Health & Social Care Levy

What do people think about the new Health & Social Care levy? :thinking: How will this affect you? Does this mean less money for us investors to put into the markets?

Or do you think its a good thing to help pay for the spending during the pandemic.

All in it together (cough cough).

2 Likes

I think whatever was announced it would be opposed by those who oppose anything the government do :joy: (not condoning or promoting, just pointing out the tribal nature nowadays) Personally I think it is ok but would prefer it as a straight forward new tax that is just 1.25% extra of whatever the tax bands are now, so sliding.

I would actually say it will have a good effect long term as people will have more clarity and it won’t affect my investing as it only really takes effect if you are minted outside an ISA. If anything it is more motivating that you can keep everything after that 85k.

2 Likes

I mean the bill for last year’s measures has to be paid somehow eventually. That’s a small increase, I expect more to come. Especially since the NHS is still seriously underfunded. :man_shrugging:

2 Likes

Has anyone ever known the NHS to be “adequately funded”? Sadly, it’s a bottomless pit, always requiring extra funds regardless of whichever government is in power.

The dividend tax doesn’t affect me as 99% of my investments are in SIPPs or ISAs; the extra 1.25% on NI I can’t really argue about, if I’m expecting to benefit from the NHS at some point(s) in my life, the money’s got to come from somewhere.

4 Likes

Historically NI increases haven’t been reversed as far as I remember, I will be going forward assuming the same is true this time as well.

Unfortunately it’s not enough, it will never be enough to fund the NHS. They probably needed to increase it by 10% not 1.25 to make a dent.

Fortunately for the moment at least it shouldn’t affect me for dividends. But it will mean I have less money available to spend and invest in the UK.

I don’t mind paying extra tax to provide a decently funded health service and social care. It’s not a bottomless pit: that’s just a description that’s been peddled by a misanthropic, right-wing press for decades - say something enough times and people will assume it’s true.

Using an NI-based levy though is inherently unfair given that the majority of beneficiaries over the next 20 years or more will never have paid it. Still, the government calculated they’ll raise more this way due to the employer’s NI on top of the employee’s NI; plus it has the advantage that their most loyal voting demographic will avoid it in the main too.

4 Likes

It’s a choice we have to make, I really like the idea of nhs and social care being a separate tax. It makes the costs more transparent and means we can debate it with an understanding of how the costs affect us as individuals.

I’m personally not too happy about the social care element as it seems to offer better protection to wealthy individuals, rather than a flat cap it needs to be done on a sliding scale or removed (if we accept everyone pays for each other’s social care as well as health care). Like paying a max 30-40% of your estate. If that’s your home it should be taken after death.

Anyone else think it’s strange these are seen as distinct from each other?

2 Likes

So it passes in the commons:

Simply put, it’s unfair.

Whilst obviously social care needs paying for, the weight/burden of payment falls on those who can least afford it.

The NI increase in particular should have been more equitably spread.

But, as stated above, this govt only needs the 35% who voted for them last time to be on board with this, and the majority of those come out of this smiling.

4 Likes

This just sums up everything that is wrong with this tory government …only taking care of their rich buddies and shitting on the poor / everyone else!

3 Likes

What would more equitably spread be? Everyone has the same 1.25% increase in their NI payment.

A progressive tax like income tax

4 Likes

Look at the tables posted above. The lower paid you are, the more of your pay you lose pro rata.

It wouldn’t be beyond the ability of the Treasury bods to work out a fairer split; but that wasn’t what this government and the billionaire Chancellor wanted.

They’re trying to look as if they care about social care, but at the same time protecting their core voters’ interests. It’s quite clear to see.

3 Likes

Let’s face it anti government people look at the column that is red titled “Increase in total tax paid” and the pro government look at the other column titled “Effective tax rate” or “Additional NIC” :joy: Personally I think it is fair as we shouldn’t just expect the rich to pay for everything and I am far from rich. I do however think that over say 50-60k tax should rise 1% as well as this Levy as it probably needs both in the long run for a decent result.

Also, keeping the UC rise and maybe other support for the very poor. UBI would be great but not sure how practical or properly thought out it has been so far but long term I think is an answer.

1 Like

You say you think it’s fair, but then go on to say over 50-60k tax should rise and the decrease in the UC should be scrapped.

So it’s not fair then.

Agree with you on UBI - we are inexorably moving towards that anyway imo.

2 Likes

It’s actually fascinating (and shocking) how effectively a large cohort has been able to lever its size to facilitate such a massive wealth transfer from subsequent generations.

You now have marginal tax rates of ~50% from the median income for most young people almost directly being transferred to the generation with an absurd amount of accumulated wealth.

NI is so bad, not just for it’s regressive nature but because its naming leads to a sense of entitlement. If a tax raise had to come from income I’d much rather they took the opportunity to consolidate NI, Income, dividends tax with a single allowance (which isn’t arbitrarily stripped away along with other benefits like it is at the moment) with simple progressive bands. Although a tax on wealth (such as LVT) would be far more equitable.

8 Likes

I think it is fair but only part of the solution. :+1: Problem in this country is people expecting the rich to pay for everything and keep their own house etc. We complain about how good the German hospitals are but ignore they run part private and are not free. Then we look at the Scandi countries as a role model but ignore the high tax for ALL.

Everyone wants some cake and to eat it and the sad fact is care is more expensive as lives get longer. I do actually think the UC bonus will stay in the end so don’t think this is all over hence BJ not committing to more tax changes.

That’s not to say I don’t think higher earners shouldn’t pay more tax, they should, but it is very hard to actually make it work. What happened when France tried it ended spectacularly badly and brought in less tax so we should be careful what we wish for. My point is it is fair for the lower earners to pay this increase but it should go hand in hand with a little more for the higher earners. It wouldn’t be fair or work if we tried to just make the rich pay it.

1 Like

And there you have it. If you wanna tax the rich, don’t, cos they move country. Cos they can.

No that is NOT what I said at all! I said if you put ALL of the increase on the rich it wouldn’t work. I never mentioned moving countries, you just decided to say that. It doesn’t work elsewhere and wouldn’t here. To be popular it would have to be only the super rich and not middle England and they would have ways around it.

It is sad but true. There is a reason Kier is not shouting too loud as he knows he doesn’t have a viable alternative. Until people come up with real plans that will work rather than just populist slogans they are just as bad as Boris etc. :joy:

And I haven’t said I like it but it is annoying people, meaning politicians not forum members, just moan but don’t actually come up with alternative plans.