National Insurance Tax Rise

Watch
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
Various papers are reporting that the government intend to increase National Insurance by at least 1% to help fund social care.

The Daily Telegraph reports that the change would affect 25 million workers and self-employed people and that the Treasury are pushing for a 1.25% increase.

If true, this would break the Conservative's 2019 manifesto promise of no tax increases.

Thoughts on this?

I find it funny how a tax change like this would go further than what Labour proposed in their 2019 manifesto, yet I can't forsee people screaming "SOCIALISM!" at the Conservatives if this ends up happening.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Bad. Very bad.
3
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Various papers are reporting that the government intend to increase National Insurance by at least 1% to help fund social care.

The Daily Telegraph reports that the change would affect 25 million workers and self-employed people and that the Treasury are pushing for a 1.25% increase.

If true, this would break the Conservative's 2019 manifesto promise of no tax increases.

Thoughts on this?
I mean, there'll be a lot of manifesto-breaking. We've just had a pandemic unprecedented in scope and impact on our economy, all bets are off.

But at the most basic level, it's less fair to do this via NI than income tax. Which is ****. Equally, it's an income tax which is being used to protect people's accumulated wealth. Again, one can very much argue against the fairness of that.

Would it be better to do it through income tax at least? Well, in theory. However, largely due to some pretty poor planning, the effect on devolution issues of changing income tax rates and bands is difficult to predict and becomes pretty complicated.

I find it funny how a tax change like this would go further than what Labour proposed in their 2019 manifesto, yet I can't forsee people screaming "SOCIALISM!" at the Conservatives if this ends up happening.
Tony Blair put up NI by 1% in 2003-04. George Osborne increased it following a rise initially outlined by Alastair Darling. If anything, it's less controversial (largely because people don't understand it well) than an income tax rise. Doubt anyone would be screaming "socialism!" about it.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by L i b)
I mean, there'll be a lot of manifesto-breaking. We've just had a pandemic unprecedented in scope and impact on our economy, all bets are off.

But at the most basic level, it's less fair to do this via NI than income tax. Which is ****. Equally, it's an income tax which is being used to protect people's accumulated wealth. Again, one can very much argue against the fairness of that.

Would it be better to do it through income tax at least? Well, in theory. However, largely due to some pretty poor planning, the effect on devolution issues of changing income tax rates and bands is difficult to predict and becomes pretty complicated.

Tony Blair put up NI by 1% in 2003-04. George Osborne increased it following a rise initially outlined by Alastair Darling. If anything, it's less controversial (largely because people don't understand it well) than an income tax rise. Doubt anyone would be screaming "socialism!" about it.
Not necessarily. The Conservatives wanted to address social care anyway, and by sounds of it the desire to increase NI hasn't been caused by the pandemic. It's been interesting to see pushback against this from some Conservative ministers / backbenchers, particularly with regards to the lack of fairness in this proposal.

With regards to your last point, perhaps, although since 2010 pretty much any tax changes proposed by Labour have been accompanied with screams of "socialism!". I guess my point is that this never seems to follow Conservative tax increases, even if they go further than what Labour have proposed.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Not necessarily. The Conservatives wanted to address social care anyway, and by sounds of it the desire to increase NI hasn't been caused by the pandemic. It's been interesting to see pushback against this from some Conservative ministers / backbenchers, particularly with regards to the lack of fairness in this proposal.

With regards to your last point, perhaps, although since 2010 pretty much any tax changes proposed by Labour have been accompanied with screams of "socialism!". I guess my point is that this never seems to follow Conservative tax increases, even if they go further than what Labour have proposed.
Theresa May got kicked all over the shop for her proposals around social care. Admittedly not a tax rise as such, but it was still the key negative that cut through against her in the 2017 election.

Unfortunately, that was a bit more like what fairness would look like in practice. I suspect, however, tax rises (which won't be ringfenced) will get more leeway from the public given the pandemic backdrop even if they're not really linked.
2
reply
Opinyons
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
The tax should be covered in actual tax, increase the rates by 1% or something. Disproportionately taxing younger people for the mess the Tories made is typical.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
Heavily opposed.

While I do think that social care needs to be dealt with, increasing the burden of taxation upon the average person is not something I can support.

It must be great for Shallowvale to know that a Comrade has finally been elected.

Anti neo-liberal EU, Keen to nationalise, loves raising taxes. Who imagined the blonde mop would hide the red wave.
4
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Rakas21)
It must be great for Shallowvale to know that a Comrade has finally been elected.

Anti neo-liberal EU, Keen to nationalise, loves raising taxes. Who imagined the blonde mop would hide the red wave.
You bet! Save for the anti-EU side, though.
0
reply
username5778314
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
Conservatives: money grows on trees, we spend what we want.

Also Conservatives: workers of Britain, what's yours is ours.
Last edited by username5778314; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by L i b)
I mean, there'll be a lot of manifesto-breaking. We've just had a pandemic unprecedented in scope and impact on our economy, all bets are off.

But at the most basic level, it's less fair to do this via NI than income tax. Which is ****. Equally, it's an income tax which is being used to protect people's accumulated wealth. Again, one can very much argue against the fairness of that.

Would it be better to do it through income tax at least? Well, in theory. However, largely due to some pretty poor planning, the effect on devolution issues of changing income tax rates and bands is difficult to predict and becomes pretty complicated.



Tony Blair put up NI by 1% in 2003-04. George Osborne increased it following a rise initially outlined by Alastair Darling. If anything, it's less controversial (largely because people don't understand it well) than an income tax rise. Doubt anyone would be screaming "socialism!" about it.
Politics.

Old people vote Tories in their masses. Therefore instead of raising income tax, they raise NI which disporoptionately hits young people and workers.
1
reply
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
Pleased that there's a realisation that taxes need to go up. While I understand why NI has been chosen, because raising income tax is still a bad look especially for a Tory government, it should have been income tax or a more progressive tax that went up.

I would be keen to see a gradual introduction of any new system though, because at the moment you have people who are in social care already and have to pay from their own pocket a lot of the time, people who are still working and not needing social care who will ultimately have to contribute more if they want better state provision when they need care themselves, but then a group of people who are at or near retirement who won't really have to shoulder the burden of funding a new system but will get all the benefit of it.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by DSilva)
Politics.
But without Cummings, I'm not sure that there is any political nous.

Boris has leaked this but has not tried to soften up the party first. He won't get any opposition support and so he can't afford to lose more than 40 MPs and the reshuffle is pencilled in for the end of next week. That means everyone interested in a job will keep quiet until they know whether they have got one but anyone sacked or who doesn't get the job they think they deserve or think this is the moment for Brutus, will have a cause other than their personal ego to unite rebels behind.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
I suspect they've started out on NI, which will prove unpopular, so that when they switch to (inevitable, given the current scale of government borrowing) proposing an income tax rise, it will sound more palatable given the alternatives.

They will also increase VAT soon and probably luxury taxes and taxes on fuel.

I suspect they will even look at increasing inheritance tax.

The obvious tax to do something about is council tax, which hasn't been revalued on the bands for decades, it's now wildly unfair and provides a big subsidy to people with very large and expensive houses at the cost of people with cheap houses.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
Liked or not it probably needs to be done, the British states demographics and massive funding blackhole for social care for the elderly is not exactly a new problem and has simply been treated as a can to be kicked down the road for years. Itll certainly cost them young peoples votes (not unreasonable as peopler will wonder why they have to fund the elderlies care when they probably wont live to see their retirements at the rate its going) but nevertheless.
Its not exactly a shock the tories are going to break campaign pledges, after all, theyre there to be broken as far as every government in living memory is concerned, theyd just rather do it quietly and not be seen to break it until its much too late for the backlash to affect them.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I suspect they've started out on NI, which will prove unpopular, so that when they switch to (inevitable, given the current scale of government borrowing) proposing an income tax rise, it will sound more palatable given the alternatives.

They will also increase VAT soon and probably luxury taxes and taxes on fuel.

I suspect they will even look at increasing inheritance tax.

The obvious tax to do something about is council tax, which hasn't been revalued on the bands for decades, it's now wildly unfair and provides a big subsidy to people with very large and expensive houses at the cost of people with cheap houses.
Can't see how income tax would be more palatable unless the increase reduces to 0.5%. Otherwise those originally hit are still hit, whilst hitting new people.

Tax on fuel has risen over the last year already.

Unless you think the housing mix means there are now a greater proportion of houses which would've been rated higher than there were in 1990 then that doesn't really follow. Unless you're saying there should have been more bands put into the system
1
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
Heavily opposed.

While I do think that social care needs to be dealt with, increasing the burden of taxation upon the average person is not something I can support.

It must be great for Shallowvale to know that a Comrade has finally been elected.

Anti neo-liberal EU, Keen to nationalise, loves raising taxes. Who imagined the blonde mop would hide the red wave.
As usual, spot on.

I absolutely oppose this. I said Boris was starting to drift center left, this proves my point.
0
reply
username5778314
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
We will now have the highest peace time tax burden in the UK.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Quady)
Can't see how income tax would be more palatable unless the increase reduces to 0.5%. Otherwise those originally hit are still hit, whilst hitting new people.

Tax on fuel has risen over the last year already.

Unless you think the housing mix means there are now a greater proportion of houses which would've been rated higher than there were in 1990 then that doesn't really follow. Unless you're saying there should have been more bands put into the system
"The bill for a Band H property is just three times that for a Band A property, despite the former properties’ being worth at least eight times as much as the latter properties even in 1991."
https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-t...ank-says/50211

The point is that bands were set to approximate house values back in '91. The upper band house values have risen hugely since then. Middle band values much less so and low band values not so much. Therefore now, under the implicit rules of the scheme, tenants and owners in small properties are subsidising people with homes worth millions.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by Quady)
Can't see how income tax would be more palatable unless the increase reduces to 0.5%. Otherwise those originally hit are still hit, whilst hitting new people.

Tax on fuel has risen over the last year already.

Unless you think the housing mix means there are now a greater proportion of houses which would've been rated higher than there were in 1990 then that doesn't really follow. Unless you're saying there should have been more bands put into the system
While I don’t think more bands are the answer it’s worth saying that because of where house price growth has occurred in the last thirty years the current system enhances the north-south divide by providing a relative subsidy those living in the south vs what they would pay if the bands were redrawn now.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Various papers are reporting that the government intend to increase National Insurance by at least 1% to help fund social care.

The Daily Telegraph reports that the change would affect 25 million workers and self-employed people and that the Treasury are pushing for a 1.25% increase.

If true, this would break the Conservative's 2019 manifesto promise of no tax increases.

Thoughts on this?

I find it funny how a tax change like this would go further than what Labour proposed in their 2019 manifesto, yet I can't forsee people screaming "SOCIALISM!" at the Conservatives if this ends up happening.
It's unsurprising really, it's what you would expect from the party who are basically a New Labour MK2 but pro brexit, or pro democracy or maybe just opportunists who saw the country only had one option unless it wanted to tell the electorate to suck a ball and flush democracy down the toilet? So the opportunists provided an New Labour center ground alternative and won a huge majority.

Of course they should rise income taxes, reintroduce 50p band and do this more progressive but ... par for course. It would also be a nice gesture for low paid key workers to be exempt from this rise but... again too much to ask I'd guess :confused:
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 1 week ago
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (13)
7.43%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (29)
16.57%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (29)
16.57%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (24)
13.71%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (47)
26.86%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (33)
18.86%

Watched Threads

View All