No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by JohnIlly on Jul 19, 2021 10:12:25 PM
Ministers mull national insurance rise to fund social care

Johnson lied on the day he became PM that he already had a plan for social care.

What should it be? How should it be funded?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/19/mi
nisters-mull-national-insurance-rise-to-fund-social-care

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
JohnIlly - 19 Jul 2021 22:13:14 (#1 of 89)

Of course, if it's funded from NI then those over pension age will not pay it.

xDiggy - 19 Jul 2021 23:17:20 (#2 of 89)

Quelle surprise the Tories choose just about the most regressive way possible to fund this while protecting the inheritances of the middle aged. Even income tax would be better.

JohnIlly - 19 Jul 2021 22:43:35 (#3 of 89)

Other than income tax and/or NI it's hard to think of any other way of raising enough money for it which would be acceptable to the core of Tory voters.

Bumping up inheritance tax or putting a special tax on cruises might be more equitable but would go down like a bucket of cold sick at the annual conference.

uranrising - 20 Jul 2021 05:53:22 (#4 of 89)

Before the govt. doled out the covid -related largesse, did they tell their voters, or any voters, how they were going to pay for it?

I forget, or never knew.

dottie30 - 20 Jul 2021 07:29:50 (#5 of 89)

I suppose with an NI rise, it does mean that some of the burden is paid for by employers.

Still think some of it should be funded from those who have seen their property increase in ways they were never expecting. After they are deceased.

Abolish the status of children / stepchildren / grandchildren whereby they pay no inheritance tax if the estate is below the £2 million mark.

thisonehasalittlehat - 20 Jul 2021 07:59:38 (#6 of 89)

I agree. Inheritance tax threshold is way too high. There's no sensible reason why anyone should expect to inherit more than the price of an average house.

Although I'd just take the entire estate personally, save sentimental nik naks.

Ginmonkey - 20 Jul 2021 08:05:03 (#7 of 89)

The idea that working people should pay more tax to protect the inheritances of people whose parents benefited from massive house price inflation is pretty outrageous. Especially as the same massive house price inflation is negatively impacting on the lives of working people.

xDiggy - 20 Jul 2021 08:11:26 (#8 of 89)

Not even pay more tax, but pay more of a tax with a much lower starting threshold than income tax, from which earnings over 50K and all pensioners are exempt.

thisonehasalittlehat - 20 Jul 2021 08:13:14 (#9 of 89)

To be fair though pensioners deserve their fair share of the national cake. Which is half. And to spit on the rest.

thisonehasalittlehat - 20 Jul 2021 08:13:40 (#10 of 89)

They died against Hitler to protect us!!!

Catspyjamas17 - 20 Jul 2021 08:21:25 (#11 of 89)

#6 Point of order that IHT threshold is lower than the average house price in the south east and east of England, and obviously London.

And under the current system people sell their houses to pay for social care, so there wouldn't be an inheritance to pay tax on anyway.

mingmong - 20 Jul 2021 08:22:58 (#12 of 89)

#2 wot diggy said

This should be funded out of IHT, which needs to increase

Ginmonkey - 20 Jul 2021 08:29:06 (#13 of 89)

#11 indeed which is why there needs to be a more equitable tax on property wealth.

Catspyjamas17 - 20 Jul 2021 08:38:18 (#14 of 89)

You need to be careful though as most people will have crap pensions and a large number are relying on downsizing their homes to fund their retirement, and not necessarily handsomely. So if you take it away in tax, you may end up having to give it back in other ways. Also no-one would vote for it.

thisonehasalittlehat - 20 Jul 2021 08:39:28 (#15 of 89)

People who intend to use property wealth to fund retirement are people who are poor at planning.

xDiggy - 20 Jul 2021 08:40:02 (#16 of 89)

Almost all the nation's savings are locked up in housing, yet we make that virtually exempt from any tax and pile the costs of an ageing society on the people with no savings or housing wealth. It's crazy.

thisonehasalittlehat - 20 Jul 2021 08:40:14 (#17 of 89)

We can't just keep on having all this money locked up in houses and passed down through inheritance. It is not a sane way to manage a country's resources.

Ginmonkey - 20 Jul 2021 08:40:15 (#18 of 89)

A lot of people have crap pensions and no property.

Money earnt through housing inflation is treated differently for any other earnings, it isn't right or fair.

xDiggy - 20 Jul 2021 08:40:38 (#19 of 89)

Snap!

Catspyjamas17 - 20 Jul 2021 08:49:23 (#20 of 89)

#15 Do you think that will improve if you tax them more? People don't save because saving interest rates are low/non-existent, pension returns are highly uncertain at best, the cost of living is high, wages have stagnated for years and a lot of people are servicing debt or don't have the money to put aside. Buying a home, well, you need somewhere to live and it also happens to be a sound investment, for the last twenty years certainly, and is unlikely to be a depreciating assets except in certain circumstances.

I have no particularly strong views on the matter. Playing devil's advocate, what is the unfairness in the current system? If you have a problem with unearned property wealth, then the current system solves that, as houses are sold for those who need social care. If they haven't got assets, the state pays, and for the same private homes, as I think there are hardly any council run ones now (if any at all).

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » UK News