The Conservative Party

[Mr Kobayashi]

We.did have an excellent social care system but the funding has been spent to give tax breaks to the very rich. What was tax intended for because pensioners
paid vast amounts over many years. As I said they still pay tax over min wage the only way is to increase tax across the board.

Well it couldn't have been for a system that didn't exist. Access to social care is means tested and funded through local authorities. This is not ideal when we have many places in the UK where pensioners move to retire, such as coastal towns in the south, particularly when young working age people have to move away to find work and won't be paying council tax in the locality.

 

[East Level 2]

Pensioners already pay tax they always have on any private extra additional pension. The state pension is a lot less than min wage
They pay tax on everything same as you do already. As for National Insurance they have paid into the system all there working lives you can’t claim a state pension unless you have worked and paid contributions for 44 years

Nothing is more sure than if we are lucky we may reach pension age, some are very wealthy (a minority ). but income tax is the only fair way to go every one pays over min wage including pensioners

Paid NI contributions for 44 years? Are you sure about that?
But I agree with the principle that those on full state pension have already made a huge contribution.

 

[nmc]

What taxes do those on minimum wage pay vs those earning say, £100,000 a year?

I said tax wealth not income….

 

[Octavian]

Its not an immediate problem - its been one that is coming and has been since the 80's when there was a fundamental change in Govt attitudes about big Govt helping its citizens. The thing should have been addressed donkeys years ago but successive Govts have caved because they are fearful of taking more off the well off. Its about 20% of the population who have an income above the mean and medium UK incomes and yet somehow what they think holds more sway than the other 80%. Wonder why that is.

Even if that were the case, but as the article says the pandemic has escalated things, surely the government now needs to act?

As stated, it’s 1% across everyone, which means someone on 100,000 a year is paying £1000 more annually and someone on £15,000 is paying £150. As per the situation with income tax, the richest in society will pay a lot more.

 

[Octavian]

Why shouldn't pensioners above a wealth and income threshold put into the system too?

Wealth Adviser - ETF Express

Wealth Adviser

www.wealthadviser.co

They do and have.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Even if that were the case, but as the article says the pandemic has escalated things, surely the government now needs to act?

As stated, it’s 1% across everyone, which means someone on 100,000 a year is paying £1000 more annually and someone on £15,000 is paying £150. As per the situation with income tax, the richest in society will pay a lot more.

NI doesn't work like that though - see the attached HMG page which explains how NI is deducted

National Insurance rates and categories

Class 1 National Insurance (NI) contribution rates for the current tax year, what NI category letters mean.

www.gov.uk

 

[Octavian]

NI doesn't work like that though - see the attached HMG page which explains how NI is deducted

National Insurance rates and categories

Class 1 National Insurance (NI) contribution rates for the current tax year, what NI category letters mean.

www.gov.uk

The proposal is to just add 1% across the board of who contributes to NI now.

 

[inbetween]

Its not an immediate problem - its been one that is coming and has been since the 80's when there was a fundamental change in Govt attitudes about big Govt helping its citizens. The thing should have been addressed donkeys years ago but successive Govts have caved because they are fearful of taking more off the well off. Its about 20% of the population who have an income above the mean and medium UK incomes and yet somehow what they think holds more sway than the other 80%. Wonder why that is.

We need to completely revamp NI and the pension system as a whole because it isn't fit for purpose. As it stands every single penny that people pay through NI goes on to finance debt. So for every penny you pay in, we will have to borrow perhaps 2p to finance your future pension, that is complete madness.

What nobody will tell anyone is that same borrowing also finances favourable conditions for the wealthy. So today your 1p in exchange for 2p of borrowing is used to finance tax breaks to maybe help a business owner to build another factory. The crucial thing then is will that business owner use that growth return to pay more into your pension but I'd guess in many cases he won't!

This is in comparison to the scheme in Norway which is backed by the most powerful investment vehicle in the world and uses surplus to increase peoples savings and not to finance economic growth. Here our mentality is the opposite and is summed up by the fact you can cash in some of your pension at 55 to go and gamble it all away if you want to. As long as you go out and spend the money to increase growth, no-one cares if you will be skint at 65 as a result.

Unfortunately for the government it must meet a minimum obligation to pay you scraps to keep you alive after 65 with the state pension, so all of that money is borrowed too and the merry-go-round continues.

The only answer is to revamp this system and orient it around people and increasing their savings for the future, it shouldn't be used to finance spending elsewhere to facilitate growth today.

 

[west didsblue]

The proposal is to just add 1% across the board of who contributes to NI now.

The proposal hasn't actually been made clear by the government. Applying 1% could be interpreted in a number of ways as they do not specify which of the three income bands that the 1% will apply. Most reports assume the middle and upper bands only but that's not based on anything that's been said.

 

[Octavian]

The proposal hasn't actually been made clear by the government. Applying 1% could be interpreted in a number of ways as they do not specify which of the three income bands that the 1% will apply. Most reports assume the middle and upper bands only but that's not based on anything that's been said.

Which contradicts those on this thread who are bemoaning that the minimum wage earners will be covering this.