Protecting my house

coffeehound

Aren't the stats going to be badly skewed by all those Limited Company 'Directors' who, on paper, pay themselves NMW?

AdrianC

coffeehound said:

Aren't the stats going to be badly skewed by all those Limited Company 'Directors' who, on paper, pay themselves NMW?

No, because their household income includes remuneration paid as dividends.

Chandler85

Using household income also means nothing when deciding if they pay more tax then received services etc.  Childish household (with person who is well and working) with £38k income would probably be net positive, versus a couple with 2 kids, one that's ill etc.

ratechaser

wannabe_a_saver said:

Billy_B_North said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.

We all contribute what we can, or at least that's the idea. 

A hike in inheritance tax would be a good start. 

Oh good grief, not this again, surely one thread is enough...

I pay my way. I am most definitely a net contributor. Some of my income has a 47% slice taken off (actually no, there's a 62% effective slice as well!!). I accept that without a lot of grumbling because it's all part of being in a civilised society. But seriously, just how much is it reasonable to gouge people because they have been able to do well in life? And no, IHT isn't a 'clever' way around that argument because

1) my being dead doesn't give you the right to snatch another slice
2) there are so many legal ways to avoid IHT that it's pretty much a moot point.

I'm no Boris fan, but if that loon Corbyn had got into power then emigrating would have been a serious prospect for me - there's a balance between squeezing the well off, versus totally killing entrepreneurship through usurious taxation. 

There has to be a better way than simply saying 'tax the rich a bit more'. 'Rich' of course being defined as anyone that has significantly more than 'me'

Please change the record. There are too many feckless people in this country that think the rest of us will pick up the tab. The OP may be a case in point. Perhaps they should be the target...

eidand

ratechaser said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Billy_B_North said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.

We all contribute what we can, or at least that's the idea. 

A hike in inheritance tax would be a good start. 

Oh good grief, not this again, surely one thread is enough...

I pay my way. I am most definitely a net contributor. Some of my income has a 47% slice taken off (actually no, there's a 62% effective slice as well!!). I accept that without a lot of grumbling because it's all part of being in a civilised society. But seriously, just how much is it reasonable to gouge people because they have been able to do well in life? And no, IHT isn't a 'clever' way around that argument because

1) my being dead doesn't give you the right to snatch another slice
2) there are so many legal ways to avoid IHT that it's pretty much a moot point.

I'm no Boris fan, but if that loon Corbyn had got into power then emigrating would have been a serious prospect for me - there's a balance between squeezing the well off, versus totally killing entrepreneurship through usurious taxation. 

There has to be a better way than simply saying 'tax the rich a bit more'. 'Rich' of course being defined as anyone that has significantly more than 'me'

Please change the record. There are too many feckless people in this country that think the rest of us will pick up the tab. The OP may be a case in point. Perhaps they should be the target...

I quite agree with this. People like you already paid your fair share and there are more who do not, including most of the leeches who live off benefits and shouldn't really, those are many.
People like the OP should not think about "protecting their home". They need to pay for their own care, bot expect someone else to pick up the bill while they keep everything they have. It's not our job to fund people like this. Pay for yourself basicaly.

Billy_B_North

wannabe_a_saver said:

Billy_B_North said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Billy_B_North said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.

We all contribute what we can, or at least that's the idea. 

That’s a very different claim, but again, no. 60% of households are net recipients, so contribute nothing.

Many of those could contribute something.

Many of them do. 

Being a net recipient doesn't mean you don't contribute. 

Where does the 60% figure come from out of interest?  I expect its not far off when you consider education, health, council services etc. but I'd like to see the source still please. 

I’d say that if the state gives you £200 and you hand £100 back that that’s not contributing.

The data comes from the ONS; https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2019#effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-income-inequality

Edited to add, this considers only actual monetary receipts and payments, so doesn’t include the value of education, roads, defence etc.