The government's reflection on an increase in national insurance presents an ideal opportunity to question the injustice of National mull ministers increase insurance to fund social care , Jul 19). NI employee contributions (NIC) are no differentincome tax. We know this because HMRC's annual tax summaries, as sent to every taxpayer in the country, combine income tax and NICs in calculating how our taxes contribute to the aggregate. government spending.
The specific text reads: "The information on this page shows how your income tax and national insurance contributions have been spent… The list does not include indirect taxes such as VAT and other duties. It then lists how much each of us individually paid for overall government spending on social protection, education, defense, etc.
So there 's no reason for the poorest people in the country to pay NICs at a rate of 12% on an item major of their income, while the richest pay only 2% on un major part of theirs, which is only direct income tax, not different from income tax. I suggest the government should "balance to the next level" and demand that all network cards be set at the same rate - and at the same time increase revenue for better social support.
I agree with Ryan Shorthouse from thinktank Bright Blue ( Report , July 20) that an increase in NI rather than Income tax is not the way to go to finance social assistance. But the argument that those who receive the care would not pay for it ignores the fact that the elderly paid.taxes and NI for over 40 years of their life. One day the young will be old.
The need for social care is often the result of long-term medical conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Parkinson's disease, 'Alzheimer's and arthritis, for which the NHS has no cure. tying pensions to inflation only, ending the ability of the rich to avoid tax, and taxing global online businesses.
As ministers consider increasing NI to pay for social care, I argued that NI should be abolished and the equivalent revenues levied on income tax. Every citizen should receiveoir a universal basic state pension to replace the current unfair qualification based on the NI.
NI is a mortgaged tax that gives no rights legal to benefits. It is regressive, falling hardest on the lowest paid - between £ 9,500 and £ 50,000 in earned income, the rate for most is 12%. Above that, the rate is only 2%. There is no NI payable for those over the state retirement age or on unearned income such as rentals or investments. Now, who benefits from this proposal from the Conservatives?
Prof Rebecca Boden
Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire
A 3% NI charge on professional and private pen dues payments would increase about £ 5 billion sterling per year. It shouldbe easy to collect through corporate pension systems. It does not affect people who depend solely on state pensions. For people receiving these pension sources, this would generally reduce income by at most 1.5%. It is legitimate insofar as it recovers a small part of the tax break which constituted the pension funds.
It raises the cost of social care on potential users. With £ 500million from NI taken from earned income from retirees, the £ 6bn cost would be almost covered.