Do you want to discuss boring politics? (11 Viewers)

Grendel

Well-Known Member

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Try converting them to an hourly rate
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!)
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I love how all of those who didn't even vote for the manifesto are the ones most outraged by it being broken, because they can use it as a new stick to beat the Govt with. You can argue all day about the root cause to suit your agenda, but surely you must with your roots, applaud the increase and what it's being used for.

Those who possibly could rightfully be outraged are people like me who voted for them, are paying the increase and don't have huge savings, but after the past 18 months it's a small price to pay and nothing that can't be reversed in time. If anything they should be commended for recognising the shortfall, finding a solution and having the balls to make that change to their direction knowing how unpopular a decision it would be.
There is no applause or credit to be given here.
The right and proper thing to do was to implement some kind of wealth tax to get the money to fund social care.
What they have done as usual is kowtow to their ‘influencers’ and ‘donors’ and implanted a regressive and punitive tax on those that earn the least in society.

Save your energy as well replying with some bollocks counter argument about people taking their money out of the country because it’s rubbish.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
So you think pensioners should pay NI after they've already paid for 50 years?

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.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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!)

Another game he wouldn't want to play

 

COV

Well-Known Member

Jamesimus

Well-Known Member
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.

If you're paid above average, in the current climate you can still be poor.

A lot of people don't have the luxury of choice in regards to professions, they make a choice based on the limitations their upbringing / background has allowed for (this also works in the opposite way). Also worth noting, that the salary of professions can vary quite a lot over time...
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
And since I'm here, I've personally got no issue with paying more tax.

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.)
 

Nick

Administrator
I'd rather pay as little tax as possible but that's not going to happen, if I do need to pay it then I'd much prefer to know it's actually going to help society.

My council tax has gone up again but the service I get for the things I do pay for is getting worse, for example....
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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?
 

Jamesimus

Well-Known Member
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?

Should be records of assets. You charge NI on the pension if that particular person is wealthy in terms of assets (multiple houses etc) and other income streams.

I am not stupid enough to realise this isn't a bit of a pipe dream, but it should be obvious the current approach isn't particularly fair. I don't work in government and have no idea how you'd do it.

If a retired nurse had 20 holiday lets and other streams of income that allowed them to live more comfortably than the majority of working age people, then why not? Surely they wouldn't mind.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Only because you're quoting in % and not actual monetary terms which makes it progressive.

I'm quoting percentage because that's what the definition of progressive/regressive taxes are.

A progressive tax is one where the percentage paid progessively increases the more you earn. A regressive tax is one where the percentage contributed regresses the more you earn.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Shock horror, Ian's here to bash thos
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.)
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.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
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.
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?
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
So you'd actually put NI on a £176 a week pension? Jesus Christ.

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.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
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?

If that nurse had significant pension payouts then yes.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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?

We do of course have SBT very own Wolfie Smith who recently started a thread on here that he'd reached the dizzy heights of a high rate tax payer and was asking for advice how not to pay it....
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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 politics of envy
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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.

I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top