National Insurance

Mexboroseasider said:
It’s rumoured it might be going up to pay for social care.

Fair or not?
Click to expand...
Well social care, especially for the elderly, needs a massive cash influx.

So it’s a start yes.

Is there a fairer way, not sure. Would have to know what the other options are to be honest.
 
Lala said:
Well social care, especially for the elderly, needs a massive cash influx.

So it’s a start yes.

Is there a fairer way, not sure. Would have to know what the other options are to be honest.
Click to expand...
One criticism of a national insurance increase is that it hits youngsters in employment. Not the retired elderly who may reap the benefit. Again.

A second criticism is that there’s no guarantee the increase will be spent on social care. It might just be Rishi trying to raise money to pay for furlough, CBILS etc.

A third criticism is that it breaches the Tory Manifesto promise not to increase NI.
 
Would prefer any increase to be on income tax, for the reasons above, but can only stomach it when the mess of the billions given to their friends for poor quality T&T and PPE have been settled up.

Otherwise, yet again, it is Tory austerity by another word, allowing the richest to avoid paying more. I believe NI is capped for high earners?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
One criticism of a national insurance increase is that it hits youngsters in employment. Not the retired elderly who may reap the benefit. Again.

A second criticism is that there’s no guarantee the increase will be spent on social care. It might just be Rishi trying to raise money to pay for furlough, CBILS etc.

A third criticism is that it breaches the Tory Manifesto promise not to increase NI.
Click to expand...
The increase will affect me and anyone working, but I’m good with that as it’s long term insurance for all of us.

The fact it goes against the manifesto is for the electorate to judge individually in the ballot box I guess. Again it doesn’t bother me as we need to address the lack of available funding in this area.

I’m ok with it. Some may not be 🤨
 
Lala said:
The increase will affect me and anyone working, but I’m good with that as it’s long term insurance for all of us.

The fact it goes against the manifesto is for the electorate to judge individually in the ballot box I guess. Again it doesn’t bother me as we need to address the lack of available funding in this area.

I’m ok with it. Some may not be 🤨
Click to expand...
I agree social care needs to be funded. And the cost is absolutely huge. And with an ageing population will only be going up.

The money is either going to come from the people who need care and/or (to the extent they can’t pay) from the rest of the country.

NI increases are essentially an increase in income tax. Something that’s anathema to the current government.

You could increase other taxes (inheritance tax maybe) but I doubt the increases will fill the big empty space.

Bit of a melon scratcher to be honest.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I agree social care needs to be funded. And the cost is absolutely huge. And with an ageing population will only be going up.

The money is either going to come from the people who need care and/or (to the extent they can’t pay) from the rest of the country.

NI increases are essentially an increase in income tax. Something that’s anathema to the current government.

You could increase other taxes (inheritance tax maybe) but I doubt the increases will fill the big empty space.

Bit of a melon scratcher to be honest.
Click to expand...
Definitely a melon scratcher.

I don’t think they’ll ever find a way that’s universally popular, not sure there is one.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
All posters who say that it is right or, sounds reasonable or, what else can we do?....and who voted Tory in 2019, you were lied to and now you don't seem to mind.
Click to expand...
I didn’t vote Tory in 2019. I didn’t vote.
But, as I say, the electorate will have its day next time around if it feels cheated.
 
Lala said:
I didn’t vote Tory in 2019. I didn’t vote.
But, as I say, the electorate will have its day next time around if it feels cheated.
Click to expand...
I'd rather you voted Tory than not vote, Lala. It's a thing of mine - national duty and all that.
PS. Not at all meant as a criticism. You're a sound enough person.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Not the retired elderly who may reap the benefit. Again.
Click to expand...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you objecting to people who have worked and paid into the system for 40+ years for using the NHS?

My argument would be the druggies who have their fix of methadone reaping the benefits, most of whom have never paid into the system, or never likely to have done, or even the alcies who are issued beer tokens so that they can continually piss it up against the wall.
 
Looks like NI could rise for working pensioners on the basis that non-pensioners might not accept taking the burden for increased social care costs.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you objecting to people who have worked and paid into the system for 40+ years for using the NHS?

My argument would be the druggies who have their fix of methadone reaping the benefits, most of whom have never paid into the system, or never likely to have done, or even the alcies who are issued beer tokens so that they can continually piss it up against the wall.
Click to expand...
Nope I’m not objecting to oldies using the NHS. In fact social care has very little to do with the NHS. It’s mainly private.

I’m asking how we should pay for an ageing population. And whether an increase in NI is a fair way of doing that? Or is there a fairer way? And how do we square that circle when nobody really likes increased taxes?
 
i cant remember if this was relating to the UK or somewhere else, but in the 60's there were nearly three workers for every retired person, that ration is now about 1.3 workers and the expectation is that it will hit 0.8 workers for every pensioner in twenty years time. 5 pensioners for every four workers. The average contribution of those workers has fallen in real terms by about 30% in that time as well, partly because of tax cuts for the richest, but also because wages have stagnated or fallen for the bttom 60% or so, and therefore tax take has dropped. Another stat that is interesting (i cant remember if this is the UK either) is that around 3% of the workforce every year is shifted onto a minimum wage job, either through wage stagnation or people losing their skilled or semi skilled jobs and only having minimum wage jobs in replacement.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you objecting to people who have worked and paid into the system for 40+ years for using the NHS?

My argument would be the druggies who have their fix of methadone reaping the benefits, most of whom have never paid into the system, or never likely to have done, or even the alcies who are issued beer tokens so that they can continually piss it up against the wall.
Click to expand...
You're angry about an infinitesmally small part of the population. That is the wrong cohort to determine national social policy.
 
Lala said:
I treat voting like picking a partner. If I don’t find the right one I’d rather not bother 😌
Click to expand...
Then spoil your vote. Spoilt ballots have to be counted and form part of the declared result. If I can't find a candidate I want to vote for then spoiling my ballot paper is what I do:
A. I've shown I'm prepared to turn up.
B. I've shown my disdain for those who are standing.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
One criticism of a national insurance increase is that it hits youngsters in employment. Not the retired elderly who may reap the benefit. Again.

A second criticism is that there’s no guarantee the increase will be spent on social care. It might just be Rishi trying to raise money to pay for furlough, CBILS etc.

A third criticism is that it breaches the Tory Manifesto promise not to increase NI.
Click to expand...
Bend it like Suddick said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you objecting to people who have worked and paid into the system for 40+ years for using the NHS?

My argument would be the druggies who have their fix of methadone reaping the benefits, most of whom have never paid into the system, or never likely to have done, or even the alcies who are issued beer tokens so that they can continually piss it up against the wall.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but let's pick on the oldies, eh? They already take our saving and our houses, what else can we give?
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
You're angry about an infinitesmally small part of the population. That is the wrong cohort to determine national social policy.
Click to expand...
Possibly true, but mine was a token selection of examples that abuse our system. It certainly isn't an infinitesimally small part of the population who actually glean these benefits.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Then spoil your vote. Spoilt ballots have to be counted and form part of the declared result. If I can't find a candidate I want to vote for then spoiling my ballot paper is what I do:
A. I've shown I'm prepared to turn up.
B. I've shown my disdain for those who are standing.
Click to expand...
That's the course I take, it's better than not turning up.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Possibly true, but mine was a token selection of examples that abuse our system. It certainly isn't an infinitesimally small part of the population who actually glean these benefits.
Click to expand...
I've been involved in benefits finance in my time. Believe me, the figures are massively huge (which you'll understand), but it also makes the cheats' share seem huge. For me and you, as individuals, it is. For national policy, it honestly isn't.
 
EagleDay said:
Agreed, but let's pick on the oldies, eh?
Click to expand...
Well at 62 I’m officially an oldie so it’s allowed.

And let’s face it; unlike our parents and grandparents (and the way it’s turning out our kids and grandkids) we’ve had a pretty easy ride. Rising house prices if you’re on the ladder. Generous pensions for many. Pretty stable economy for the most part and a job if you want one. No wars to fight in unless you joined up voluntarily.

Pretty lucky in The Lottery of Life.

But we’re all still cross.

Most of the time.

Fecking snowflakes.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well at 62 I’m officially an oldie so it’s allowed.

And let’s face it; unlike our parents and grandparents (and the way it’s turning out our kids and grandkids) we’ve had a pretty easy ride. Rising house prices if you’re on the ladder. Generous pensions for many. Pretty stable economy for the most part and a job if you want one. No wars to fight in unless you joined up voluntarily.

Pretty lucky in The Lottery of Life.

But we’re all still cross.

Most of the time.

Fecking snowflakes.
Click to expand...
I wonder, should we be guilty? We've not had to fight wars - unless we've been professional soldiers - we've had high interest rates but, hopefully, employment. We haven't had the shit house prices our children have experienced.
So, when should I slit my throat?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well at 62 I’m officially an oldie so it’s allowed.

And let’s face it; unlike our parents and grandparents (and the way it’s turning out our kids and grandkids) we’ve had a pretty easy ride. Rising house prices if you’re on the ladder. Generous pensions for many. Pretty stable economy for the most part and a job if you want one. No wars to fight in unless you joined up voluntarily.

Pretty lucky in The Lottery of Life.

But we’re all still cross.

Most of the time.

Fecking snowflakes.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of your points Mex, however, not all of your generation had it easy all of the time. Not financially anyway.

If that were the case they would be able to fund or contribute more to their own care and evidently they can’t, and that’s the issue here.

And if they can’t, with a growing population that will one day also be classed as elderly, and equally in need, we need to start addressing the issue seriously, and now.
 
Lala said:
I agree with a lot of your points Mex, however, not all of your generation had it easy all of the time. Not financially anyway.

If that were the case they would be able to fund or contribute more to their own care and evidently they can’t, and that’s the issue here.

And if they can’t, with a growing population that will one day also be classed as elderly, and equally in need, we need to start addressing the issue seriously, and now.
Click to expand...
By electing a Government that puts the environment and social policy above economic growth.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I wonder, should we be guilty? We've not had to fight wars - unless we've been professional soldiers - we've had high interest rates but, hopefully, employment. We haven't had the shit house prices our children have experienced.
So, when should I slit my throat?
Click to expand...
No we shouldn’t be guilty.

But maybe we should be a bit more humble and a little less judgmental of others.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I wonder, should we be guilty? We've not had to fight wars - unless we've been professional soldiers - we've had high interest rates but, hopefully, employment. We haven't had the shit house prices our children have experienced.
So, when should I slit my throat?
Click to expand...
You definitely shouldn’t be guilty.

You can only deal with the hand you’re dealt, and that’s what we need to do now.
 
Lala said:
Well social care, especially for the elderly, needs a massive cash influx.

So it’s a start yes.

Is there a fairer way, not sure. Would have to know what the other options are to be honest.
Click to expand...
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
 
Mexboroseasider said:
And how far do you keep growing when growth impacts on climate change?
Click to expand...
You can’t stop growing on some level.

Look at any country without economical growth, not a chance you can do anything to improve society or the environment if you’re contracting as an economy.
 
The self-employed where warned ages ago that our contributions would be going up no problem with that.
But if I'm to pay the same as an employed person no issue but maybe if I ever need benefits I can claim some of the same.
 
Lala said:
You can’t stop growing on some level.

Look at any country without economical growth, not a chance you can do anything to improve society or the environment if your contracting as an economy.
Click to expand...
Or is that just what we’ve grown up with? So we’re conditioned to believe it? Is it the only way? Or is there a better way?

Where’s BFCx3 when you need him?
 
Lala said:
You can’t stop growing on some level.

Look at any country without economical growth, not a chance you can do anything to improve society or the environment if you’re contracting as an economy.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with that, Lala.

Much of the so called growth is actually money going into the pockets of the mega rich. With a more egalitarian model, with those at the top on a much lower multiplier than those on the bottom, society and the environment can be improved. As Mex says, that is what we have been conditioned to think, like, we have to pay individually when the Government spends. Austerity was a political decision, the eye watering amounts borrowed for Covid at the drop of a hat, with little impact on the real economy because of the availability of cheap credit, kind of proves a point.

Thatcher was wrong, a country's economy is not like a household budget.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Or is that just what we’ve grown up with? So we’re conditioned to believe it? Is it the only way? Or is there a better way?

Where’s BFCx3 when you need him?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Not sure I agree with that, Lala.

Much of the so called growth is actually money going into the pockets of the mega rich. With a more egalitarian model, with those at the top on a much lower multiplier than those on the bottom, society and the environment can be improved. As Mex says, that is what we have been conditioned to think, like, we have to pay individually when the Government spends. Austerity was a political decision, the eye watering amounts borrowed for Covid at the drop of a hat, with little impact on the real economy because of the availability of cheap credit, kind of proves a point.

Thatcher was wrong, a country's economy is not like a household budget.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
Agree, but a stable economy, not a contracting one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top