National Insurance contributions to rise by 1.25% points from April 2022 to fund social care costs

billy2shots

In case some people are not aware, us care providers have to give a breakdown of costs to the paying local authority (the funding council). 

These costs are broken down into quite small detail however in simple terms it's very clear to see the 'cost of care' and the 'cost of environment' or hotel cost so to speak. 


The sceptic in me thinks the government have been clever with their wording as in a lifetime cap of £85000 towards someone's "care'. 

I wouldn't be surprised if those in care (with savings) have to pay for the 'hotel' element of their stay with no cap on that. 

Jeremy535897

billy2shots said:

In case some people are not aware, us care providers have to give a breakdown of costs to the paying local authority (the funding council). 

These costs are broken down into quite small detail however in simple terms it's very clear to see the 'cost of care' and the 'cost of environment' or hotel cost so to speak. 


The sceptic in me thinks the government have been clever with their wording as in a lifetime cap of £85000 towards someone's "care'. 

I wouldn't be surprised if those in care (with savings) have to pay for the 'hotel' element of their stay with no cap on that. 

Both food and accommodation, in fact.

AlwaysLearnin

billy2shots said:

In case some people are not aware, us care providers have to give a breakdown of costs to the paying local authority (the funding council). 

These costs are broken down into quite small detail however in simple terms it's very clear to see the 'cost of care' and the 'cost of environment' or hotel cost so to speak. 


The sceptic in me thinks the government have been clever with their wording as in a lifetime cap of £85000 towards someone's "care'. 

I wouldn't be surprised if those in care (with savings) have to pay for the 'hotel' element of their stay with no cap on that. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58442991

csgohan4

biscan25 said:

This is an utterly ridiculous policy, for a number of reasons:
- Generationally unfair
- Disproportionately affects lower earners, as NI is a flat tax
- Not paid by pensioners. The people still in employment after SPA are those that cannot afford to retire.
-Not paid on rental income - a glaring omission, but I suspect this will be addressed in subsequent amendments
- Actually a 2.5% tax increase. Whereas people like myself will have to meet the employer cost straight away, as I am a contractor employed within an umbrella company, normal salaried people will have it passed on through reduced future payrises.
- A direct tax on jobs, at possibly the worst possible time.

In an ideal world I think that care costs should be met via a tax on wealth, since this is both the most fair and efficient. Alternatively using income tax the share of cost could be met by those more able to bear it.

If not the working people being taxed then who?

- So you are suggesting a wealth tax and those rich fat cats to pay for everyone else's care? Do you know how much of the super rich pay for the government's tax? If your taking the 1% can be around 30%+

- Can you define how much a 'rich' person would be earning from all sources?

- taxing these rich people, who i assume are those earning over 100k,  who are your experienced Consultant Medical and surgical  personnel will be counterproductive. They will and indeed have reduced their NHS time as result to reduce tax burden and rightly so.

Who wants to work more and get taxed proportionally more? which can be effectively over 60% in tax on your take home pay 
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/press-releases/

No Tax is going to be popular, how do you raise money for spending? You raise taxes. The Government doesn't just magic money from no where. I don't like more taxes either, but it is a means to an end to prop up a failing and underfunded system. Whether you use the state care or not is another discussion, but if I had the choice I wouldn't due to the bare minimum it gives you. 

borrowing more money is really not an option in the long term. When interest rates go up, the government and indeed the country will be in trouble, struggling to keep up with repayments, they have borrowed a boatload already.

Guess who will pay for the country's debt? That's right working people. If the debt is high, means less money for services and more money to service debt. 

RyanHello

csgohan4 said:

biscan25 said:

This is an utterly ridiculous policy, for a number of reasons:
- Generationally unfair
- Disproportionately affects lower earners, as NI is a flat tax
- Not paid by pensioners. The people still in employment after SPA are those that cannot afford to retire.
-Not paid on rental income - a glaring omission, but I suspect this will be addressed in subsequent amendments
- Actually a 2.5% tax increase. Whereas people like myself will have to meet the employer cost straight away, as I am a contractor employed within an umbrella company, normal salaried people will have it passed on through reduced future payrises.
- A direct tax on jobs, at possibly the worst possible time.

In an ideal world I think that care costs should be met via a tax on wealth, since this is both the most fair and efficient. Alternatively using income tax the share of cost could be met by those more able to bear it.

If not the working people being taxed then who?

- So you are suggesting a wealth tax and those rich fat cats to pay for everyone else's care? Do you know how much of the super rich pay for the government's tax? If your taking the 1% can be around 30%+

- Can you define how much a 'rich' person would be earning from all sources?

- taxing these rich people, who i assume are those earning over 100k,  who are your experienced Consultant Medical and surgical  personnel will be counterproductive. They will and indeed have reduced their NHS time as result to reduce tax burden and rightly so.

Who wants to work more and get taxed proportionally more? which can be effectively over 60% in tax on your take home pay 
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/press-releases/

No Tax is going to be popular, how do you raise money for spending? You raise taxes. The Government doesn't just magic money from no where. I don't like more taxes either, but it is a means to an end to prop up a failing and underfunded system. Whether you use the state care or not is another discussion, but if I had the choice I wouldn't due to the bare minimum it gives you. 

borrowing more money is really not an option in the long term. When interest rates go up, the government and indeed the country will be in trouble, struggling to keep up with repayments, they have borrowed a boatload already.

Guess who will pay for the country's debt? That's right working people. If the debt is high, means less money for services and more money to service debt. 

You do not need to tax anyone at all. Rich or poor.

Britain gave over £14.5 billion in foreign aid last year. 

There's your budget for new hospitals, staff training and social care.

Combine that with the £350 million a week we were "promised" from leaving the EU, what's that... £17 billion ish?

That's over £30 billion. 

jameslester78

unkle said:

I'll be upping my salary sacrifice payments into pension as I suspect a lot of people will. 

Just emailed HR to get this done right away, also added a little bit extra as I neglected to increased my contribution the last couple of years. Thanks for the kick up th bum Boris.

Sterlingtimes

Does the increased dividend tax impact directly upon investment returns inside pension funds?

unkle

Sterlingtimes said:

Does the increased dividend tax impact directly upon investment returns inside pension funds?

Dividends in pensions are already taxed 10% I believe, so assume this will go to 11.25%, but just assuming rather than any in-depth knowledge!

[Deleted User]

unkle said:

Sterlingtimes said:

Does the increased dividend tax impact directly upon investment returns inside pension funds?

Dividends in pensions are already taxed 10% I believe, so assume this will go to 11.25%, but just assuming rather than any in-depth knowledge!

https://www.fool.co.uk/mywallethero/share-dealing/learn/tax-on-share-dividends-to-increase-by-1-25-heres-what-it-means-for-investors/

Sterlingtimes

unkle said:

Sterlingtimes said:

Does the increased dividend tax impact directly upon investment returns inside pension funds?

Dividends in pensions are already taxed 10% I believe, so assume this will go to 11.25%, but just assuming rather than any in-depth knowledge!

Thank you, unkle. You have better pitched the question that I am asking.