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

It’s not just care homes but many more have care in the home, house value is not included in the financial assessment for that.

We should also bring back convalescent hospitals so the elderly who aren't actually "ill" but who need care can be discharged from hospital and put into a kind of "drop down" ward where they get care, but not medical attention. Yes I know they were horrid places when they started to get closed in the 70s and 80s with the "care in the community" initiative, but again, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we'd have been better just building "better" convalescent homes to more modern standards rather than just scrapping them.

Care in the community costs an absolute fortune, having to have carers, district nurses, doctors, etc., all spending time and transport costs driving randomly around sometimes large areas between people's individual homes rather than having patients in one place where more time could be spent looking after them rather than on the road.

@Kendodd What a twist on politics! It was Teresa May, a Tory, who was slammed by nearly everyone for her “dementia tax”. Including the Mirror. Labour also produced a Death Tax plan and we also had the Independent Dilnot report. Nothing has changed and reform is always opposed. By more or less everyone.

Council run care homes were not great. There are far better ways of running care homes. Some council ones were dire. No thanks.

It’s not really about who runs them. It’s more about meeting the needs of the elderly. Most of whom want to stay at home. We have far too many people not working and paying tax but we also have people caring for relatives for close to nothing.

Oh, and bring back council run care homes.

They could just keep inheritance tax as it is, although agreed, it should be more, but the howling from the riches 5% of society who pay it would be deafening if it was increased. This 5% (or whatever the numbers added up to) would be a social care tax, payable by everyone who died over retirement age regardless of whether they used care or not. Care would then be free although I do think a weekly charge should still be made by care homes for food and accommodation because they would be feeding and housing residents. This would be small though and not more that a state pension.

Right wing press, and every single political party who didn't this of it first would hate it though (they'd probably like it if it was their idea).

@HellsBalls yes I think that would not be a bad idea too so long as any loopholes were identified early - maybe 40% of anything over£100k and 50% of anything over 500k - but 50% of all net receipts totally ringfenced for social care - be that care at home or residential - would also then set some legislation relating to care homes and fees and rises etc and social care providers too- because the minute they think the state will cover it you can guarantee they will up the fees etc- a bit like US health and insurance providers.

A death tax or inheritance tax. I don’t see why not 50% of everything over 100k , 80% over 1 million or whatever is palatable.
If you are dead, being rich doesn’t help you much.

Love the idea of Ken Dodd’s death tax.

PS I think the lower age limit for the insurance I mentioned above must have been 70 not 80. Otherwise I cannot see how anyone would buy it. But yes the cost was prohibitive for most. Even though British prices tend to be lower, I cannot see how this would work.

The of care at home is huge, it's not just care homes so selling your home doesn't make any difference

I would be happy to pay more

Well the Gov should face down the right wing press.
IMO its the most sensible option by far. It takes money from the dead who don't need it, prevents people losing all of their precious inheritance. and funds care without further burdening the working population.

@fiftiesmum I do too

It's nowhere near 1 in 5, where have you found that stat? It's between 2 and 3% of the over 65 population depending on region (cite: the ONS, 2021). Obviously it's higher the older and more frail you become, circa 15% of those over 85, but that obviously doesn't include the (sadly) many people who die before then. Most older people will live, age and die in their own homes.

Additionally, older people already make up the highest proportion of those self funding their care. Though the activity levels are higher (by far) for older people, the cost of providing care and support for disabled children and adults under 65 is the most expensive per capita.

Radical reform is required and a recognition that a properly funded state social care system is all of our business and responsibility. This all smacks of 'why should I have to pay for them'.

The social contract hasn't just been broken, it's been destroyed.

@Rictasmorticia I agree the first step is NI payable by anyone working. Of any age. This cannot all be lumped on younger working age people.

We also have a much bigger tax contribution from the 40.% plus payers already. People have bills to pay. There needs to be government backed ring fenced insurance. If everyone pays in something, the costs are reduced for all. Current care home fees are at least £1000 a week. Often more. DMs was £5,600 a month. We cannot keep dodging paying and we will have to either accept individuals pay or we collectively insure. At the moment many cannot move out of hospital due to care in the community being not available. There are no community hospitals to prepare for home living.

We also have to accept home equity might be used. It’s unearned income. The only sure way to avoid IHT is to spend the money!

PS It must be $1M per couple! The other does not make sense.

As a point of reference, I know some older Americans who took the option to purchase high quality social care private insurance. If necessary the insurer, who has a good reputation, will cover the full costs of living in a certain network of private retirement homes with escalating medical care and memory units. There is a lower age limit, IIRC age 80.

The cost is either $1M pp or $1M per couple, I forget which. It is hardly for everyone.

But it isn't a family home - mostly the family have grown up and moved out to their own family homes. It is granny's home which she no longer needs once in a care home and will not return to the house. It is the family who want to keep their inheritance.
I also think that if granny is looked after at home by council funded care then there should be a charge placed on the property to refund the council

@safetyfreak makes some very good points.
We seem to have reached a point where pretty much the same group are paying tax, paying for private healthcare and then having to pay for their care. There simply isn't the capacity for people to pay evermore tax. Too many deciding they don't want to work or work part time and getting everything funded.

All social responsibility has gone, everyone is looking for someone else to pay. The government wants to keep everyone alive even if they don't know who they are, where they are or who anyone else is. I don't want to pay for this, I'd rather die. I would like to see this challenged - expecting people to pay thousands to be kept alive whilst care home owners live it up it a scandal.

There has just been £70bn borrowing and tax in the last budget

That’s it apparently

86% of my council tax funds social care (over 50% on children's services). Everyone wants "the council" to provide better services. No one wants to pay for them.

I am well into my pension years and I really believe that pensioners who earn above a certain amount should pay NI. We are the biggest users after all. We have enjoyed years of free health care, eye tests, dental care and prescriptions.

Many of my peers take several holidays a year as well as the perks of being born a boomer. Those who say “we have paid enough in over the years” have we really?”

This.

@Toodaloo1567

Sadly because over 14 odd years we have taken the route of never increasing tax we now have a situation where we need to raise a lot of tax. I cannot see why we cannot increase the basic personal allowance to £20000 thus taking those on low income out of tax altogether and increasing the tax rate to say 24%

@Toodaloo1567 "Would I pay £35k out of my retirement lump sum for an insurance product to avoid the prospect of having to sell my home for care? Hell yes."

Who would you pay the £35k to? No commercial insurance company would offer such a product.

Who would provide the healthcare or retirement care that you think you've purchased for your £35k? No provider would entertain such an idea.

The only possible provider would be "the provider of last resort" - i.e. the government-funded healthcare service.

Your proposal might have some merit if everyone with a certain level of assets paid £35k into the national taxation kitty - the million richest people doing so would provide £35,000,000,000 which would go some way to paying for the nation's requirements. But this is at odds with your distaste of paying an extra penny in the pound NI. And the people who would be required to pay the £35k are probably the same people who are screaming about how unfair inheritence tax is, how they are "net contributors" rather than "scroungers" and how they would hide their money offshore, put it in Trusts and otherwise use any means possible to avoid paying this tax and letting Starmer or Reeves get their hands on it - voting instead for the likes of Hunt, Sunak, Johnson and Cameron who deliberately underinvested in vital public services so that their chums and donors could pay less tax.