To think the proposed NI increases for social care are unfair?

[shouldbeworkingmore]

I recognise that social care needs funding but think that this proposal unfairly targets the younger generations. Plus we already have income taxes by stealth as the thresh holds have been frozen & wage stagnation is likely to continue for the next decade.

If they increase NI payments it isn't magically going to give the gov x million so that all elderly people have free life long care homes paid for. It's going to be a gradual thing surely.

I would imagine the present system would have to continue for many years whilst training and employing of more staff was put in place, more better care homes were built.

Interesting thread.
I am 61 and in a few years will have a fabulous occupational pension but fir the avoidance of doubt I contribute £650pcm.
DH and I have had not one penny from the state except for my free prescriptions since the age of 30.
My grandmother had very severe alzheimers and spent her last five years in a fully funded geriatric NHS mh facility due to clinical need. Such places no longer exist for the elderly.
MIL has daily carers for whom DH pays in full.
In the 80s I paid 60% tax and 10% plus interest rates. A fridge/freezer, washing machine, etc was the equivalent of the average months' wage.
It's swings and roundabouts and all cyclical.
I think it's really sad that there are people who don't feel social care should be properly funded. My grandparents in 1947 were promised care from the cradle to the grave. It has been a broken promise.
My generation is working until 67 if dependent on the state pension and a small minority went to university.

@RosesAndHellebores

Interesting thread. I am 61 and in a few years will have a fabulous occupational pension but fir the avoidance of doubt I contribute £650pcm. DH and I have had not one penny from the state except for my free prescriptions since the age of 30. My grandmother had very severe alzheimers and spent her last five years in a fully funded geriatric NHS mh facility due to clinical need. Such places no longer exist for the elderly. MIL has daily carers for whom DH pays in full. In the 80s I paid 60% tax and 10% plus interest rates. A fridge/freezer, washing machine, etc was the equivalent of the average months' wage. It's swings and roundabouts and all cyclical. I think it's really sad that there are people who don't feel social care should be properly funded. My grandparents in 1947 were promised care from the cradle to the grave. It has been a broken promise. My generation is working until 67 if dependent on the state pension and a small minority went to university.

'DH and I have had not one penny from the state except for my free prescriptions since the age of 30.'

Who do you think tops up the difference between your contributions and the amount you will receive index linked until death?

My Employer. Not the state. I could of course opt to work elsewhere and receive a far higher salary.

The young have just been handed a massive bill to cover the cost of COVID. A virus which was of little danger to them, it seems a bit of a cheek to hammer them further.

People should be very aware that the tax you pay today does not guarantee you will receive any of the services received by today's retirees. IE, the government don't have a savings account with your name on it for when you retire. You may well get to retirement age having paid your whole life and find the cupboard is empty.

@MatildaIThink

You council's money went into your area. My council decided to buy a supermarket in Wales.

I live nowhere near Wales, Again think more needs to be done about the council budget. Our head councillor got to resign after dodgy records, that she had done in two previous councils.

As indeed have older people. I was vehemently against locking down to the extentcwe did as were many of our friends and neighbours. I really, really don't want to hear any complaints about the covid bill from the 98% of MNetters who told me I was utterly wrong.

@RosesAndHellebores - Ironically the people who I knew that were very pro lockdown hard and long, were also on very nice civil service salaries / pensions.

So young people are going to have to pay to protect wealthy pensioners assets. The same young people who can’t afford to buy homes themselves. Rich pensioners with good incomes won’t pay a penny although they’ll benefit the most. Oh yes, really fair.

The same young people who have had 2 years of their lifes / educations stolen from them too!

@Theluggage15

So young people are going to have to pay to protect wealthy pensioners assets. The same young people who can’t afford to buy homes themselves. Rich pensioners with good incomes won’t pay a penny although they’ll benefit the most. Oh yes, really fair.

Well it depends exactly how you factor things in, because those rich pensioners will then pass that wealth onto their children of course less the horrific amount of death tax to be paid first. So it all goes in circles anyway.

If it was my choice, as mentioned before, abolish NI and combine and raise IT at the same time, so a starting rate of 36% (2% higher than combined NI+IT), but no government will do that as it means they can no longer claim that the starting rate of income tax is 20%.

@fromdownwest

The same young people who have had 2 years of their lifes / educations stolen from them too!

And those of us in our thirties, and those of people in their forties and fifties, lockdown has harmed a lot of people's lives, one does not need to be young for that to have happened.

Well it depends exactly how you factor things in, because those rich pensioners will then pass that wealth onto their children of course less the horrific amount of death tax to be paid first. So it all goes in circles anyway.

But what about those who don't have rich family to inherit from?

@crazyguineapiglady

Raise inheritance tax Up stamp duty on second homes and buy to lets Go after these huge tax avoider companies like Amazon and Starbucks

Contrary to popular belief, the UK tax gap (the difference between the tax which should be paid & the tax that is paid, £31bn for 2018/19) is largely created by small businesses (£13.4bn) , rather than large multinationals (£5.3bn). Wealthy individuals make up the smallest element of the tax gap by customer type (£1.7bn).

@Whycangirlsbesonasty

As a Chartered Tax Advisor I’d love to hear your ideas for “going after Amazon and Starbucks etc”. It’s an international tax landscape. We can’t just decide to introduce taxes on these companies without thinking if their international footprint. France introduced new taxes on these companies. In response the US doubled the import duty on french wine. France was left with a net deficit from introducing these taxes. The UK is doing its bit globally to address the lack of tax paid by these companies in e.g. the UK but to think we can wave a wand and just take more tax from them - dream on!

As one CTA to another - well said!

I've RTFT, which has taken some time! This is an exceedingly difficult and enormous subject, which is why successive governments have booted it into the long grass for so long. But it needs tackling, and soon, because the sheer number of people aged over 70 is almost at the point of exceeding the number of people under 25.

The vast differences between the situation in which our three surviving parents find themselves I'll spare you the details illustrate how hard it will be to frame a model for funding social care that is fair to all, including those who have been poorer all their lives who are likely to be in worse health, and to the taxpayers who will have to stump up. An equitable solution will invariably going to leave some people disgruntled and disadvantaged. The tax or levy has to be visibly fair, because otherwise those who can will simply take their hard-earned assets and decamp to another place.

I think they should abolish NI and increase the tax rate. NI gives you 2 “free” bands if you work 2 part-time jobs, has a really low rate for the top chunk of income, and doesn’t get paid by working pensioners. None of that seems fair.

And then increase the upper tax rates a bit more to cover social care.

@CBUK2K2, Actually, auto-enrolment pension schemes that even the tiniest business now has to offer its employees mean that in the future, there will be an individual pension pot for every employee who chooses to enrol, and employers have to contribute 8% of earnings.

I’d prefer them to introduce a new “social care tax”, payable by everyone, regardless of age, whose income from any source is above a certain level.

We also need a similar amount to pay for the catch-up in education.
We all have to insist that governments both local and national spend better and do more to help local small businesses. At least don't burden them with complicated regulations.
Taxes must increase a little bit everywhere and benefits must be trimmed or at the least not automatically increased.

@XingMing That wont be a state pension though? That will be a private pension, something that's been available to all for decades. Many have historically opted out, many continue to do so.

@SevenOldLadies - Ah, the old the "wealthy" should pay. As Maggie once said: Socialism is great, but you eventually run out of other peoples money.

@RosesAndHellebores

Interesting thread. I am 61 and in a few years will have a fabulous occupational pension but fir the avoidance of doubt I contribute £650pcm. DH and I have had not one penny from the state except for my free prescriptions since the age of 30. My grandmother had very severe alzheimers and spent her last five years in a fully funded geriatric NHS mh facility due to clinical need. Such places no longer exist for the elderly. MIL has daily carers for whom DH pays in full. In the 80s I paid 60% tax and 10% plus interest rates. A fridge/freezer, washing machine, etc was the equivalent of the average months' wage. It's swings and roundabouts and all cyclical. I think it's really sad that there are people who don't feel social care should be properly funded. My grandparents in 1947 were promised care from the cradle to the grave. It has been a broken promise. My generation is working until 67 if dependent on the state pension and a small minority went to university.

A promise made on the assumption that the majority of your grandparents’ generation would die at the age you are currently at. Clearly this is false and so the promise can’t be fulfilled.

Even accounting for government waste the only way to fund social care at the level which you state - for everyone - involves lots of wealth transfer throughout people’s working lives. But then who’s going to pay for the things that working people need now ; such as secure housing and good schooling?

Most people in my circle (and we’re all the ‘squeezed’ middle) aren’t unwilling to pay taxes because we want more money to spend on foreign holidays and luxury cars.

We want more money to spend on things like a house deposit (because of ever rising rents and irresponsible landlords), educational opportunities for our children.

Why should we priorités other people’s social care when a) nobody prioritises the generation who will pay for our care, our children and b) we don’t know if we will even benefit - by the time I reach retirement age the whole welfare system could be dismantled?

It won't be a state pension, but it was designed to mandate employer contributions for staff to make up for the increased longevity of people in retirement. Lots of small companies didn't have pension schemes before and many people didn't make any provision for retirement.

@Ajl46 100% right, also the top 1% of earners pay over 33% of all tax in the UK, yet receive exactly they same services.