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.

@MrsSkylerWhite Well my mum is currently sunning herself on holiday so 👋

@PinkSparklyPussyCat - if only one person needs care you could put a charge on their half of the home. It’s not difficult. Why should some very poor people pay extra tax so some (likely very wealthy people) can inherit more?

Unrealistically? Cull everyone over 60. Would clear up this problem, free up housing stock and jobs, and help reduce emissions.

Wowsers!

@Bucanarab

Where do you think the money should come from then ?

Realistically? Wealth redistribution policies and ripping up the tax code and starting fresh with none of the current loopholes.

Unrealistically? Cull everyone over 60. Would clear up this problem, free up housing stock and jobs, and help reduce emissions.

A woman (I presume?) after my own heart! Please say you live in the North West so I have half a chance of bumping into you on the street and getting coffee

I need to go out now but I'm glad at least some agree with me & lots of food for thought.

@CovidCorvid what the tories are talking about is all of us working age people paying extra NI so that some wealthy people with lots of assets don’t have to pay more towards their care than the cap. That way their wealthy children can inherit lots. The extra tax isn’t going towards better care, or more care. It’s for a few wealthy people to inherit money they never earned.

shouldbeworkingmore

@MrsSkylerWhite Well my mum is currently sunning herself on holiday

Wish you were here!

Cull everyone over 60. Would clear up this problem, free up housing stock and jobs, and help reduce emissions

You’ll be astonished how quickly you’re 60th birthday rolls round 🤣

Your, even!

I don't have a problem with paying tax. As a family we pay a lot of tax, and we take out nothing. That is the price of a civilised society, and so we pay up, fairly willingly. It is when nothing you would think should be included within the tax you have already paid is covered that you start to think that it's not entirely balanced. DMIL is self-funding her care home fees, from the sale of her house. They are doing a brilliant job, and she's in better fettle than she has been for ages, thanks to the care and the company she has. But she is paying 40% more than the lady in the next room being paid for by the local authority.

@Bucanab, lovely statement... I turned 65 about three weeks ago and DH and I have three living parents. To which termination centre should we direct the minibus? Are you planning on gassing us, or peaceful euthanasia? Daft, stupid, imbecile post.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@CovidCorvid what the tories are talking about is all of us working age people paying extra NI so that some wealthy people with lots of assets don’t have to pay more towards their care than the cap. That way their wealthy children can inherit lots. The extra tax isn’t going towards better care, or more care. It’s for a few wealthy people to inherit money they never earned.[/quote]
Oh in that case I've misunderstood it and that sounds shit.

I think this thread has drifted on to asking if we think social care should be free at the point if need such as the NHS is, or we should be expected to pay if you are able. Personally I think free at the point of need but I see that people differ.

Actually, it doesn't mean even close to that. The very wealthy are never ever going to take up care home places that you might be considering. They will pay privately for comfortable care at home. Most of us are not in the same race. And at that elevated level, most of them would have earned, banked and saved every flipping penny that keeps their arse wiped. And many will have inherited a wedge too.

It's all very well to say the NHS from cradle to grave, but some people are cleverer, better with money and work harder than others. We all end up dead.

Young disabled people need social care. And the largest single group who use the NHS are older people so do you not want to pay taxes for that? Plus my Dad is 92 so why should he pay taxes that pay for schools?

Do you see how we share risk and costs through general taxation whether we currently make direct use of the services?

The only problem is that older people don't pay NI so it ought to come from income tax like education and the NHS.

We are literally taxed to the hilt.
Income tax, council, NI, VAT, even on sugary drinks. In the last twelve months we have lost £200 a month because of rent increases, rail fare increases, alongside the obligatory council tax and energy hikes. It's just even less money to live off of. At this point I'm not sure why we work.

Flippantly, give up the sugared drinks @eeyore28and all will be perfect in your life. You'll live forever, apparently. If you want to of course.

So I looked up news articles on this. It looked like the idea was that younger people would get the money back that they had paid in national insurance as inhearitance because the cap had been moved. I looked up the average/ most common age at which todays 20-35 year will recieve an inhearitance according to the office for National Statistics. It says 61 years. It looks like people living into their ninties is going to become increasingly common. So working people 18-60 will pay for the cap change and the average person will not see a benefit until they are over 60. Is it me or does this sound like this cap will cause wealth to be concentrated among people who are over 60?

@XingMing

I don't have a problem with paying tax. As a family we pay a lot of tax, and we take out nothing. That is the price of a civilised society, and so we pay up, fairly willingly. It is when nothing you would think should be included within the tax you have already paid is covered that you start to think that it's not entirely balanced. DMIL is self-funding her care home fees, from the sale of her house. They are doing a brilliant job, and she's in better fettle than she has been for ages, thanks to the care and the company she has. But she is paying 40% more than the lady in the next room being paid for by the local authority.

That's where it isn't fair

If working people are taxed heavily and are on average not going to see any benefit from the change in the cap until 61 what happens if the birth rate continues to drop because people see being child free as more afordable? As a person in my 20 it is very common for people to see being childfree as an financialy sensible lifestyle choice.

[quote OverTheRubicon]@woodhill houses are included as assets when looking at care homes, but that's actually not a huge percentage of older people, there are far more receiving in-home care. In that case, your house is not considered, even if you're a single person living in a 5 bed detached home worth a large amount.

Reverse mortgages can have major issues if taken out willy nilly, but that principle could have a role to play - either that, where you and any joint-owning partner have the right to stay in your home but with a certain amount of debt held against your housing value, or something similar to the 'death tax' that made people so angry with Theresa May, probably because at heart so many Tories want to have the right to both endless free care AND yet to pay lower taxes and pass their privilege on to their children... [/quote]
So the person gets free home care, I thought they had to pay for it?

I do think downsizing needs encouraging via taxation, lots of widows by us staring out the window all day, not knowing what day it is whilst their money goes on cleaners, gardeners, maintenance companies for their 5 bedroomed detached houses in the catchment areas for great schools. It's not right whilst children are growing up in houses you couldn't swing a cat in. In my area, developers are busy building 5-bed detached houses because they don't cost a lot more to build but they sell for more. Meanwhile there is a huge shortage of 1,2 and 3 bed homes. If I were to downsize, I'd be competing for housing in short supply.

I don't mind paying a levy or whatever to fund social care. What annoys me is the lottery of it, person A has a degenerative physical illness and gets not just their nursing care but all their social care paid for, and their children inherit the house and any savings. Person B gets dementia and have to pay for everything, and their children inherit nothing. If we really feel so much against "preserving someone's inheritance", why not increase inheritance tax across the board and use that to fund social care.

Meanwhile we have the added unfairness that a self-funder in a care home is paying not just for their own care but also a massive whack towards the care of Council-funded residents.

And of course, we're all focusing on elder care, when half the social care budget goes on care for younger people with disabilities.

So the person gets free home care, I thought they had to pay for it?

They do. Until they’re down to their last £23.5k. The house isn’t taken into account, though.

I'm surprised at that

Is that if they are bed bound etc like a home help and won't it be minimal?

And they are paying for it anyway