Not a game you want o play. They get paid for all the hours they work and more holidays than the average job too (I used to work for the NHS!)
Here is a percentage figure
Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax
Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studieswww.theguardian.com
If they are paid above average they are not poor. They chose to go into a profession knowing the rates of pay as do plenty of other heroes in the army, police or fire services. All are important. All are paid above average salary. All deserve it. None can claim the wages are poor.
Paid too much to care.
Well, the argument is they're still using the services. And as more and more people get older the system has more and more people to care for with less and less people contributing. They still pay income tax.
When it was started the amount you contributed paid for those now and then future generations would pay yours. But that was when we didn't have so many old people living so long. Even if you looked at it as you building up credit for old age, previous generations were paying for a retirement that might last 10 years. Now it's closer to 20. We may well end up at a situation whereby people are spending more time retired and not contributing than they did working and contributing. So either retirement age needs to be extended or contributions need to continue once you do.
I don't see why NI shouldn't be part of pension payments. Richer people are likely to live longer and get higher pension payments so basically it's another way of richer people avoiding paying. They often get paid more, for longer, and don't have to contribute.
So you'd actually put NI on a £176 a week pension? Jesus Christ.
And since I'm here, I've personally got no issue with paying more tax.
Another game he wouldn't want to play
The great pension divide between private and public sector workers
The nation's pensions pay divide is laid bare today. We have ranked the UK's top pensions pound-for-pound - revealing that the most generous is the NHS scheme which pays £10 for every £1 saved.www.thisismoney.co.uk
Surely would be depend on other sources of income and assets, I don't think anyone is suggesting that a pensioner who has only that source of money coming in then has to pay NI on top of it...
Assets? How would you charge NI on assets?
As a contribution to tax over time they have by definition paid substantial amounts
You and Dreamer should lobby the Labour Party on a tax the old policy
Would you make a retired Nurse pay NI out of interest?
Only because you're quoting in % and not actual monetary terms which makes it progressive.
Thanks for giving me a label. You have no idea about me and are basing assumptions on a few posts agreeing with a tax hike. I'm well aware of the use of raising taxes, and what it can do. I'm also aware that I pay more into the pot than is my share and more than I'm ever likely to get back. I don't complain about that and to an extent think it's fair. I do however object to those who don't know my circumstances, thinking that I should pay even more and in some cases taxed further for being prudent with some of that income. It's a bizarre thing to think that the money I've already paid tax on and saved should then be used as a weapon to beat me with to pay more tax simply because I can afford to. I really don't get the logic.Me neither.
Sadly too many people, like Rob, see it as just 'giving money to the tax man' and don't seem to realise or care that it goes towards improving society. Pure greed and selfishness really (typical tory voter, I guess.)
Maybe because you are arguing that increasing a tax like NI which adversely penalties lower income workers is a good thing? It’s hardly a logical thing to do is it?Shock horror, Ian's here to bash thos
Thanks for giving me a label. You have no idea about me and are basing assumptions on a few posts agreeing with a tax hike. I'm well aware of the use of raising taxes, and what it can do. I'm also aware that I pay more into the pot than is my share and more than I'm ever likely to get back. I don't complain about that and to an extent think it's fair. I do however object to those who don't know my circumstances, thinking that I should pay even more and in some cases taxed further for being prudent with some of that income. It's a bizarre thing to think that the money I've already paid tax on and saved should then be used as a weapon to beat me with to pay more tax simply because I can afford to. I really don't get the logic.
Shock horror, Ian's here to bash thos
Thanks for giving me a label. You have no idea about me and are basing assumptions on a few posts agreeing with a tax hike. I'm well aware of the use of raising taxes, and what it can do. I'm also aware that I pay more into the pot than is my share and more than I'm ever likely to get back. I don't complain about that and to an extent think it's fair. I do however object to those who don't know my circumstances, thinking that I should pay even more and in some cases taxed further for being prudent with some of that income. It's a bizarre thing to think that the money I've already paid tax on and saved should then be used as a weapon to beat me with to pay more tax simply because I can afford to. I really don't get the logic.
So you'd actually put NI on a £176 a week pension? Jesus Christ.
Assets? How would you charge NI on assets?
As a contribution to tax over time they have by definition paid substantial amounts
You and Dreamer should lobby the Labour Party on a tax the old policy
Would you make a retired Nurse pay NI out of interest?
Maybe because you are arguing that increasing a tax like NI which adversely penalties lower income workers is a good thing? It’s hardly a logical thing to do is it?
There's nothing to stop there being a LEL for it. If you set it at the rate of the state pension everyone recieving that would be exempt. Then it gets paid on private pensions.
The problem with tax is it's a dirty word that the rich have spent a long time convincing people is a bad thing.
It needs a rebrand. It's a public dividend.
Come the revolution, my friend...I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks
You're twisting my words now. You've quoted 'fair share' when I only used the word 'share' - world of difference. I also said I thought it was fair that I should pay more than lower earners. You've then therfore completely contradicted the post you're referring to and suggested that I said they shouldn't contribute more which is the exact opposite of what I said. In fact that post I made only made one point and is the one you didn't address, which regarded the paying of more based on my assets based on having saved for those assets (not inherited) using money that I've already been taxed on. If you think that's fair then you really are advocating a communist state.How do you know you're paying in more than you'll ever get back?
How many times have you used the NHS? What if you ever require expensive/extensive treatment or operations, or a member of your family does? (hopefully not)
And anyway, it's not just about your 'fair share'. It's about helping out those worse off. As I say, it's greed and selfishness.
You said tax is 'lost' and you seem to think that higher earners shouldn't contribute more, and that tax puts people off earning more. It's quite clear your opinions on tax.
I'm in the same tax bracket as you, from what I can gather, so this is not a case of using it as a weapon to beat you with, as you say.
I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks
You're twisting my words now. You've quoted 'fair share' when I only used the word 'share' - world of difference. I also said I thought it was fair that I should pay more than lower earners. You've then therfore completely contradicted the post you're referring to and suggested that I said they shouldn't contribute more which is the exact opposite of what I said. In fact that post I made only made one point and is the one you didn't address, which regarded the paying of more based on my assets based on having saved for those assets (not inherited) using money that I've already been taxed on. If you think that's fair then you really are advocating a communist state.
I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks
You're twisting my words now. You've quoted 'fair share' when I only used the word 'share' - world of difference. I also said I thought it was fair that I should pay more than lower earners. You've then therfore completely contradicted the post you're referring to and suggested that I said they shouldn't contribute more which is the exact opposite of what I said. In fact that post I made only made one point and is the one you didn't address, which regarded the paying of more based on my assets based on having saved for those assets (not inherited) using money that I've already been taxed on. If you think that's fair then you really are advocating a communist state.
In other words you can't counter what I've typed so having misquoted me you'd rather pin an opinion of me than apologise for having got it completely wrong. Okie dokie!At the end of the day you think a tax hike that disproportionately affects those worse off is 'to be applauded' so that says all I need to know about your views.
Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?
I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!
I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.
In other words you can't counter what I've typed so having misquoted me you'd rather pin an opinion of me than apologise for having got it completely wrong. Okie dokie!
No. You directly misquoted me and you still are. It is not disproportionate and I have not anywhere said it should be.No, I just find it pretty reprehensible that you think disproportionately taxing those worse off is to be applauded so I'd rather leave it there than continue arguing semantics or he said she said with someone that has such views.
No. You directly misquoted me and you still are. It is not disproportionate and I have not anywhere said it should be.
Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.
If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?
I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!
I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?