National insurance cut

aspiring said:
Be a disaster with labour
Click to expand...
I think that goes without saying, unfortunately we are at such a low point that we will have to tolerate it, I don't think anyone thinks that Labour will "win" the next election as opposed to the the Tories losing it, they will only be elected due to an absence of any credible alternative
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
Absolutely. Everyone is different but giving tax breaks doesn't automatically mean everyone will take more as income thereby increasing the tax take for the Government to spend. I wouldn't but @413x would.
Click to expand...
Policy changes can be targeted to address the obvious and more beneficial cases first. Show me someone earning 100-150k who isn't trying to avoid or at least mitigate the 60% tax trap.
 
Rotty said:
I think that goes without saying, unfortunately we are at such a low point that we will have to tolerate it, I don't think anyone thinks that Labour will "win" the next election as opposed to the the Tories losing it, they will only be elected due to an absence of any credible alternative
Click to expand...
Probably true, although will be interesting to see what people do, certainly many can't abide current labour or tory governments, so where will they put their vote?
 
Yea I can't see anyone winning. UK politics is going the same way European politics has been for ages. Mostly poor leaders who need coalitions to get in power.
 
Last edited:
413x said:
Also.. Is that what goverments want?
I mean they also want to increase pension contributions.
Pension income still gets spent and taxed.. Just later.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if you receive income and pay tax or if you put the money into your pension.

The only thing that is important is that you work, and earn said money in the first place, what you do after is irrelevant from the perspective of the country.

What is detrimental is if people wished to live a very simple life, and only work enough to afford such a life.

People who over-contribute to their pension generally do so while spending less than they otherwise would, therefore they need to earn less, therefore they cap their spending while maxing out contributions, and can retire earlier as a consequence, meaning overall they will work less.

As people work less, the economy shrinks, governments print money, inflation takes hold, etc etc
 
Jack_green said:
I always feel they are going to do something to pensions. Everyone is doing this, and it just too tempting for the government not to dip their hands.
Click to expand...
i am at a point where i do not trust my pensions either, neither my private one or my government one.

i am fully expecting my government one to make me wait till 70 to claim, and even then i half expect it to go means tested, so as usual those who cut out some luxuries to save for the future will get screwed over and those who splurged their cash will get covered.

and my private one........... it has been running a deficit for some time and the trust has been putting in extra money to keep it going. The thing is, its only a relatively "young" pension and not that many members are claiming on it yet. by the time i come to i am not holding my breath that it will still be the 1/60th per year final salary pension which i signed up to.
 
mattyfez said:
Any one know if this affects the price of paying to top up a previous year if you've not paid the full amount?
Click to expand...
that is a really good question. when NI goes up if we want to back pay we are forced to pay the increased amount for the whole lot.

my money is on this not being the case for when it goes down............ but it is a great point!.

(FWIW i think it is stupid lowering the cost of NI............ i would rather increase it myself - on the condition that all that money actually goes into improving the public services that NI is meant to pay for. (police/NHS/fire/refuse collection/pensions/schools etc)
 
Last edited:
Rotty said:
I think that goes without saying, unfortunately we are at such a low point that we will have to tolerate it, I don't think anyone thinks that Labour will "win" the next election as opposed to the the Tories losing it, they will only be elected due to an absence of any credible alternative
Click to expand...

Again, after everything the tories have done in the last 14 years and you still come out with teh same BS line of "But Labour!"

How pathetically conditioned must your behaviour be to automatically respond "But Labour!" in the face of the last 14 years of Tory "leadership" ?
 
Devilman said:
Again, after everything the tories have done in the last 14 years and you still come out with teh same BS line of "But Labour!"

How pathetically conditioned must your behaviour be to automatically respond "But Labour!" in the face of the last 14 years of Tory "leadership" ?
Click to expand...

you've effectively just agreed with what I said, the last 14 years (well mainly last 5) of the Tory party will lead to a Labour win

oh and please drop the abusive tone of your replies
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
(FWIW i think it is stupid lowering the cost of NI............ i would rather increase it myself - on the condition that all that money actually goes into improving the public services that NI is meant to pay for. (police/NHS/fire/refuse collection/pensions/schools etc)
Click to expand...
NI is just a bog standard tax with a different name. The cash raised is not ring fenced in anyway.

The reason NI is being reduced rather than income tax is because it doesn’t benefit pensioners who don’t pay NI. A side effect is that NI is not a devolved tax so everyone benefits - it’s a big FU to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. For good or for bad is a matter of opinion.
 
Rotty said:
you've effectively just agreed with what I said, the last 14 years (well mainly last 5) of the Tory party will lead to a Labour win

oh and please drop the abusive tone of your replies
Click to expand...
You agreed with the statement 'be a disaster with labour'

Will you be informing us why that is the case?
 
Devilman said:
Again, after everything the tories have done in the last 14 years and you still come out with teh same BS line of "But Labour!"

How pathetically conditioned must your behaviour be to automatically respond "But Labour!" in the face of the last 14 years of Tory "leadership" ?
Click to expand...
I don't think they said "But Labour" in their statement
 
Bluecube said:
NI is just a bog standard tax with a different name. The cash raised is not ring fenced in anyway.

The reason NI is being reduced rather than income tax is because it doesn’t benefit pensioners who don’t pay NI. A side effect is that NI is not a devolved tax so everyone benefits - it’s a big FU to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. For good or for bad is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
i am no expert i will be the 1st to admit.... but is this true? i thought NI WAS meant to be ringfenced, and if the governement chose to borrow from it, they were forced to pay it back in.

edit..... nope i could not resist, i just did some googling..

according to quick google.... it seems i was half right and half wrong, ie it specifically ISNT for schools or police (and presumably bins or Fire like i thought), however it IS meant to be ring fenced for the other stuff i mentioned.

www.bbc.co.uk

Why do we pay National Insurance?

What is National Insurance and how does it work?
www.bbc.co.uk

What it is used for?​

The system has changed over the years.
National Insurance is now used to pay for:
  • The NHS
  • Unemployment benefit
  • Sickness and disability allowances
  • The state pension
NI is supposed to be "ring fenced" - meaning the money raised is only used for these areas and won't be spent on things like building schools or employing police officers.
However, the government can borrow from the National Insurance fund to help pay for other projects.
 
Last edited:
Devilman said:
He responded to a post saying "would be a disaster with labour" by saying "that goes without saying", which would suggest agreement with the statement.

Sounded like a "But Labour!" to me :confused:
Click to expand...
You highlighted the "But Labour", they never used the phrase in the reply. Pedantic I know but given some on here it's got to be clear
 
platinum87 said:
It does not matter if you receive income and pay tax or if you put the money into your pension.

The only thing that is important is that you work, and earn said money in the first place, what you do after is irrelevant from the perspective of the country.

What is detrimental is if people wished to live a very simple life, and only work enough to afford such a life.

People who over-contribute to their pension generally do so while spending less than they otherwise would, therefore they need to earn less, therefore they cap their spending while maxing out contributions, and can retire earlier as a consequence, meaning overall they will work less.

As people work less, the economy shrinks, governments print money, inflation takes hold, etc etc
Click to expand...

I guess in that regard maybe have 40pc tax free pension contributions isn't the best thing.
But if you don't provide ways to mitigate it, people question "what's the point in earning more".

There's a big drive right now to get older surgeons back in the system isn't there? If I earnt a surgeons wage with that great pension and great salary, no amount of. Momey/tax breaks/pension perks etc would get me back.

Is it even possible to get productivity up anymore?
 
bigmike20vt said:
i am no expert i will be the 1st to admit.... but is this true? i thought NI WAS meant to be ringfenced, and if the governement chose to borrow from it, they were forced to pay it back in.

edit..... nope i could not resist, i just did some googling..

according to quick google.... it seems i was half right and half wrong, ie it specifically ISNT for schools or police (and presumably bins or Fire like i thought), however it IS means to be ringfenced for the other stuff i mentioned.

www.bbc.co.uk

Why do we pay National Insurance?

What is National Insurance and how does it work?
www.bbc.co.uk

What it is used for?​

The system has changed over the years.
National Insurance is now used to pay for:
  • The NHS
  • Unemployment benefit
  • Sickness and disability allowances
  • The state pension
NI is supposed to be "ring fenced" - meaning the money raised is only used for these areas and won't be spent on things like building schools or employing police officers.
However, the government can borrow from the National Insurance fund to help pay for other projects.
Click to expand...

Borrow from it? :cry:
They already spend more on the NHS alone that NIC will raise, the maths just doesnt stack up does it.

ZbP5zvr.jpg

National Insurance Contributions (NICs) - Office for Budget Responsibility

Taxes on different forms of personal income provide the biggest source of revenue for government. In 2024-25 we forecast National Insurance contributions (NICs) to raise £168.1 billion. That represents 14.8 per cent of all receipts and is equivalent to around £5,800 per household and 6 per cent...
obr.uk obr.uk

CgwocIw.jpg

 
EvilRob said:
Policy changes can be targeted to address the obvious and more beneficial cases first. Show me someone earning 100-150k who isn't trying to avoid or at least mitigate the 60% tax trap.
Click to expand...
That tax trap is extremely aggravating. Have to keep your eye on the ball to make sure you don't get stung - got done once, never again.

I wouldn't mind paying more tax if things in this country actually worked and it wasn't such a shambles and a hotbed of cronyism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom