Forum Topic

Care costs

I really do not understand why the government would even consider hiking N.I. contributions rather than pay for care costs through increased taxes, only because the Tories have this thing about raising tax. Neither do I get why we don't pay N.I. right up until retirement, the current system is bonkers. A lot of people work beyond state pension age now, so why not keep paying your N.I.? There is a lot of money in that, a quick check today - between three of us we could have contributed another 7 years of contributions, which is a lot of money. As many pensioners pay income tax it would seem equitable  - after all N.I. has a ceiling which  benefits the higher earners. And please can we stop this nonsense about social care? A lot of people in care homes have some illness/disease which is not a social problem- it is an age related thing, to take dementia, it is a disease of the brain. We don't charge people with arthritis for new joints, why should dementia and other related conditions be any different? We must wake up to the fact we need more money to pay for these services, so let's make sure we ALL contribute according to our means.

Vanessa Smith ● 1875d144 Comments

Vanessa, only weird workaholics who have nothing better to do with their life other than work or those who really need the money are economically active past state pension age. The great majority are the latter. So under your proposal, you are planning to strip more money from old, often frail, often sick, almost certainly poor old people who are working because they can't make ends meet on the worst pension payment in the civilised world - that of GB.  Simply shameful.

Claire Moran ● 1875d

Why not whack a couple of % on to VAT and ring fence it. The more you earn, and spend, the more you pay. With cash becoming a thing of the past, the less chance of evading it.

Stephen Gould ● 1875d

Nonsense. I worked well beyond retirement, expecting another 30 years for that retirement time. Didn't have to pay NI but would have done. Also my pension increased as I didn’t take it.  I can’t be the only one in that position.

Vivienne Cox ● 1875d

I agree with you, Stephen, I think that would be fairer.  If you can't afford to buy, don't buy.  Need to be careful with essential food items though - although we don't want to get into the pork pie wars again!

Claire Moran ● 1875d

Why did you work beyond retirement age?  For fun?

Claire Moran ● 1875d

VAT is generally considered to be a tax that hits the poorest hardest. Maybe we need different levels of VAT -- returning to the 'luxury' rate that came in in 1979.

Susan Kelly ● 1874d

As long as any increase in whatever extra tax has to be raised for social care is 100% ring fenced then I am not too bothered how it is implemented

Paul Fisher ● 1874d

I thought it wrong to put VAT on perishable goods.

Janice Evans ● 1874d

A lot of people choose to work beyond the official retirement age - as many like their jobs, and work gives you a structure you've had over many years. Plus, it's not all the work itself but the company of your colleagues that mean quite a lot. Clearly there are jobs where you physically cannot carry on - or even work until your retirement.

Vanessa Smith ● 1874d

Increase in NI to pay for NHS and Social Services, typical Tory move to increase a regressive tax which hits the poor so that the much better off are even better off. eg don't have to sell their homes to pay for care.  A fair increase in tax would be to increase income tax by 1% or 2%.

Chris Dakers ● 1874d

'Britain has pretended that we can have Scandinavian levels of public services and American levels of tax for far too long. In other words, we cannot have a situation, as the Tory manifesto implies, where social care can be provided at zero cost to the individual and with no increase in taxation for the community, as a whole. It doesn't add up.'

Vanessa Smith ● 1874d

Is there anyone who would object to paying more to ensure Social Care is well funded?It just looks as though the issue is what tax to increase

Paul Fisher ● 1874d

The first thing they should do before raising taxes is to stop the appalling waste of money.  How many billions went into the failed track and trace system.  Governments have a long history of wasting billions of our money on failed IT projects.

Claire Moran ● 1874d

Maybe when the official retirement age was 60 or 65.  But it's shortly to be 67. Working beyond that doesn't allow most people much retirement, or ceraintly healthy retirement at all, given average life expectancy.

Claire Moran ● 1874d

I am not a fan of further burdening younger(under 50) workers with funding care for the elderly.Many on line companies have made huge amounts during the pandemic and lockdowns and some evade tax with gusto.Make these companies pay their due and raise the tax on shareholders, as thay have also benefitted during the pandemic.Making this an old/young issue is a big mistake, I believe that older people have a huge responsibility to plan and fund  their own care as much as they can.

Keith Iddon ● 1874d

"..hiking N.I. contributions rather than pay for care costs through increased taxes.."I have always regarded National Insurance as a tax under another name.

Richard Greenhough ● 1874d

'Is there anyone who would object to paying more to ensure Social Care is well funded?'I'm sure there are, and we all have get old - but can we consign this awful description 'social care' to the dustbin, along with 'affordable housing'. Neither are actually descriptive and both are misleading.

Vanessa Smith ● 1874d

Apparently this new tax/national insurance will generate £36 billion for frontline services over the next three years.But wait a moment.  The promised Brexit dividend was £350 million a week for the NHS.  Though later, in January 2018 Boris assured us that this was an underestimate.  So a conservative estimate would be that over three years this should yield 350 x 52 x 3 million quid which comes to about £54.6 billion, doesn’t it?  So apart from his pledge not to raise national insurance it does seem that we have been lied to.

Alastair Banton ● 1874d

Possibly but we did have that pesky Covid to deal with and that was not cheap

Paul Fisher ● 1874d

Nightingale Hospitals could total 530 million.

Janice Evans ● 1874d

My mother paid for the care she receive at home along with everything elsewhen it's time to go into residential care a lot of the funds have been eaten up.  Eventually we care for her at home which was what she wanted.

Janice Evans ● 1874d

Can you name the only politician to go on the record and promise £350m/week for the NHS?I saw a load of tosh written on a bus, which as I understand it, isn't a binding promise, more a slogan, that said, "We send the EU £350m a week, let's fund our NHS properly instead"What it didn't say, no matter how you want to spin it, is "We send the EU £350m per week, let's give all of that to the NHS and that's a cast iron, irrevocable promise"

Mark Warburton ● 1874d

Needs to be done alongside, not instead.The care sector is at crisis point and needs cash now. Efficiency savings take time (& unfortunately a lot of what you've referred to has already been wasted) to work through.Government should never be allowed to run ICT projects, this and every other preceding Government have proven to be inept beyond measure in this field.

Mark Warburton ● 1874d

Agree about the old/young issue, especially when you consider the Housing crisis amongst the younger generations. Taking more of their income in tax (or NI) isn't going to help that.I mean, I'm not a fan of the state taking savings/assets to pay for care either, it actively disincentivises saving for old age, but the answer isn't to ask the younger generations to pay for it all.NB: I don't know what the answer is, I'm better at what it isn't...

Mark Warburton ● 1874d

I was wondering if people posting here were aware of what a weeks care in a nursing (not 'care' home) costs for an self funding individual ? My mother was paying more than £1,600 a WEEK in a local nursing home 2 or 3 years ago. Self funding residents subsidise the council funded residents. It's a vile system with local government and NHS fighting over who's budget costs will come from when the patients money run out.If you don't take a salary but dividends , as many people do , you don't pay NI anyhow. So this is another way of ensuring that a low paid salaried worker will still contribute a higher percentage of their income than our well protected wealthy.

Tessa Russell ● 1874d

Well, at least you saw through it and were not fooled. Next you will be telling us that the care crisis has nothing to do with ten years of austerity. After all, Johnson is now promising to sort the care crisis so how could the problems be due to ten years of tory policy?

Alan Clark ● 1874d

When all is said and done it's all about who should pay, and who should look after us when we go ga ga. Historically peeps didn't reach ga ga age cos they kicked the bucket in their forties of other ailments or plagues or by being bonked on the head bi tribal disputes or wars. Strange ga ga times ~ aye?

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1874d

This new tax is a peculiar hybrid of NI and income tax.  Like NI, it will be paid by both employer and employee (1.25% each).  Like NI, it will kick in at £9,568 rather than at £12,500 for income tax.  Like income tax but unlike NI, it will apply to dividends.  Like income tax and unlike NI, it will apply to earned income of pensioners - it is unclear to me whether it will apply to pension income.  And the new tax rate will not be reduced for higher earners (unlike NI) - although it will not be increased either.  Broadly then, it's like increasing all rates of income tax by 1.25% - and taxing employers at the same time.Incidentally, if you set up a company and pay yourself through dividends, rather than salary, the picture isn't quite as straightforward as Tessa suggests.  It is true that you don't pay NI.  However, the combined effect of corporation tax and income tax on dividends means that your effective rate of tax is higher than you would be paying if you were being paid in salary - but lower than the combination of income tax and NI.  And of course in not paying NI, your income doesn't qualify you for the state pension.

Andrzej Kowalski ● 1874d

It doesn't.Having worked in social care finance from around 2007, I can confidently say that there's been a crisis around care funding for as long as I can remember.The Tories weren't in power 14 years ago & they definitely haven't made it better, but it has been a shambles for decades.

Mark Warburton ● 1874d

Phew I'm glad someone understands the detail I obviously don't !

Tessa Russell ● 1874d

I’m sure you are better informed than most. And that care has been badly structured, financed and organised for decades. But to claim that 10 years of austerity had no effect is brave to the point of foolish (or blindly biased).

Alan Clark ● 1874d

Goldman Sachs is clear. Brexit has cost the UK £600 million a week since the referendum. Tax revenues are down. Exports down. Fishing desperate. Farming similar. More tax increases to come.  Food prices on the up. Supply chains damaged. Fruit and veg rotting. Social Care underfunded for years under the Tories (mostly)The total amount raised from the NI hike is about £37billion - the same amount spaffed up the wall to Serco. A proven liar as a prime minister. I’m sure people still paying NI will be thrilled to be paying more to hide the fact that Brexit favoured very, very rich people who are laughing at those who voted to leave. Still, we have blue passports now... (made in France)

Stewart Jones ● 1874d

'it is unclear to me whether it will apply to pension income.'It won't. It will apply to the earned income of people who continue to work after state-pension age.

Susan Kelly ● 1874d

'it is unclear to me whether it will apply to pension income.'It won't. It will apply to the earned income of people who continue to work after state-pension age.'I think that's something overdue, if you carry on working past your state pension age then you should pay, so many of us did, and I never thought it was right.

Vanessa Smith ● 1873d

I was very interested to read about the £600 million a week. I read about the £350 million a week on the bus and did not believe that would go to the NHS. I wondered where the loss of trade, fishing, farmers had gone to, well the six hundred million explains it. On 1/10/21 things will get worse, M & S have stated that food wise.

Nicholas Beard ● 1873d

Where did I say that? I said that they certainly hadn't improved things, I didn't say that they hadn't made it worse.What I was doing was pointing out your inaccuracy in pinning hugely long term structural issues on an administration that came into power in 2010, when those problems existed many years before that.And this time, pointing out the inaccuracy of your last comment.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

All of those things are true. Having not read the Goldman Sachs report, how much of the decimated tax revenue have they attributed to Covid? How much have they referenced the disrupted supply chains in Europe? The phenomenal, Europe-wide shortage of hauliers is crippling the supply chain.Social Care was knackered long before the Tories got in. It was stuffed under Blair/Brown's Labour. The Tories haven't fixed it and in many ways have made it worse, but they did inherit a shambles & to pretend otherwise is dishonest.Johnson is the worst Prime Minister in my lifetime, which given the quality has been dropping by the Parliament, is really saying something.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

Was she a self-referring patient, or was she placed by the local authority? If the latter, that's a pretty spicy price that they were being charged. If the former, then sadly that's the business model operated.If referred by the local authority, she would have got the same place, still had to self-fund, but been charged the rate that the LA paid, not a private resident charge.A SW London local authority I used to work for charged differential rate for full payers, than those that contributed only a portion of their care costs until I pointed out it was illegal to do so. No idea if they ever refunded the people who'd been overcharged for years.There should be no fight about who's paying - the only determination that can, legally, be used is around level of need. It's that which determines who pays.None of that is to say that the system isn't inherently broken, it is, horribly and I really feel for people on the wrong end of it.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

"Johnson is the worst Prime Minister in my lifetime"I guess you were born after 5th April 1976 ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1873d

Now we learn that the NI rise may not be enough to clear the NHS backlog.

Nicholas Beard ● 1873d

Social Care was knackered long before the Tories got in. 'It was stuffed under Blair/Brown's Labour. The Tories haven't fixed it and in many ways have made it worse, but they did inherit a shambles & to pretend otherwise is dishonest.Johnson is the worst Prime Minister in my lifetime, which given the quality has been dropping by the Parliament, is really saying something.'I agree successive governments have dodged this issue - but it's also the case that the years of Tory governments far and away are more than Labour administrations. So it would be honest to say the Tories have had more time to sort this than any other party. As for Johnson, just read a piece in the paper saying that there might be a re-shuffle where he will take the opportunity to get rid of 'under-performing' ministers, Christ alone knows who else there is on the government benches to choose from, none of them fill me with any confidence. I suggest Johnson takes a good look in the mirror before he does anything at all.

Vanessa Smith ● 1873d

I was & Wilson was not a bad Prime Minister, he'd just gone a bit funny in his dotage.Johnson is and (I very strongly suspect) will remain the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. I actually can't think of one thing he's done well (barring giving Corbyn a hiding at the ballot box), he has no morals, no clear policy vision and little ability to give an honest answer to anything. He wants, and has always wanted, power for power's sake.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

I can't speak of the pre-97 era as I was still in Further Education at that point, but from 2002 when I entered the public sector workforce, Social Care funding has been in varying degrees of crisis.When Labour were voted out in 2010, they'd been in power 13 years and the system was very badly broken. The Tories have, in one form or another, been in power for 11 years and, as I said, have not only not improved things, but have made many things worse.There is no Labour/Tories are better than the other here. Politicians have somewhat cowardly failed to address the issue for 24 years and counting & all 3 'Major' parties have been in government during that period. It's not a partisan issue, no matter how much some want to make it.There is a terrible dearth of quality in Parliament across all the benches. Quite honestly, you could lose a minimum of 500 MP's and see zero difference to how the country runs. Whoever is shuffled in or out, they're part of that terrible lack of quality.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

'There is a terrible dearth of quality in Parliament across all the benches. Quite honestly, you could lose a minimum of 500 MP's and see zero difference to how the country runs. Whoever is shuffled in or out, they're part of that terrible lack of quality.'Ditto locally!

Vanessa Smith ● 1873d

Don't despair, Vanessa. Jacob Rees-Mogg would make an  excellent Prime Minister and a natural world leader.

Roger Talbot ● 1873d

Is the root of the problem the dismal 2 party system? This conflict & point scoring set up will always lead to disagreement rather than consensus on major issues. The 2 party system leads to MPs saying things merely to criticise, to MPs never being able to say the other side might be right, to MPs never directly answering a simple question. This puts decent and talented people off politics. It appeals to the presentation focused, game playing weasel. Break the duopoly and maybe make politics about serving the people again.

Alan Clark ● 1873d

'Don't despair, Vanessa. Jacob Rees-Mogg would make an  excellent Prime Minister and a natural world leader.'Yes, I've always fancied wearing a crinoline and a bonnet - how will you look in a stove-pipe hat?

Vanessa Smith ● 1873d

we're not a duopoly, we've had 3 parties in government in the last decade

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

Really ? You think that the libdem party had any meaningful role or influence within that coalition ? You think that single example proves this is not a two party system? The UK (well, Westminster)  has been a two party set up for 100 years. You might have cited 1949-45 as a better example but some might suggest exceptional circumstances prevailed at that time.If this is not a duopoly then can you show me how the two principle parties behave in a non-duopoly way? This current set up is solely about retaining power so as not to let the other side in (as opposed to gaining power to try to implement heart felt change). No wonder we’ve got the useless shower of politicians, as you rightly point out.

Alan Clark ● 1873d

Would never get the chance to look so elegant, Vanessa - the bastard Tories would be sending me up and down their chimneys every day.

Roger Talbot ● 1873d

Sorry, but if you don't think Wilson was a bad PM, you weren't paying attention.

Richard Greenhough ● 1873d

"You might have cited 1949-45 as a better example but some might suggest exceptional circumstances prevailed at that time."Not least that time was running backwards ;-)The LibDems's influence on the coalition was shown in the staging of a referendum on changing the voting system - which was rejected by a significant majority of those voting. It was also shown in the absence of a referendum on EU membership. Cameron relied on the LibDems to veto the idea until the electorate eviscerated them in 2015.

Richard Greenhough ● 1873d

The referendum was much more specific than simply ‘changing the voting system’, as you put it, it was about adopting, or not, the AV system.  If the ballot papers had, for example, stated ‘Would you prefer a reformed voting system to ensure that everybody’s vote counts’ it’s quite possible that this would have resulted in a Yes.An interesting comparison:  If the E.U. referendum had been precise and asked ‘Do you want to leave the E.U. Single Market and the Customs Union, (contradicting what many Leave campaigners said at the time) I suspect the answer would have been No although that is what we have ended up with.So care needs to be taken when devising or interpreting Referenda.

Alastair Banton ● 1873d

The way things are going that could still happen to some of our kids!

Vanessa Smith ● 1873d

You seem quite angry Alan, have a cup of camomile tea and take a breath.There is little doubt that the Lib Dems wielded influence outside their seat share whilst in Government, simple mathematics points to that. In order to get a majority, policies had to be acceptable to both sides of the coalition, that naturally ameliorates the more extreme end of the policy platform that might otherwise be enacted. For a pretty unambiguous example of that, look at what happened immediately after the Lib Dems were routed in 2015. Do you, hand on heart, think that there would have been an EU membership referendum with the Lib Dems as coalition partners of the same or similar size?A 2 party system is that which operates in the USA - they have 2 parties that gain seats in the Senate or Congress. At last check, we have 10 parties represented in the UK parliament. Not 2.Should Labour not have imploded so hilariously and spectacularly under the old trot, the seat share would have been much closer, similar to 2010 or 2017, which forces the governing party to be more collegiate. That we have only one realistic party of government until 2029(ish) is down to the clowns who voted Corbyn in as Labour leader.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

Alistair, Brexit was all about leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. Anything less would not have constituted a Brexit.These two facts were made abundantly clear by Brexiteers throughout the political discussions prior to the referendum. Do not fool yourself otherwise.

Denis I. Fox ● 1873d

In many ways progress ran backwards...But you raise a good point about electoral evisceration. The libdems were damned because they were an utterly failed and useless partner with Cameron (the failed and useless PM). That was not a coalition worthy of the name. That was two party politics with one party playing with a stupid puppet. The libdems were punished as much for being so stupid as to think two party politics was over as they were in being puppets to the tories.Don't cite the previous voting referendum as being anything other than a rejection of one highly dubious new system. If that referendum had been more like the Brexit referendum (do you want a more representative voting system?) then the answer would have been a resounding 'yes'. And then we could have had years to work out what that would be.

Alan Clark ● 1873d

That was not the debate in 2016. Do not delude yourself.

Alan Clark ● 1873d

I am quite disappointed, not angry, that the Westminster voting system is so archaic, so unrepresentative and leads to such destructive and negative politics. Are you not?

Alan Clark ● 1873d

Angry? No, not really. Disappointed, yes. Am I saddened to see several hundred people with less understanding of how government and the economy, etc works than I do in Parliament, yes?Is anything going to change until all main parties comprehensively reform how they select candidates? No, not in any way. PR or whatever electoral system won't change that an inch.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

You got the question wrong. I asked if you were not also disappointed. But out of your lack of attention to detail what you managed to do was agree with me. Well done.You are wrong, however, that it all boils down to the selection process being the key. The key is the criteria by which they determine what would make a good MP candidate and then who is a good candidate for senior roles in that party. The criteria would change if a less combative, more cooperative political system was necessitated by a different party mix. No-one would look good or win by simple point-scoring. In fact that candidate, MP or party would look as if they never wanted cooperation. Given that, in the majority, people want Westminster to work together to a good outcome, then that MP or party would rapidly lose votes. That would significantly change things. It would introduce grown up politics and might just introduce grown up politicians. Imagine.

Alan Clark ● 1873d

But sadly, that's not true of a significant proportion of Labour supporters and members. They would rather rot in the ground than work with "Bastard Tories" as I think I've seen them described on this thread.More collegiate working would of course help, but only if the correct candidates are selected. Changing the criteria of what makes a good candidate would help, but whilst you have, in certain areas of the country, utter loons making the selections, it doesn't matter what the criteria are, you'll always get poor quality candidates.You only need to look to the continent, where there are many more coalitions to see that coalition doesn't necessarily mean better quality MP's.

Mark Warburton ● 1873d

Back to care costs, the reality is that this crisis has been looming for decades in part due to the success of modern medicines. Back in the 1950’s life expectancy was 65 fast forward 2015 and it’s 83 for women ha! Nothing has changed since the 50’s to accommodate care of an ageing population. Its definitely needs more money and given everyone one day will benefit then everyone should contribute. The young have been funding OAP pensions for decades. Its good everyone understands nothing comes for free perhaps it will encourage people to respect the NHS more when you realise they have to pay for it through taxes. Having a line on their payslip from 2023 is good and watch the % rise over the next few years. Labour would have a field day ha!

Jayne Thorburn ● 1873d

Indeed that was not the debate.  And when Daniel Hannan said in 2015 ‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ it is fair to assume that as a founder of the Vote Leave campaign he was speaking with some authority and that people were entitled to believe what he was saying.But as well as this there were years of wrangling about what kind of Brexit was desirable - Norway, Canada, Australia plus this and that and it was always possible to have some kind of softer version that might not have led to all the import and export problems that we are now seeing, but in the end the Brextremists got their way and we have have ended up with the hardest version possible short of ‘no deal’.

Alastair Banton ● 1873d

The young were happy to pay knowing one day it might be them needingCare.

Janice Evans ● 1873d

OR …https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/boomers-declare-victory-20210908211849?utm_source=The+Daily+Mash+Headlines&utm_campaign=9fba3c2c6b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_09_08_11_46&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c9c2fcf0b-9fba3c2c6b-244136945

Alastair Banton ● 1873d

Yes, you always know for sure what possible referendum results would turn out to be, don't you ? I don't think you have much grasp of what the majority of the electorate think on any given subject, judging by most of your posts.

Richard Greenhough ● 1873d

The problem with having two mega-parties is that the breadth of political views in one party ends up being very wide. This risks people voting for the traditional view of the party they prefer, then find that what they get is dominated by one faction. In the case of labour it ended up dominated by momentum. In the case of the tories its ended up being dominated by the anti-EU group. You do not get what you thought you voted for.And as for other countries with more modern voting systems (yes, PR is more modern and more representative) then you do get more, smaller parties. And of course you still get duffer MPs. But the utter loons are in their own utter loon parties, not hidden in one of the big 2 parties. But you do get an understanding that politics, like all walks of life, is most often better with cooperation and compromise. And that has the potential to lead to more mature politicians, not our childish ones.

Alan Clark ● 1873d

'But sadly, that's not true of a significant proportion of Labour supporters and members. They would rather rot in the ground than work with "Bastard Tories" as I think I've seen them described on this thread.More collegiate working would of course help, but only if the correct candidates are selected. Changing the criteria of what makes a good candidate would help, but whilst you have, in certain areas of the country, utter loons making the selections, it doesn't matter what the criteria are, you'll always get poor quality candidates.You only need to look to the continent, where there are many more coalitions to see that coalition doesn't necessarily mean better quality MP's.'It's a question of trust -and the Tories are the most untrustworthy bunch breathing. They really took the p*ss out of the Lib-Dems, that was never a partnership - more useful idiots, or come into my parlour said the spider to the fly. The same was true of the Tories locally when the ICG independents threw their lot in with them, they proved to be collateral damage, so I have some sympathy with the view of some Labour members. Although I would say that locally Labour leave a lot to be desired!

Vanessa Smith ● 1873d

Party politics aside, a system I don’t think serves anyone, we don’t seem to have the capacity to see any individual problem in the context of a wider structure.I don’t think the difficult discussions are had, for fear of losing votes or frightening the horses. Euthanasia, inheritance, care, ageing, immigration etc.,We could allow the refugees & economic migrants, some of whom have much needed skills, to work legally while they wait for their status to be assessed. But our punitive system doesn’t allow that.All parties seem to have an inability to comprehend that because you find something unacceptable or difficult you shouldn’t just blame someone else and entrench.I certainly am not well informed enough to make any useful contributions but I am SO frustrated that we have an adversarial rather than collaborative government who spend more time posturing than doing anything constructive.

Tessa Russell ● 1873d

I am sure there has been a lot of collaboration on how to further fund NHS/social care, it makes sense to separate out the contribution. Pensions is a line item on a payslip although this is an individuals pot, makes sense to do the same for health as a line item I can see the 1.25% being increased to 3% then 5% in a relatively short period. If as a society we want a decent NHS/social care service we have to pay for it.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1873d

Labour  have been in power for only 17 out of the last 51 years.......

Stewart Jones ● 1873d

It's your party which is ideologically obsessed with a low wage, low taxation economy. Many millions of in work people already need to claim benefits to survive. How the hell are they going to cope with increased taxation? Vile, vile party.

David Roberts ● 1873d

We have paid for it but it’s not hypothecated is it? The Tories have been in power for how long? As Chris Patten has said the current Conservative party has been overrun with small minded nationalists with no idea about how to run a country.  Margaret Thatcher would have been appalled by this shower. Jayne, the party you still support is not the party it was.

Stewart Jones ● 1873d

This isn’t about politics the NHS and social care in particular is massively under funded so how do we pay for the standard of service people want, it can only come for everyone paying more, I hate tax like everyone else but if paying more means better services for our older folk and those who are vulnerable then it’s a price worth paying. Only Targeting special groups e.g higher tax payers can’t go on forever. Finding ways to get major global Corps to pay is difficult but at least the 2% digital sale tax is a start. Agree the NHS needs to become more efficient and joined up with social services that’s a different challenge.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1873d

'The Eton Mess'I call this current shower of incompetents.If Labour ever get back in power, I am sure a suitable sobriquet will emerge.

Keith Iddon ● 1873d

You have all been saying why don't they increase tax, was it just so youcould moan about it.

Janice Evans ● 1873d

Of course it’s about politics. DuhThe « taxing of the rich » has not gone on for ever. It is self evident that the rich avoid anything close to excessive tax. So in reality the taxing the rich properly has not really begun at all.This NI burden is a Tory dream. Tax the workers. Don’t tax the retired (our voting base). Don’t tax those not paying NI ( directors, business owners, contractors - our other voting base). Sell it as socially caring. Job done. Ignore that we gave nurses 1% pay rise (disgustingly tiny) and now tax 1.25% away from them. Awkward.Sorry, you were saying how simply excellent this all is...

Alan Clark ● 1873d

Alan you live in Lala land if you don’t think directors, self employed etc pay tax, they do and a lot more than anyone on PAYE when you add up all the taxes they do pay, employers NI/pensions, corp tax before any div is taken,  employ people creating opportunity and potential wealth for many. Retired people have paid into the system all their life if they no longer work good for them. For those that do they will pay. If contractors don’t pay their ‘stamp’ they don’t get a state pension if high earner lose personal allowance the list goes on and on. As I say you live in lala land…..

Jayne Thorburn ● 1873d

I apologise for not making myself clear. If you are taking a  director's dividend then NI is not paid with that. I was talking about NI, not tax. You do not pay NI if you are over retirement age. That is the point about this NI increase - it hits salaried workers hardest and those earning money through non-salary mechanisms least. I know this must seem complex to you but is it now more clear and less lala?Now, speaking of la la land. What is your view of on giving nurses 1% pay rise and then immediately takng 1.25% away in a NI increase? In your own la la land of toryism I guess that is all just fair & reasonable. After all, what have nurses done for us recently?

Alan Clark ● 1872d

If you continue working past retirement age, your employer continues paying NI on your salary. And what is a "director's dividend" ? Dividends are paid to shareholders.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Never heard of anyone not wanting to pay N.I.  We can also pay voluntaryif we want to as I did when doing a second job.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

Directors of companies can pay themselves via a dividend - I think that is what is meant.It is obvious that the  manifesto-breaking NI hike hits the lowest paid more. All to protect the inheritances of older people who wish to pass most of it on to their offspring and many of whom are Conservative voters.Just a reminder that between 2015 and 2020 (pre pandemic) 500,000 children were pushed into poverty. That number has increased and will continue to do so.And just imagine what we could have done with all the money (£600 million a week) that we have lost since the referendum and the self-inflicted wound that is Brexit.

Stewart Jones ● 1872d

Many of us have been in poverty at some time during our lives,  Directors often don't take the dividend.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

Do you and your comrades always look with envy at the money tree in next doors garden Stuart?

Paul Fisher ● 1872d

they like to give the impression all Conservative voters are wealthy which iscomplete nonsense, they seem to be the ones taking flights all over.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

Directors of companies limited by shares can pay their shareholders via a dividend. If employees - including directors - have shares in their company then they can receive dividends if the company is doing well. A few years ago - I think when Nigel Lawson was Chancellor - an exercise was undertaken to see whether NI (a tax by another name) could be abolished and rolled into Income Tax, to make the tax structure less complicated. The conclusion was that there was no way this could be done without some taxpayers being worse off, and, fearful of the fuss that those taxpayers would make, the idea was kicked into the long grass. Quite simply, no-one likes paying extra tax, which is why H.M.Treasury likes to try and find new ways of raising revenue such as this "NI that isn't quite NI". LB Hounslow seem to prefer to do it by penalising motorists.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Look it up."You do not pay National Insurance after you reach State Pension age - unless you're self-employed and pay Class 4 contributions. You stop paying Class 4 contributions at the end of the tax year in which you reach State Pension age."

Alan Clark ● 1872d

'No one likes paying extra tax'Is that a universal truth? We frame taxation in the wrong way in the UK. The focus is on a sense of money being taken that we earned and should, ideally, keep for ourselves. Another view is a state cost perspective. What sort of country do we want - high standard of living, high care, high quality (or not). Then you need to accept the costs that go with that. Having accepted those costs a higher tax level is ok as it contributes to the society and country you want. One can take a view of being ok with paying more tax in order to have a higher standard of living. That is, being able to consider more than the individual.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

Stop showing your ignorance. The employee's contribution ends at retirement age, but the employer's contribution continues.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Stop misrepresenting Alan's position, so that you can accuse him of ignorance. His point is about the burden of taxation on individuals, and in that context employer NI contributions are irrelevant.

Robert Fish ● 1872d

He is banging on about people past retirement age not contributing to the new tax, and ignoring that their employers will in fact be contributing.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

For me the issue is simple.  Those most able to pay should pay the most.  That seems fair to me.  What this government seems to be doing is protecting the super rich.  Well, they would, wouldn’t they.  It’s where they get their donations.  Happily more and more people are coming to support the idea of a wealth tax including some of the super rich themselves.https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jul/13/super-rich-call-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-to-pay-for-covid-19-recovery

Alastair Banton ● 1872d

Alan is being selective, a company can only pay dividends if it makes a profit and has to pay 19% corporation tax on that profit before it issues any dividends, then the dividend is also taxed top rate being 38.1% so overall tax being 57.1%. The new levy will apply to all so top rate moves up to 39.35. You also have to remember it’s about money collected not percentage so the money being paid by higher earners is massive compared to lower paid workers. The majority of directors earn on PAYE a and dividends is a top up if the company has performed well. So directors are being hit from every direction.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1872d

It will just push them elsewhere then we lose what we were getting.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

Don't see why Company Directors should subsidise everyone else, wherewould the incentive be to do well.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

None of these will hang around to be drain of their wealth, be sensible, would you.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

Perhaps Alans tax situation is different in France?

Paul Fisher ● 1872d

Directors should pay their fair share of course, let’s also remember directors are wealth creators which we need, there is no public sector without private section creating the wealth to fund public sector. Public sector pensions are huge compared to private sector in most cases so you have to look at the whole and not be selective just to debate a point.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1872d

What you call the super-rich should be encouraged to live in the UK, pay income tax and NI here, employ people here, and spend their money here, thereby contributing to increased VAT receipts. In general, their wealth and income is portable, which is why, for instance, racing drivers take up residency in Monaco, and trying to single them out with a wealth tax simply means they will go and live elsewhere. It is not that difficult in the age of modern communications to run a UK business without ever setting foot in the country. You would hardly expect the Grauniad to run an unbiased report, would you ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Agree we need wealth creators and we don't want to push them away.Every Country needs wealth.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

Richard, the gap between rich and poor has vastly increased in recent years and more and more people are coming to realise that a wealth tax is needed and wouldn’t lead to some sort of exodus.  For example the Sunday Times has suggested that a 5% tax on wealth above £100 million and 20% on wealth above £1 billion would raise £97 billion.  That’s quite modest and surely preferable to the government’s plan which targets some of those least able to pay.And as the ‘biased’ article pointed out, many wealthy people would be quite happy to pay more.

Alastair Banton ● 1872d

Alastair, many are already set up in other Countries it would be easy for them to just walk away.

Janice Evans ● 1872d

Alistair, I agree with the general principle that the more someone has financially beneffited from doing business in a society that is broadly focussed on encouraging business to prosper, the more they should contribute to the well being of others as it is often the labour of those 'others' who contribute to their wealth.I just wonder whether the 'many wealthy people would be quite happy to pay more' is your opinion or do you have evidence for this?

Keith Iddon ● 1872d

I guess that, if Alan's in employment in France, he'll be paying considerably more tax than he would pay here. He'll almost certainly have a lot more lines on his payslip.

Robert Fish ● 1872d

We employ people in France and the taxes are crazy for both employees and employers, there are certainly lots of line items on their payslips ha!

Jayne Thorburn ● 1872d

Well apart from those wealthy people in the article I linked, I have read several similar things elsewhere recently.  Also it’s common sense that there must be some ‘sweet spot’ in the progressive taxation matrix that will yield optimum income for the state.  I feel that the U.K. could easily raise more tax from the wealthy before arriving beyond that spot.  Also this is interesting…https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-8384013/Would-willing-pay-income-tax-help-Britain-recover.html

Alastair Banton ● 1872d

Company directors are wealth creators - well some are. There are also company directors who fail to grow businesses. And company directors whose primary route to profit improvement is to sack people, not to hire more people. It is not a single sided view of company directors. Some are true leaders who create businesses and wealth. Some. But they all get the perks of the way they are rewarded. And 1.25% on NI will not affect them in the least. The goods ones or the bad ones. Hence my comment about this NI increase being something that many tory supporters will not feel an adverse effect. Thus its a clever tax hike for Johnson.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

You won't convince some on this thread who seem to adhere to the laughed out of school Laffer curve and the equally laughable trickle down effect. They love all these super wealthy people (paying little tax) and who they see lavishing jobs on the country through, err, buying property, luxury cars and expensive dinners. Lets not invest in manufacturing, lets attract another billionaire. That is what this country needs.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

Expensive dinners provide employment for the staff and tax contributions through VAT. Or are you so wedded to your prejudices that you cannot understand that ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

"..many tory supporters will not feel an adverse effect."It may come as a shock to you, but many Conservative voters work hard and pay their taxes. Many will have less take-home pay as a result of this new tax, but hopefully many will also appreciate that if we want adequate social care, it has to be paid for.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

I fully understand that spending money on service industries such as hospitality provide low paid and relatively unskilled jobs. These provide relatively low tax returns for the country. These provide relatively few opportunities for progression and further enhancement of people's skills. They are one step up from McJobs (to be fair, some are the definition of McJobs). These provide little to the overall wealth of the country as the value-add of these jobs is low.To be fair to your prejudices, they do often provide profit for the owners of the businesses. Thus keeping the wealth of the country with the existing wealthy (I'm sure there are exceptions that you will jump to highlight). But blowing a few hundred on dinner a few times a month is not the same as paying a couple of percent more tax on ones millions.Like I said. Some here are still wedded to Laffable curves and trickle downs. Thanks for proving my point.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

You were the one who brought up expensive dinners. I doubt if the chefs in expensive restaurants would be pleased if you suggested they had McJobs.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Thank heaven for small mercies.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Why are you guys talking about France taxation? I thought we were talking about the country where we have the right to vote. And tax to pay for social care, rather than tax on its own. Or do you want to broaden the discussion to comparing the UK to other country's social care and taxation systems? Anybody know about how Germany's or Holland's works? That might be interesting.I am sure you are not just trying to find out about my own personal tax situation. That would be rude. But if you guys tell me exactly what you are paying in tax then I'm sure I can share a few snippets of my own.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

What is it about your personal tax situation that is rude ? That sounds most intriguing.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

No but the table clearer and dish washers do have McJobs. You raised the notion that such excellent and taxable employment was created by the wealthy eating out. I assumed you meant decent restaurants and not the local chippy. I also wished to highlight that your excitement that such eating out is a great source of employment and tax revenue to the country was misplaced. It is a shoddy argument that the eating out by a few rich is going to make the UK a better place. Find a better argument.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

Not a surprise at all. Why do you think I am not aware of this? I said many, not all. Or even most. Why are you trying to create arguments where none exist?My point here was specifically from the PM's perspective the hike on NI was the least damaging tax rise he could make. Damaging to him and his party that is.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

Sometimes you try to be funny. Occasionally you can be.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

"Agree the NHS needs to become more efficient and joined up with social services that’s a different challenge."Interesting piece by Robert Colvile in last week's Sunday Times saying they tried something of the sort in Andy Burnham's Manchester and it hasn't worked out well.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Never really expected you would agree with something that offends your prejudices. You brought up the wealthy having expensive dinners and then back-pedal like mad when the folly of your example was pointed out.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Your posts would be funny if they weren't so sad.

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

I have the grace to acknowledge your occasional wit (even when receiving a tasteless post from you). You have the shallowness to insult in reply. I could not have summed up your approach here better if I tried. I'm done with replying to your rubbish today.

Alan Clark ● 1872d

"I'm done with replying to your rubbish today."There is a God !

Richard Greenhough ● 1872d

Don't believe it!  AC has made such assurances on the forum before, then reneges.

James Roy ● 1872d

Apparently, and if some reports are to believed the mandarins at the NHS seem to think what they need is several new executives on £270k pa each.Nice work if you can get it.

Keith Iddon ● 1872d

Or whatever school dinner laides are called now would just  look at the bunch of playground bullying waffling and nonsense that this thread has produced and send a fair few to the back of the lunch queue.

Tessa Russell ● 1872d

Proxy Brexit wars, Tessa! It's ironic that those on the "winning" side (if indeed there are any winners in the present chaos) are still so antagonistic towards one of the more vociferous remainers.

Robert Fish ● 1872d

Are you wanting the pink blancmange Robert ?

Tessa Russell ● 1872d

Pure 'an simple 'Care' (any care) should be bunched in with the Welfare State. And, if that means higher taxes and NI let it be so long as there's an equilibrium where we all pay poor or rich our due proportion. What say you Plato, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Mildred of the Dog & Duck?

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1872d

Blancmange - unheard of in my time at school. It was sago (frogspawn!) or rice pudding, with a blob of strawberry jam, or spotted dick and custard.

Robert Fish ● 1872d

I  suppose my takeaway from  this is that people have firm views and aren't often willing to engage with new ideas. Not that there's a right or wrong just that people don't seem to have the ability to consider options that don't already confirms to their pre-exiting. beliefs.

Tessa Russell ● 1872d

I think Bobby summed it up rather well, it’s about time we addressed the issue and we all knew taxes would rise particularly in the wake of Covid. Ironically when the new pensions scheme came in I suggested we should do the same for the NHS/social care, it just makes economic sense that we all contribute to a system we all use granted some more than others.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1872d

Low wages leave no scope for tax rises. You con bloviate all you like about 'we all contribute to a system' but people who earn 'f*ck all can pay f*ck all. Your party may have some decent human beings in it, embedded like sweetcorn in a turd, but your leader is an absolute horror show of a human being. If you defend him, you demonstrate how low you're prepared to stoop to prosper.

David Roberts ● 1872d

I have no idea, Paul, what you mean.Allowing 500k children to descend into poverty in the last few years (pre Covid) indicates a lack of conscience at the very least. You don’t need a magic money tree to look after the poorest and most vulnerable in society - it is one of the primary duties of any government.But there is a magic money tree if you’re Serco - £37 billion for Track  and Trace - or one of the companies given millions to supply PPE with no track record berçasse you are on a list of Tory party donors or in a special WhatsApp Group.

Stewart Jones ● 1871d

Let me hazard a guess, Stuart.  I think Paul is accusing you of the ‘politics of envy’.  It’s the suggestion that it’s not possible for someone to have a political worldview that is governed by anything other than self interest.  It’s in the same category of insults as ‘champagne socialist’.  It’s kind of dumb because it speaks volumes about the accuser while saying nothing about the accused or their arguments.And you are absolutely right about the primary duties of a government and our present government’s abuse of power.

Alastair Banton ● 1871d

"I'm done with replying to your rubbish today"You will note that yesterday I was very specific on the day which I would cease to reply and the individual I was cease to engage with that day. I fully adhered to that commitment.I trust you are now completely happy with my behaviour.

Alan Clark ● 1871d

Not sure what you are talking about someone earning £20K will pay a tiny contribution of £130 a year. Under £9.5K they pay nothing so a small price to pay for the NHS/social care. Employers are funding this as well so it is very evenly spread.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1871d

It's not evenly spread. It doesn't affect retired people, but then of course, as Johnson's government was voted in by my fellow old fogies, you'd expect him to avoid taxing them. In crude terms it's preference for the asset rich over the working poor. Raising the cash through income tax would have been more equitable and more effective.

Robert Fish ● 1871d

Pensioners have propped up the tax system in their lifetime so I am happy for them to enjoy their retirement. It’s business that is contributing the biggest share and I haven’t heard anybody saying that’s unfair! As an employer I am very happy to contribute to the health of the nation & society. Let’s not underestimate the importance of supporting the NHS/social care.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1871d

Nobody underestimates the importance of supporting the NHS/social care. The question is whether the proposed funding is adequate (almost certainly not) and whether the money could be raised in a less regressive way.

Robert Fish ● 1871d

That is good to hear, Jayne. It’s  such a shame that so many incredibly wealthy people  go to huge extremes to avoid paying tax  like Rees -Mogg etc -  all those incredibly wealthy people who drove Brexit through to avoid tax. I know you did not vote for it but people were fooled into voting for it for  spurious reasons. The Conservatives threw out party members who knew that it was wrong for the  country For the record, I am not a devoted Labour supporter. People jump to that conclusion because I criticise this government with a man in charge who is unfit for  public office.

Stewart Jones ● 1871d

pull the other one, then have another drink.

Janice Evans ● 1871d

You seem unable to engage in thoughtful discussion. In that light, please desist from posting such content free and frankly puerile comments. When you grow up, and can offer thought-through contributions, then please continue to post. Janice, what’s your game? I have a theory.

Alan Clark ● 1871d

Really ?

Janice Evans ● 1870d