here.
Click to expand...
In three words, I don't know. However, whatever govt are in power, I don't envy their leader. Whatever plan they come up with will disappoint and upset some and be roundly condemned by the opposition, who will not have a clue themselves what to do. Oh to be PM, not.
 
This issue isn't about providing care it is purely about inheritance. If you require care it will be provided and paid for either through your assets, by your local council or by a mixture of the two.

People don't like paying through their assets as it means they can pass on less in inheritance. As someone has said before this could be sorted by addressing inheritance tax ( and inheritance tax avoidance). The Tories obviously don't like this as the people likely to pass on the largest amounts in inheritance are mainly Tory supporters.
 
An increase in NI doesn't affect pensioners as they don't pay it. Income tax on the other hand, but that's a real sacred cow for the Tories.
 
Pensioners have paid n I throughout their livers, they’re entitled to the benefits.

Young people who are now paying n I will themselves benefit in the future and probably have grandparents and parents who need help now or in the future.

Working pensioners will now pay n I.

The triple lock has now been abandoned for the next two years.
 
Curryman said:
No one has mentioned the fact that care is split.

Part one is accommodation and part two care. Pensioners who enter a home pay for their accommodation as far as possible, through their pension, so, in effect their pension is taken off them with just a small amount being left for the little things they may want during their time in the home.

Part 2, is the care, which is provided for them as it would be if they were in Hospital.

Wealthy pensioners will obviously go into better homes, but the cost is higher on the accommodation side, this has to be found by the resident. Councils have for years reneged on their expected contributions, and this has been all shades of councils and under all shades of government. However, once the wealthy pensioners assets run out, they are expected to depart the home they have been in for however long and go to a bog standard home, if they can find one.

As a footnote, homes are not just for the elderly, there are many who look after people with special needs. Are we going to have a collective go at them as well.
Click to expand...
You’re right to make the distinction between care and accommodation/food.

It seems the new £86k cap will only apply to care costs. Not the rest.
 
Curryman said:
In three words, I don't know. However, whatever govt are in power, I don't envy their leader. Whatever plan they come up with will disappoint and upset some and be roundly condemned by the opposition, who will not have a clue themselves what to do. Oh to be PM, not.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your honesty. Not an easy area to throw out the quick solutions.
 
This and covid have to be paid and the bill is a fkn whopper
Would have thought income tax 1% raise would seem fare ,as for the triple lock, a 8% raise would have been unacceptable in the current circumstances
No fan of Boris but as PM it can't all be about clever quotes and jokes .He is making an effort to address the cost of covid and social care systems
 
Halifax71 said:
It's going to be a separate levy from 2023. It makes zero sense to not apply to all income.
Click to expand...
The references I’ve seen are to a levy on earned income, which I don’t think would include income from pensions.

As far as I can tell (and it’s not terribly clear at the moment) it’s just a rebranding in 2023 of the NI increase on your payslip so that it’s clearly allocated to the NHS and social care. The idea I suppose is that that will make it more palatable and easier to increase it in the future.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
The references I’ve seen are to a levy on earned income, which I don’t think would include income from pensions.

As far as I can tell (and it’s not terribly clear at the moment) it’s just a rebranding in 2023 of the NI increase on your payslip so that it’s clearly allocated to the NHS and social care. The idea I suppose is that that will make it more palatable and easier to increase it in the future.
Click to expand...

Yes Mex, that's not how I saw it from the headlines but drilling down into Halifax's article, I'd say what you say is right.
 
Bisphamtang said:
This and covid have to be paid and the bill is a fkn whopper
Would have thought income tax 1% raise would seem fare ,as for the triple lock, a 8% raise would have been unacceptable in the current circumstances
No fan of Boris but as PM it can't all be about clever quotes and jokes .He is making an effort to address the cost of covid and social care systems
Click to expand...
I think this issue of the elderly benefiting is a bit of a red herring as well.

We need a solution that will last for 50/60/80 years. Everyone paying for it at source is the way to go.
 
You have got to admire the genius of Boris and Rishi, putting the costs of the NHS up with National Insurance, blaming

the rise on the need to increase revenue to fund the NHS. At the same time keeping the wealth of the top 5% who receive their pay through

dividends( lower rates than income tax and no national insurance), and use pensions as a means of passing on wealth tax-free and tax avoidance.

Clearly, it is the start of making the average working person pay for the covid pandemic.

My solution would have been to put the VAT up to 25% or even 30% on the advertising revenue charged by the digital marketplaces

Amazon, Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc the companies that have actually prospered during the pandemic. The main advantage of Brexit is that we

can set our own VAT levels.
 
Last edited:
It's all a big joke. The elephant in the room is the aging population that is living longer and longer, without working. Reaching 80+ 40 yrs ago was rare and now its commonplace, the birth rate is plummeting which is a recipe for financial disaster. Immigration is the easy answer but that was beaten down by the 52%. Osborne stated the cost of brexit was 15 billion per year, today Sunak raised 12 billion. This is just to keep the countries head above water and the excuse is social care. This issue will be kicked into the long grass indefinitely, but ask these questions and tell me the govt care about us:
Why are UK pensions worse than European counterparts?
Despite our flag waving govt, why are our are service vets treated so badly?
Why did the govt press for the hardest of brexits that took us out if the single market and smashed supply chains and commerce so badly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top