Share dividend tax increase

pip895

dunstonh said:

pip895 said:

solidpro said:

pip895 said:

As it happens, I probably won’t be much affected by this tax, but I would have been happy to pay if I was.  The problem with paying for your own care and particularly residential care is that’s it’s a lottery.  Most of us won’t need it and most who do, will only need it for a short period.  For some - particularly those with Dementia or their partners the costs can be astronomical and are likely to get even higher when we start paying carers better.  For most similar risks (house burning down might be in the same ballpark financially) we have insurance but not for this.  

I think people on here may be underestimating the desperation felt by people who loose out on this lottery.  Some of the cases on the news last night were heartbreaking.  My elderly neighbour, whose wife had dementia, unfortunately took the extreme  way out of shooting his wife and then himself at the point when his health meant that he wasn’t going to be able to carry on caring for her…

And this 'plan' doesn't tackle any of those issues. The cap doesn't cover rent, energy, food, or day to day expenses so the lottery continues.
The tax rise money goes to the NHS backlog not social care.

So why would you be happy to pay it?

1. It’s a start, and once the NHS is in a better place I expect the majority of it will go to social care. Apart from anything else the two are inextricably linked - the NHS can not operate without a functioning care system.  2. By capping the costs it is also hopped that it will kick start the insurance industry into offering policies to cover this risk.  

The NHS will never get to a better place.  It will just suck up the funds and increase the waste.      The NHS needs a good seeing to.  An efficiency drive with the extra money would have been better.

I think while the NHS will never have enough money it will get better.  It will also pay it dividends to it to have a functional care system.

I know the NHS is far from efficient but few health systems are.  I think few of the details of how the money is to be spent have been ironed out, so hopefully there will be savings.  One of the most obvious savings is that expensive hospital beds are being tied up by people who need a functioning care system to be discharged. 

It is also clear that the NHS needs to have funds right now or current chaos will turn into pandemonium and only those with private means will be able to get necessary but not life saving treatments. 

talexuser

My calculation is another ~£130 a year in dividend tax from last years figures, no NI for me. I do not mind paying at all if it really went to social care.
I do mind about as yet secret PPE contracts of unknown profits and the horrendous billions on Test and Trace which even the parliamentary committee said had negligible effect. These the unknown "pandemic effects" to renege on now worthless manifesto promises.

Daliah

Prism said:

It affects me as a company director paying myself dividends but I don't pay national insurance. Also, dividend tax only starts after the tax free allowance (plus the £2k) rather than the NI which begins at the secondary threshold. So I will pay a little less than a PAYE employee. I also won't need to pay the employer NI increase.

Seems like a reasonably fair tax overall that gets everyone to pay a little.

@Prism: if you don't pay NI, are you foregoing your state pension rights?

MX5huggy

Test and Trace gets lumped together as one thing, and all the focus is on the tracing bit. But when your conducting 0.8m tests per day then you’re going to get a big bill, you could go back to just testing 1000 a day if you like but that wasn’t particularly satisfactory. 

Daliah

Alexland said:

while I have no problem with some extra for the NHS to help them catchup it does seem very unfair that all the workers should be required to pay more ongoing in order to protect the inheritance for some.

I have a bit of sympathy for the inheritance argument but please be aware that around half the social care budget is presently spent on people younger than 64. It isn't just end-of-life social care our society needs, but also social care for disabled.

eskbanker

Daliah said:

Prism said:

It affects me as a company director paying myself dividends but I don't pay national insurance. Also, dividend tax only starts after the tax free allowance (plus the £2k) rather than the NI which begins at the secondary threshold. So I will pay a little less than a PAYE employee. I also won't need to pay the employer NI increase.

Seems like a reasonably fair tax overall that gets everyone to pay a little.

@Prism: if you don't pay NI, are you foregoing your state pension rights?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions highlights that you can earn up to the primary threshold of £797 per month without paying NI, but as long as your income exceeds the lower earnings limit (£520/month) then "Employees do not pay National Insurance but get the benefits of paying [such as pension rights]", so many will calibrate their earnings accordingly....

Daliah

eskbanker said:

Daliah said:

Prism said:

It affects me as a company director paying myself dividends but I don't pay national insurance. Also, dividend tax only starts after the tax free allowance (plus the £2k) rather than the NI which begins at the secondary threshold. So I will pay a little less than a PAYE employee. I also won't need to pay the employer NI increase.

Seems like a reasonably fair tax overall that gets everyone to pay a little.

@Prism: if you don't pay NI, are you foregoing your state pension rights?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions highlights that you can earn up to the primary threshold of £797 per month without paying NI, but as long as your income exceeds the lower earnings limit (£520/month) then "Employees do not pay National Insurance but get the benefits of paying [such as pension rights]", so many will calibrate their earnings accordingly....

@Prism seems to be self-employed though

solidpro

"The NHS needs a good seeing to"

My car just keeps drinking petrol and costing me MORE money. And those new wheels just cost MORE money. I drive it all the time but no matter what I do, it keeps costing me MORE money.

So I'm just going to torch it.

eskbanker

Daliah said:

eskbanker said:

Daliah said:

Prism said:

It affects me as a company director paying myself dividends but I don't pay national insurance. Also, dividend tax only starts after the tax free allowance (plus the £2k) rather than the NI which begins at the secondary threshold. So I will pay a little less than a PAYE employee. I also won't need to pay the employer NI increase.

Seems like a reasonably fair tax overall that gets everyone to pay a little.

@Prism: if you don't pay NI, are you foregoing your state pension rights?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions highlights that you can earn up to the primary threshold of £797 per month without paying NI, but as long as your income exceeds the lower earnings limit (£520/month) then "Employees do not pay National Insurance but get the benefits of paying [such as pension rights]", so many will calibrate their earnings accordingly....

@Prism seems to be self-employed though

Not how it reads to me, it sounds like a typical personal/small limited company setup, which is an entirely different scenario....

solidpro

IanManc said:

solidpro said:

It was just established that as long as you have £86,000 you won't need to sell your house.

It was not just established that as long as you have £86,000 you won't need to sell your house.

In reality no one needs to sell their house under either the old or new system.

If the person who needs social care lives in the house they own and is getting care at home then it can't be sold to pay for the care and its value is disregarded in the calculation of assets.

If the person who needs social care doesn't live in the house but it is occupied by your partner or former partner, unless they are estranged from you; your estranged or divorced partner if they are also a lone parent; a relative who is aged 60 or over; a relative who is disabled or a child of yours aged under 18 then the value of it is disregarded when calculating assets.

If the person who needs social care doesn't live in the house and none of the above situations apply then still the house need not be sold - the local authority then can pay the home fees and put a legal charge on the property so that when it is sold the money it has spent will be recovered from the proceeds of sale.

Further, the proposed £86000 cap is not a cap on all expenditure such as care home fees - it is only on the "social care" element of the fees and not the "hotel charges" element covering things like food. Someone in a care home could still be paying towards their care home fees - or having the local authority pay with a charge on their property - even though the total they've already paid in care home fees is over £86000, because some of that is disregarded as "hotel charges" and so the cap won't have been reached even though £86000 of assets has been spent.

Often the best choice is to sell an unoccupied house if their is no chance of the owner returning and it is not occupied by one of the people in the categories above. Alternatively it could be rented out to provide income towards care costs, but that needs someone to be capable and willing to administer it on behalf of the owner.

The devil is in the detail.  🙄
 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/20/no-one-will-have-sell-house-pay-social-care-tories-says-boris/