Thanks Boris
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
So it's National Insurance then
Collapse
X
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
The richest in the UK made huge amounts of money on the back of the pandemic, why not tax them?
Answer - because the tories have been bought out by them and the average person from the UK decides its immigrants fault instead of the mega rich (thanks to the daily mail and the sun)
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
Yeah, that's a good outline for a Socialist Worker editorial at any point in the last 50 years, but it isn't really true.Originally posted by Doucas View PostThe richest in the UK made huge amounts of money on the back of the pandemic, why not tax them?
Answer - because the tories have been bought out by them and the average person from the UK decides its immigrants fault instead of the mega rich (thanks to the daily mail and the sun)
The top 1% of income tax payers pay around a 25% of all income tax.
The bottom half of all income tax payers pay 10%.
And rightly so, may I add.
I would probably rather they increased income tax than national insurance, but something had to be done.
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
Yeah but at the same time lets acknowledge that a generation has completely underpaid into the system and now we are starting to see the problems that has caused. At the same time, the property ponzi scheme has favoured them as supply has dried up.Originally posted by Doucas View PostThe richest in the UK made huge amounts of money on the back of the pandemic, why not tax them?
Answer - because the tories have been bought out by them and the average person from the UK decides its immigrants fault instead of the mega rich (thanks to the daily mail and the sun)
For reference, I stand to gain from this policy in the long run as my parents have significant (but not obscene) wealth so this isn't about envy or a generational attack (I know these are the favoured tools of people without a point to make) but about fairness and cold hard logic.
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
We desperately needed to make sure that pensioners with 500k+ wealth only need to spend a fraction of it on care? They can't spend it when you are dead and their 'kids' are already retirement age.Originally posted by JamesWales View PostYeah, that's a good outline for a Socialist Worker editorial at any point in the last 50 years, but it isn't really true.
The top 1% of income tax payers pay around a 25% of all income tax.
The bottom half of all income tax payers pay 10%.
And rightly so, may I add.
I would probably rather they increased income tax than national insurance, but something had to be done.
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
Well obviously the bottom half pay less because income equality led by right wing thinking is off the charts. Look at wages and house prices from 50 years ago compared to today its insane.Originally posted by JamesWales View PostYeah, that's a good outline for a Socialist Worker editorial at any point in the last 50 years, but it isn't really true.
The top 1% of income tax payers pay around a 25% of all income tax.
The bottom half of all income tax payers pay 10%.
And rightly so, may I add.
I would probably rather they increased income tax than national insurance, but something had to be done.
Specifically tell me what I said that isn't true.
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
They will still pay upto £85,000, no?Originally posted by Eric Cartman View PostWe desperately needed to make sure that pensioners with 500k+ wealth only need to spend a fraction of it on care? They can't spend it when you are dead and their 'kids' are already retirement age.
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
Yep, what does that work out as? 18 months worth? I would love to see a breakdown of cost of care and cost of occupancy/sustenance within a care home, I think it is probably right that care is paid for out of some kind of general taxation (that rich pensioners aren't excluded from paying themselves). But what does the 1k a week for a care home pay for currently, at least a third of that must be 'rent' and food, maybe the answer is more pragmatism about the true cost breakdown and a reflection on who should pay for that and why?Originally posted by JamesWales View PostThey will still pay upto £85,000, no?
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
Bloody Socialists
Germany’s system offers a minimum level of benefits and does not cover the full costs of care.
Individual service users must pay the remaining costs plus any costs of bed and board in residential care (social assistance pays in the case of people with very low means).
Comment
-
Re: So it's National Insurance then
The care home my mum is in it works out around 17 months, so we'll be at that point in about a month's time. be interesting to see this pans out now The home she is in is brilliant but obviously expensive.Originally posted by Eric Cartman View PostYep, what does that work out as? 18 months worth? I would love to see a breakdown of cost of care and cost of occupancy/sustenance within a care home, I think it is probably right that care is paid for out of some kind of general taxation (that rich pensioners aren't excluded from paying themselves). But what does the 1k a week for a care home pay for currently, at least a third of that must be 'rent' and food, maybe the answer is more pragmatism about the true cost breakdown and a reflection on who should pay for that and why?
Comment
Quick Navigation
Collapse

Comment