Potentially, another national insurance tax increase to pay for social care

It's kind of interesting because lack of resolution of these important and costly issues/questions is leading to a greater market perception that the UK is becoming unmanageable fiscally.

Fundamentally everyone wants high levels of social care, but no one actually wants to take responsibility for paying it.

Lack of resolution of these sorts of questions weights heavily on things like gilt yields, which in turn affect things like mortgage rates.

So although people may think they are far away from being a pensioner and that this doesn't affect them it actually does, just not in a direct way where they can join the dots.

It doesn’t even need to be the full NI. Could be a reduced ‘pensioner’ NI.

That would be a start, but it would still leave the bigger problem of NI not being payable on many forms of income. It's a tax on work. While it would be fairer if that tax on work weren't also ageist, it's still a bad model.

Really we should consider getting rid of NI altogether and merging it with income tax. It's a tax in all but name.

I have no 'angle' - except to point out that you have a very misleading thread title. Which is scaremongering.

Of course you have a right to ask a question. Except that's not what you've done here, is it? You've raised a very specific issue - another rise in National Insurance - which is not actually what the news reports are suggesting, is it? At least be accurate!

And:

‘do you think we should increase taxes to pay for social care?’

Isn't actually the question posed in your thread title, is it?

I don’t understand why governments haven’t done this yet. It does seem an obvious step to bring in more money.

One thing they can do is make working pensioners pay NI. And I am one of those working pensioners.

I totally agree with you. As an older person, I already have the choice to take out a private insurance policy in case I need to go into a care home. We just cannot tax working people even more and the rises in employer NI have had a devastating effect on the economy/jobs market. Why should we tax everyone to pay for the assets of the well off!

It's been made more difficult by the last government cutting NI in the first place, but that's a small consideration when looking at the broader outlook going forward. No government has grasped the nettle on this and I agree with the poster upthread who said this now needs cross party consideration.

I would, also, but how would it work? What would the provision be for those who don’t opt in? Or cannot afford to?

Also freezes on new hires

The problem with private insurance is that it needs to make a profit , and along with advertising costs it will likely cost 30% more than any public service

( look at medical costs in the states as an example of bad insurance models . Look at rising insurance costs in the UK )

I agree with another poster who said social care is, essentially, healthcare. Although perhaps healthcare would be better wrapped into a social care concept where everything is linked rather than run separately.

Your concept of insurance isn't new OP, and doesn't exist anymore for the precise reason that it is not a good risk. We have an increasinly unhealthy, aging population and a failed healthcare system. It is inevitable that a signigicant proportion of the population will need care of some sort at one time or another. A friend's relative had exactly the type of policy you are suggesting (many years ago) and when she needed to go into a care home, she was able to choose a very good one that met all her needs and the insurance paid for everything. That no longer exists and I doubt it will ever come back.

Yup I agree.
Care should be means tested. If you’ve no money then fine, society has to help you out with absolute basics.

But if you have money and assets, well you need to liquidate them to pay for your care.

And someone mentioned insurance up thread…

It’s all coming folks, and faster than you think it will. Just watch.

This is Reeves’ statement in November last year

"Public services now need to live within their means because I'm really clear, I'm not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes."

Plus the no tax rises on working people pledge

I mean that’s not forgotten already is it?

So @Mrsttcno1 is saying that if the decreased bought a house for 100k which is now worth 400k then the 300k only should be taxed - 40% of that should do nicely I think

Of perhaps they bought at 100k, inflation would make that 150k so we only take the 250k ?

Is it OK for those who are not mums to consider your question?

Yeah but what about increases in value? Your logic only works if people save up all their income and buy a property with no mortgage and the value of that property stays the same.

Your logic?

Anything that has been accumulated has been bought, with income that has already been taxed.

Has it? Savings and investments from income maybe. But my mums house has increased from 75k to 500k since she bought it. When exactly has she been taxed on that 425k increase?

You do know a substantial amount of social care spending goes on working age disabled adults, and a smaller percentage on children.

If adults have never been able to work, then they have never been able to afford a house, they could sell for their care. Even so, with a life expectancy of maybe 50 more years of adulthood, what kind of house would they need to have, to pay for 50 years of care home fees?

Parents can’t sell their houses to pay for disabled children’s care, and statistically they are more likely to be living in poverty, than the average family.

The other part of social care spending is child protection. If children get taken into care, who pays for that - it’s not likely their parents could afford it?

Social care for the elderly is either paid for, by unpaid familial care (mainly women) or the state. It’s all very well saying working age adults can’t pay any more tax, but who can afford to be an unpaid carer? It’s like insurance - the risk is spread among everyone.

For most people today that inheritance is on the back of house price rises - so it has never been taxed

Isn't income tax plus vat double taxing anyway ?

Magic beans is my preference.

Seriously. It's unaffordable for the tax payer.