Social care: What would a National Insurance rise mean for me?

[johnofgwent]

£400 less in my wallet each year and F@@@ all to show for it.

[srb7677]

Division is being sown on this issue by the media.

Personally I do not approve of using NI in this way. There are far more progressive alternatives like some kind of wealth tax. But as a left winger you might expect me to say that. I know I personally will be hit to the tune of about £130 per year, whilst some groups pay nothing, eg landlords on income from their lets, and non-working pensioners. Though working pensioners will still pay it on any earned income, as will investors on share dividend income.

As for Labour attacking this, it carries no conviction since they are offering no alternatiuves of any kind. This is why though the Tories have slipped 5 points in the latest poll, Labour has risen by only 1. Starmer's lot are about as convincing as a knitted rhinoceros. I trust him even less than I trusted Blair, which is saying a lot.

But I think the media are overdoing the divide thing. It is being portrayed as poor paying for the rich. But not everyone paying NI is poor, nor everyone recieving adult social care rich. It is also being portrayed as old against young, a case of young people paying to protect the houses and asstets of the old. But I will be paying it at 56 and no one can accuse me of being young anymore. Indeed even pensioners still choosing to work will be paying it. So this idea that it is only hitting the young is nonsense. Nor are all those needing adult social care pensioners. There are many adults of working age who do too for reasons of disability. Which could befall any of us at any time.

I know the media like to pit groups against each other. So too do many politicians. We on the left are often guilty of it precisely because we see greater equality as inherently a good thing, and home in on differences between groups when they can be viewed as haves and have nots. I myself often do it. We on the left almost have it in our DNA to highlight social injustices between rich and poor. And also in social injustices between groups defined in ways other than wealth.

I myself have often recognised and focussed upon a divide between old and young, especially in the areas of housing. But I will admit right here and now that I have probably overdone it at times.

But the divide on this issue is not really between old or young, nor even between rich and poor. It is between those who live off earned income and those who live off unearned income. With the exception of dividends, only earned income is being taxed by this measure. Tenants will pay it on their earnings if they are working. Their lamdlords will not be paying it on their rental income. And even the wealthiest former CEO retirees who are no longer working will pay nothing extra on their vast private pensions. Though if they continue to work as CEOs, they will pay it then on their earnings.

Those who work by hand or brain and earn their incomes by their labour are the ones who are paying, regardless of how rich or poor or how old or young. Those not working and living off unearned income (with the exception of dividends) regardless of age or wealth, are paying nothing.

That is the injustice we should be focussing on here.

[Thomas]

 

And your point about is being ring fenced has been discounted by the latest admission that the new tax (adult social care tax) will initially all go to the NHS — so where's the new improved social care going to get its funding from? 

So scottish national insurance contributions are to fund englands nhs and englands social care reform?

As well as paying for a superior social care system in our own country , where pensioners dont have their houses taken from them to pay for care?

No wonder you dont want scotland to leave the onion. The golden goose that keep giving.....

[patman post]

But surely the clue is in the name. It is a National Insurance cradle to the grave care. What it isn't is a National Assurance. If they get rid of that and lump it into the tax umbrella it will disappear altogether. Surely if it is concentrated in the NI it is ring fenced - only based on what I was reading yesterday lumping it into the NHS means that it will probably be swallowed up long before it reaches a patient.

My point is that the name National Insurance is now misleading. It is even collected by HMRC as part of the tax take. 

And your point about is being ring fenced has been discounted by the latest admission that the new tax (adult social care tax) will initially all go to the NHS — so where's the new improved social care going to get its funding from? 

There's no reason different activities — eg, NHS, Welfare, Adult Social Care, etc, could not each be allocated sums every year from the state's total tax take.   

Devising different charges for individual items, and then allocating them according to whether someone is of pensionable age or not, is muddying an already complicated system — I do not see why all income above a certain level should be taxable, subject to various agreed allowances...

[cromwell]

Apologies - I thought you weren't looking!   

But you were
Tiny eh! You know how to make a man feel bad 

[T00ts]

Scuse me!! 😉

Apologies - I thought you weren't looking!   

[Nick]

tiny forum

Scuse me!! 😉

[Nick]

And that has wiped out the Tories lead completely.

For a month or two, until the they look at Labour and see the other option 😂.
Also it's a 2 point lead for Labour, they should be 20 points clear.

[cromwell]

I give a toss. I have a much loved grand daughter with social problems. So we have put aside a property pot to help her when we are gone, because I am f**ked if we are going to leave her at the mercy of the low grade incompetents of the NHS.

You should be so lucky,no this sort of thing is put out to the private sector and why I say these people (and let's remember they are human beings) are as I said viewed as a commodity.

One of these unfortunates (in the above link)were costing the public purse not far short of 1/3 of a million pounds per annum for their care,well I say care in the loosest sense since they sadly died and weren't really cared for at all.

There are much cheaper and more suitable options available costing much much less though as I said they are seen as a commodity and not human beings.

Laudable as your plans are Borky you really need to seek legal advice to get your wishes sewn up because I can tell you with almost 100% certainty the assets will be grabbed and squandered and family wishes will be ignored.

[Barry]

The only purpose of National Insurance now appears to make it seem like it's not a tax.   
But it is.   
So rather than complicating its collection, why not tax everyone who has enough income? 
   
All personal income should be taxed, earnings,  investment income, dividend payments, etc. So should businesses pay corporation tax, employee/payroll, carbon tax, etc. The thresholds can be manipulated so that those who get more money pay more tax. This way everyone in the UK is liable to pay their fair share. 

Then the govt needs to tackle the routine overcharging of the NHS — it pays way over the top for drugs, medical supplies and, frequently, maintenance and building work.   

This is due to successive government's (and Civil Service) trying to run the NHS by funding many of its expenditures on long-term easy-payment schemes. Servicing these contracts and supply agreements now amounts to more than the brute costs of what's actually being received — but the various departments and trusts are locked in to legal contracts, some of which have decades still to run. 

I'm not a fan of breaking contracts, but the NHS is a huge market and the govt needs to show that it's got clout and is prepared to borrow and shell out billions in compensation, if need be, to get back to reasonable financial order-and-supply/bid-and-tender arrangements...

It's a rare occasion, but I agree with everything in this post except the apostrophe in Government's.

The government need to get a grip on the NHS, which is difficult, because they are the biggest employer in the world, so any attempt to reorganise will be well fought.

[Borchester]

That's great T00ts and when I said I didn't believe in inherited wealth on another of this forums  antecedents it went down like a lead balloon.

The problem has been those with no assets have been and are still neglected, I could write a book on how they and those with learning disability or behavioural issues are seen as a commodity but  I expect that no one on here perhaps with the very odd exception gives a toss.

I give a toss. I have a much loved grand daughter with social problems. So we have put aside a property pot to help her when we are gone, because I am f**ked if we are going to leave her at the mercy of the low grade incompetents of the NHS.

[T00ts]

It does make you wonder just where we really are on the priority scale. Did they think we would all die off sooner than we have? Did they imagine that Utopia would have arrived by now so we would cope? Did they really believe that the rich years would last forever and lean times would never happen again, like they believe there will never be another world war?
Do we no longer believe in stocking up when times are good ready for the hard times not just as a nation but as individuals? It was Brown wasn't it who raided pension funds which have never recovered and then just to compound the problems sold the gold reserves so he could have a Christmas cake  to share with Blair? In fairness I believe that he did manage a couple of good things as Chancellor - the Euro being the main one that I remember but really he was a bit of a liability. I just wonder if politicians of calibre, common sense, honesty and integrity still live or did that breed never really exist?

[cromwell]

I tend to agree with you and I wish there was a better answer. I feel that if the relatively silent majority don't start standing up and getting themselves counted then the extremists are already among us and locking us down. Most seem to be like the veritable frog quite happily enjoying the warm water in the saucepan at present. But it is starting to heat up and hurt. We have a PM who is frankly out of his depth. He started well enough but he evidently can't cope when the chips are down. He has surrounded himself with yes men to the detriment of the whole country and left talent on the back benches chafing away for fear of losing the majority. I have predicted several times that the men in grey suits must already be chatting amongst themselves. Last night's 'success' getting this bill through the Commons almost looked like a set-up. Where did all that dissention go? Was it confected so that the polls would drop giving those same men in grey the means to oust BJ soon? I did wonder when I saw the vote.

No matter what we do now or what colour badge we might wear the damage has been done from Bliar onwards. Respect was lost. Blair let everyone who believed the third way was something new discover that the smoke and mirrors thrived under him and Brown the blunderbuss just compounded the fury. Since then we have had the debacle of a Com/Libdem combine that lets so many of the young down. Those young are now the new marrieds looking at a lifetime of struggle with growing debt created in part by the ever profligate Labour party and a growing pension/care requirement that has been neglected for decades. WE all knew it was coming why didn't they? Then we had May who deserved her chance but failed miserably. Then come BJ who initially had the look of the type of maverick that the country needed, but he hasn't the staying power and I still wonder if he was more affected by Covid than they let on. He hasn't got a handle on the Government or his homelife since.

Wel of course they knew too,it was discussed in the 80's&90's what was coming and to be fair some politicians complained their own top leaders were only interested in short temism and we are where we are because of that.

[T00ts]

The only purpose of National Insurance now appears to make it seem like it's not a tax.   
But it is.   
So rather than complicating its collection, why not tax everyone who has enough income? 
   
All personal income should be taxed, earnings,  investment income, dividend payments, etc. So should businesses pay corporation tax, employee/payroll, carbon tax, etc. The thresholds can be manipulated so that those who get more money pay more tax. This way everyone in the UK is liable to pay their fair share. 

Then the govt needs to tackle the routine overcharging of the NHS — it pays way over the top for drugs, medical supplies and, frequently, maintenance and building work.   

This is due to successive government's (and Civil Service) trying to run the NHS by funding many of its expenditures on long-term easy-payment schemes. Servicing these contracts and supply agreements now amounts to more than the brute costs of what's actually being received — but the various departments and trusts are locked in to legal contracts, some of which have decades still to run. 

I'm not a fan of breaking contracts, but the NHS is a huge market and the govt needs to show that it's got clout and is prepared to borrow and shell out billions in compensation, if need be, to get back to reasonable financial order-and-supply/bid-and-tender arrangements...

But surely the clue is in the name. It is a National Insurance cradle to the grave care. What it isn't is a National Assurance. If they get rid of that and lump it into the tax umbrella it will disappear altogether. Surely if it is concentrated in the NI it is ring fenced - only based on what I was reading yesterday lumping it into the NHS means that it will probably be swallowed up long before it reaches a patient.

The rot is far deeper than just requisitioning procedures although that seems to be part of it. I read somewhere and can't find it now , that a journalist needed an MRI and in despair went private pay as you go. He was seen in days and sent for his MRI with a 7pm+ appointment. It was quiet so questioned if he was the last in. No - apparently they had been twiddling thumbs all day. He was told that the NHS block books then doesn't bother to send patients. The same happened during Covid. Private hospitals were booked out for millions then never used. The reason?

There are those who basically would prefer patients suffer than use private facilities. Seem familiar? The NHS is corrupt, too big to be manageable, and has constructed itself since the beginning of time to be ungovernable. Show me someone who will disband it and give us a decent health system similar to those so successful in other countries yes even the EU, and I will vote for them. I am sick and tired of being grateful for something that I have paid for all my adult life to now be told that I can't use it until the queue is no longer as long as the M1 regardless of the amount of money pumped into it. We all deserve better.

My daughter has tried for the whole of Covid to see a GP who would take her seriously. We went private - again - and she has seen a specialist and the diagnosis is what she managed to divulge for herself via the internet. She is now urgent - we will continue privately. Here is someone with an under 2 year old who has struggled since he was born and no-one in this wonderful NHS that we are supposed to put on a pedestal regardless would even contemplate her symptoms or needs. She was nursing mother at the beginning so supposed to be a priority. She is a patient girl, does not like to make a fuss but even she reached breaking point. She is only one but we all know of others. It simply isn't good enough.

[patman post]

The only purpose of National Insurance now appears to make it seem like it's not a tax.   
But it is.   
So rather than complicating its collection, why not tax everyone who has enough income? 
   
All personal income should be taxed, earnings,  investment income, dividend payments, etc. So should businesses pay corporation tax, employee/payroll, carbon tax, etc. The thresholds can be manipulated so that those who get more money pay more tax. This way everyone in the UK is liable to pay their fair share. 

Then the govt needs to tackle the routine overcharging of the NHS — it pays way over the top for drugs, medical supplies and, frequently, maintenance and building work.   

This is due to successive government's (and Civil Service) trying to run the NHS by funding many of its expenditures on long-term easy-payment schemes. Servicing these contracts and supply agreements now amounts to more than the brute costs of what's actually being received — but the various departments and trusts are locked in to legal contracts, some of which have decades still to run. 

I'm not a fan of breaking contracts, but the NHS is a huge market and the govt needs to show that it's got clout and is prepared to borrow and shell out billions in compensation, if need be, to get back to reasonable financial order-and-supply/bid-and-tender arrangements...