National Insurance

If a person needing social care resides in a house worth £160k they forfeit 50% of capital and be required to use the residual for non care costs.
If a person needing social care resides in a house worth £1.6m they forfeit 5% of capital and will use tax shelters.

Its termed as levelling-up.
 
Just think; in 3 years the public will have paid for track and trace that was funded by borrowing and allowed Tory chums to profit massively. Get on board the gravy train folks...

What are we going to do about it? Tut and look at poor people from Africa moving into a shit hotel I’d imagine.
 
Wizaard said:
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.
Click to expand...
hang on didnt the wealthy pensioner pay into the pot for possibly 50 years so being entitled to get something out of the pot????
remember the young ones will be old one day and need caring for
 
SeasideTerrier said:
If a person needing social care resides in a house worth £160k they forfeit 50% of capital and be required to use the residual for non care costs.
If a person needing social care resides in a house worth £1.6m they forfeit 5% of capital and will use tax shelters.

Its termed as levelling-up.
Click to expand...
Exactly - taxing the poor to help the rich. And people are swallowing the government rhetoric.

Ps - I do not pay NI and will probably benefit financially from the new rules. But it is wrong !
 
Wizaard said:
That's not how pensions work. There is no pot. Money paid in today is spent today.

That assumption is the biggest problem for me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that a forward thinking state could / should be thinking about setting up 'personal' state pensions where contributions through NI go into a personal pot or something like a private pension. There would need to be top-ups for people who fell below a certain threshold. This would initially leave a massive hole in public finances but would eventually be more sustainable than the current situation which just gets worse and worse as life expectancy increases.
 
Wizaard said:
That's not how pensions work. There is no pot. Money paid in today is spent today.

That assumption is the biggest problem for me.
Click to expand...
yet again wiz play on words 50 years paying into the SYSTEM means you have CONTRIBUTED for 50 years therefore ENTITLED to expect something back for your CONTRIBUTIONS
money paid in today is not spent today.
thats impossible
 
And its not a 1.25% raise anyway, its 1.25 percentage points - if NI Contribution is going from 12% to 13.25% then its @10% rise in tax (e.g. 10% of 12 is 1.2 and 12 + 1.2 = 13.2) if you are an employee. The employers face a bigger hike from 13.8% to 15.05%.

If you are self employed of course you will only face half that raise in taxation!
 
seasiderjohn said:
and 50 years ago what did £1.50 BUY

20p a pint 15p for 20 ciggs 50p a gallon of petrol
loaf 9p
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You're arguing that £1.50 paid in should give you a full pension now because you think there's a pot somewhere with your name on it. That's not how it works.
 
Wizaard said:
Irrelevant. You're arguing that £1.50 paid in should give you a full pension now because you think there's a pot somewhere with your name on it. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...
if they hadnt taken it off me for 50 years and allowed me to invest it i wouldnt need a pension you clown
 
Where did you get those figures from Wiz? I was paying 3 and a tanner (17.5p) for twenty Park Drive in 1965 I think they were double that going into decimal coinage.
 
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider said:
It’s rumoured it might be going up to pay for social care.

Fair or not?
Click to expand...
It’s the right thing to do to sort out the problem of social care. Not sure you’ll ever get a way that is universally seen as fair. But it’s one obvious way to raise the money. Whether we pay one way or another isn’t a biggy to me. What matters that we pay more into it and get it sorted. And that should include paying the workers more and putting them on structured career paths and giving them a recognised professional status and all that comes with it. We treat these staff with disdain. They’re taken for granted and completely undervalued.
 
For me the logical solution is to remove the tax free element before IHT
Tax paid on the death of the survivor at 40% across the board
Oh and tax anything transferred within the last 20 years whether as gift or into trust
 
Wizaard said:
50 years ago you were paying in £1.50 on average.
Click to expand...

TwelveAngryMen said:
For me the logical solution is to remove the tax free element before IHT
Tax paid on the death of the survivor at 40% across the board
Oh and tax anything transferred within the last 20 years whether as gift or into trust
Click to expand...
Agreed - and also blocking the loopholes (eg farmland and farm properties, Business Property relief, etc) when they are used primarily as means of avoiding IHT* rather than family business.

* James Dyson being a prime example
 
number 10
EagleDay said:
Where did you get those figures from Wiz? I was paying 3 and a tanner (17.5p) for twenty Park Drive in 1965 I think they were double that going into decimal coinage.
Click to expand...
number 6 were 17.5p benson and hedges were 20p park drive plain were 20 p number 10 were 15 p in around 73 when i started smoking they jumped up drastically mid 70s
 
coppiceman said:
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.
Click to expand...
by paying at source you mean each individual pays what they need as it arises?
 
each successive government tinkers at the edge of the system, a rate rise or drop here and there, reduce one loophole here but bring in another loophole elsewhere, the effects though over decades means a general lowering of overall tax take. A broken car that is stuttering form one set of traffic lights to the next isn't going to improve by sanding the alloy wheels clean of scratches and dints. The social security system as a whole is broken and needs a radical overhaul. There seems to be a general consesus building that Government cannot afford extensive social security so the burden needs to be put into the hands of each individual, the ultimate outcome of that is privatisation, the ultimate outcome of privatisation is an exclusively profitised system.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
For me the logical solution is to remove the tax free element before IHT
Tax paid on the death of the survivor at 40% across the board
Oh and tax anything transferred within the last 20 years whether as gift or into trust
Click to expand...
So basically anyone who saves or helps out their children is taxed twice. We should all sell our houses move into rented accommodation and blow the lot on exotic foreign holidays if that were the case
 
tangysider said:
So basically anyone who saves or helps out their children is taxed twice. We should all sell our houses move into rented accommodation and blow the lot on exotic foreign holidays if that were the case
Click to expand...
This.

It's what I will be doing.

Selling my house to a connected party and renting it back (cough)

Born with nowt
Accrue a few quid
Tip you upside down and empty your pockets on the way out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top