More than six million workers to be stripped of take-home pay under stealth tax raid

[AtW]

Reading between the poor English and interpolating a little, you're still wrong

My English might be bad, but I can count pretty well ...

[jamesbrown]

It is correct because it's an INCREASE in taxation on SAME thing that was previously - does not matter if it's on employer side, the amounts projected are very high, a lot of people may lose their jobs over it.

Reading between the poor English and interpolating a little, you're still wrong

[AtW]

No, that isn't correct, at least on the employee's side. It isn't something (more tax) for nothing, but something for something.

It is correct because it's an INCREASE in taxation on SAME thing that was previously - does not matter if it's on employer side, the amounts projected are very high, a lot of people may lose their jobs over it.

[jamesbrown]

Taxes going up for the SAME THING that wasn't taxed as high, now THAT IS most accurate.

No, that isn't correct, at least on the employee's side. It isn't something (more tax) for nothing, but something for something. Tough on the employers though, and I take the point (made the point) about it eventually coming back on the employees. Were it not for Gidiot's ultrashambles budget, I can't imagine this would've been front-page news.

[AtW]

'Taxes going up to pay for higher pensions' - would be more accurate.

Taxes going up for the SAME THING that wasn't taxed as high, now THAT IS most accurate.

[Waldorf]

Taxes going up, that's a non story!

As usual you only use part of a quote.

'Taxes going up to pay for higher pensions' - would be more accurate.

[AtW]

This is a non story.

Taxes going up, that's a non story!

[jamesbrown]

So the cost of employment goes up. And that helps exactly how? Sorry old chap - I can only afford to employ four of you now.

That's precisely why I said "directly". In any case, I'm slightly baffled as to why this is front page news. I guess they're gunning for Gidiot (which is fine by me ).

[NotAllThere]

...more for businesses, as they face higher contributions.

So the cost of employment goes up. And that helps exactly how? Sorry old chap - I can only afford to employ four of you now.

Not quite a non-story, since the fraud that is NI needs to be exposed at every opportunity. But has been in the pipeline for a while, so hardly "stealth".

[jamesbrown]

Must agree that this is largely a non-story, and it has nothing to do with the recent budget. Look at the commentary from the IFS, for example, who indicate that it's entirely fair. If there's a sting, it isn't for the individuals, at least not directly (they'll generally benefit from a higher state pension), more for businesses, as they face higher contributions.

[Waldorf]

This is a non story.

A reduced rate of NIC was available to those who opted out of the state second pension, fair enough, some attempt to link what you pay in to what you can draw on when you retire.

With the introduction of the flat rate pension, about £140 per week, then the rate of NIC you pay should be at the same rate.

I do hope that tax and NIC will merge soon, the simpler the system gets the better for all of us.

[OwlHoot]

And those Tory Scum promised no increase in National Insurance ...

Didn't they announce plans to merge National Insurance with Income Tax?

[AtW]

"More than six million workers will be stripped of some of their take-home pay from next month under a stealth tax raid by George Osborne to help balance the books, experts have warned.

The new system, which will see millions of workers face paying more tax through increased national insurance contributions, is expected to net the Treasury £5.5 billion a year.

Experts say that under the new scheme, which was announced three years ago, those in the middle of their working lives are likely to lose out the most.

Those affected are expected to include around 1.4 million private sector staff who are enrolled in final salary schemes and are likely to be long-term employees of large companies.

Under the current system the majority of workers in final salary schemes choose to opt out of the earnings-related State Second Pensions and instead pay money into their occupational pension.

These workers pay a lower rate of national insurance to reflect the fact that they do not get the second state pension. "

More about Tory Heavy Taxes from the source: More than six million workers to be stripped of take-home pay under stealth tax raid - Telegraph

And those Tory Scum promised no increase in National Insurance (liars introduced "Apprentice Levy"), now they'd say that it's not increase in NI rate per se and in any case this was decided long time ago with evil high taxing LibDems

Oi Waldorf, what's your take on it?