Thread by @JolyonMaugham

You'll have read a lot of clever people over the last few days telling you that raising NICs is "progressive".

Here's why that's misleading - or wrong. THREAD.

Look at the features of NICs.

It's not chargeable (or now chargeable at a lower rate) on the types of income that rich people tend to have and poor people don't - like dividends or rents or income. /1

And it is charged at a flat rate (unlike income tax) with a 'step down' - ie it's charged at a lower rate - on earnings above c £50k pa.

Those are its relevant features. So how can it be claimed to be "progressive"? /2

Well, it all comes down to who it's said to be "progressive" for. If the group of people you are looking at is the working and middle classes - the overwhelming majority of the population - then, sure, it's progressive for them. /3

But if you focus on the really wealthy - the 1% if you like - then it's a heavily regressive tax for the reasons identified in tweets 1 and 2. /4

So what the clever people should have been saying is that it is progressive for a bit (because of when you start paying NICs) and then very regressive.

It's a pretty serious failure on their part, frankly because it has helped embed inequality between the haves and havenots. END