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

How would this be substantially different to national insurance?

People should be spending thier money when they can, downsize at retirement and enjoy yourself! So if everyone follows. Your advice, who pays for social care?

’but surely it would be fairer to everyone (including those expecting to inherit) if that cost was shared across the population rather than being the luck of the draw?*. This.

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if it's already been suggest but....

The obvious way to raise funds for elderly social care would be to tax pensioners the same as working people. By tax I include income tax and NI. Pensioners don't pay NI so effectively pay less tax on their income.

After the personal allowance working people see a starting rate of 28% taken in deductions whilst a pensioner only pays 20%.

Roughly half of the social care budget is spent on disabled adults of working age. Pensioners are not solely responsible for causing
the funding shortfall.
Insurance for care home fees is no longer available because it wasn't profitable .
I have no problem with selling my home and using my savings to fund my own care if it becomes necessary.
However many people are not in a position to fund their own care, even home owners, especially if they have a partner who needs to continue living in the family home and needs an income to support themselves. Many older. women have not got enough pension income in their own right because they paid the married womens' NI and also did not go back to full time work after having children. These women are dependant on their husbands so if the husband goes into care, they need to claim half of his pension, which is then not available to pay for care.
I would be happy with paying more inheritance tax, but we need to bear in mind that it is an entirely voluntary tax, wealthy people are able to avoid it by taking tax advice.

I work in adult social care, and I don’t believe working people should be taxed more, that is unfair.

We have a system in place- anyone over 23k is self-funding and anyone under contributes towards their care with the local authority.

The Tory proposed dreaded care cap was trying to stop wealthy people from paying for their own care. We simply, as a country cannot afford to pay for everyone care. ASC funding, amounts to a third of my local council budget (children’s is also similar).

If people want to protect their inheritance, they will have to step up and be carers so their parents can remain living at home longer! Of course, that’s not possible for everyone (someone who requires 2x carers/clinical needs)

Also, self funders often get placed in the same Care Homes as LA clients. People should be spending thier money when they can, downsize at retirement and enjoy yourself!

Some people don't have a family home to sell, and currently if they do have assets and are self funding they're paying extra to subsidise those who are paid for by the state as councils negotiate rates that are as low as possible - which is both understandable and unfair.

Well yes, and no. The government can introduce whatever laws it wants to prevent anyone from hiding anything from them.
America for example, famously taxes every American citizen wherever they live in the world. The only escape is to renounce US citizenship.
It’s all a matter of willpower.
On the yes side, people will always concoct elaborate ways to hide wealth. These can be closed down over time, like HMRC do for various tax avoidance schemes.

Social care is funded by council tax, so increasing NI, income tax, or any other tax suggested would not go directly to fund social care anyway. What is needed is either an increase in council tax (or reduction in other council services) or social care to be brought into national government, the same as the NHS or as part of the NHS.

I agree that the people who are hoarding all the money should give up some of it for the good of the society that has enabled them to be so wealthy!
But the more money they have the greater is their ability to protect preserve and hide their money.
Governments end up taking money from the poor because they are easier targets.

That's a really valid point - the people who are actually providing all this care are paid a pittance. And in the case of unpaid relatives doing caring, a tiny allowance that in no way makes up for the salaries and pension contributions they might otherwise be making. Both sets of people (and let's face it, they're mostly women) will end up impoverished.

I honestly think some form of inheritance tax is the only sensible way to go. We've been through this situation twice now, all of my gran's assets including the house went on care home fees - fair enough, my mum wasn't well enough to look after her safely and I was deep in the baby and toddler stage at that point, so care had to be paid for to keep her safe and well looked after. My father in law died last year and although he was paying for his own care, he only lived a few weeks after moving in to the care home so his assets were intact.

Both of them had great care, but surely it would be fairer to everyone (including those expecting to inherit) if that cost was shared across the population rather than being the luck of the draw? In the case of people with disabled dependants, as a PP mentioned up thread, there would have to be some kind of trust available to them to protect money needed for their care, but even there, if social care was able to be properly funded and staffed, the costs to the individual should be less anyway.

Where does it end though?..the population is increasing year on year,it would be pointless working soon enough!

Never mind that we don't have enough money to pay workers in social care, we don't have enough people willing to do the work in the first place!

Or not hiring new staff or making current ones redundant.

A lot used to have them but most have been repealed. Their track record is rather dubious. I think there are only three countries left in Europe with one.

Denis Healey's memoir has a good account of Labour's last ultimately unsuccessful attempt to design and implement one in the UK and the difficulties involved.

But yes this is still a tax on working people as hard hit employers are not giving pay rises to employees.

A lot of countries have a wealth tax. That sounds reasonably fair.

Yes. It all goes in the same pot anyway.

I'd be inclined to charge NI to the retired (which includes me).
Or better still just merge tax and NI and have one flat tax.

Thing is it's not just the 'terminally lazy' who can't fund their own care should they need it.
I've always worked full time, the majority of my life in social care - providing the very service that's being discussed, at ground level as it were. I have a workplace pension.

But I couldn't afford to buy my own house, or pay more than the bare minimum into my pension because I needed that money to survive.

If I need social care, it'll need to be funded at least partially, because I don't have the assets to fund it myself.

In the context of paying for any care I might need, there's an idea I should have been better than I am, and safeguarded my future costs and not expect the tax payer to pick up the bill.

Yet who is to actually provide the service if that's the case? We can't have it all ways, expect people to provide the service, yet vilify those providing it when their time comes to need that care, because they've not been able to afford to safeguard their own potential need for care.

(I'm not suggesting you're saying this btw, more that it's not just people who completely rely on 'the system' to support them forever that will need care funded).

I think it should be a tax that everyone pays not just the workers.

That’s why I included ‘potentially’

But it's just something a well known economist has suggested.

I'm sure plenty of other economists from across the political spectrum have all sorts of views. Doesn't make them all potential government policy.

You might be able to, but for those of us with dependents we really can’t.

Yes perhaps. It would be interesting to see how much it would raise. But I imagine a small one off taxation won't touch the sides of what a NI increase would raise. The percentage would likely need to be much larger.

I am not in favour or removing tax exemptions fir garmers. Food security and the preservation of diversity is impprtant. In most othet cases a proportion of accumulated wealth mostly from.house price increases should be taxed. Not NI which penalises peiplr who may never accumulate wealth.

I can’t see that many people would be able to pay much more in tax via NI. Bills are increasing, the economy is in the doldrums. Look at the state of the pound today. I’d be surprised if interest rates don’t increase again shortly due to inflation . It’s shit