Comments on: 17-03-09(14:48:48)

By: garden tool suppliers

garden tool suppliers — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:24:57 +0000

Thanks for posting this article. I’m decidedly frustrated with struggling to search out germane and intelligent commentary on this issue. Everybody nowadays goes to the very far extremes to either drive home their viewpoint that either: everyone else in the planet is wrong, or two that everyone but them does not really understand the situation. Many thanks for your concise, applicable insight.

By: Maxine Mathews

Maxine Mathews — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:36:51 +0000

An excellent idea. The resulting tax shortfall could be made up by changing our income tax system to one that is progressive. It should also have negative potential and therefore be merged with the social security system.

By: gerard collier

gerard collier — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:56:27 +0000

I disagree since NI is based on all income ,not taxable income, but I do think there should be no cap or upper level of income for NI to be levied on.

By: Carol Wilcox

Carol Wilcox — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:50:37 +0000

I used to be against NI, both employees’ (because it has exactly the same effect as income tax and it is dishonest to call it by another name) and employers’ (a tax on jobs). However I have been persuaded that NICs could have a role in a new, socially just, tax system. The current system is not fit for purpose; it has no intellectual foundation. I am generally against hypothecation but believe that NICs could provide the correct base for the state pension. Private provision of pensions has proved to be a total disaster for the majority of people, founded as it is on the casino of the stock markets, and we desperately need a change here (it is a disgrace that top rate tax payers are further advantaged by the current system of pensions contributions). So I agree and disagree at the same.