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.

@Stircraazy

One problem is you make it available free for everyone many more people will expect carers and to live in a care home. Whereas they muddle along now. Families would step back.

My parents insist on muddling along. It's led to 4 ambulance calls a day 3 hospital admissions in 5 weeks despite a lot of family help. That is not good

I think closing up the 7 year loophole would be good as it's not fair on those with property playing by the rules. It can also cause exploitation of the elderly parents by their dc?

@woodhill

I think closing up the 7 year loophole would be good as it's not fair on those with property playing by the rules. It can also cause exploitation of the elderly parents by their dc?

There isn’t a seven year loophole. That applies to inheritance tax. Local authorities can go back many years if they suspect deprivation of assets.

@flashbac

Copied from Twitter:

National Insurance rates are 12% on weekly earnings of between £162 and £892, and 2% on weekly earnings above £892. And only paid if you are an employee. It's a tax on poor people with a job that rich people don't pay, which is why the Tories want to increase it by 2%.

Have you forgotten that the last increases in NIC were done by Blair and Brown, i.e. a Labour government????

Absolutely agree with the OP and many other posters.

It's very unfair and will cause an even greater inter-generational divide.

I can't understand why so many feel that they shouldn't fund their care despite very significant assets. It makes no sense to me that young, poor people should fund the care of wealthy old people.

Until there's an overhaul in how social care is delivered, I honestly don't think that increases in tax, NI or anything else will make the slightest bit of difference to the standards of social care.
When something is run as a business, profit is at the heart of it, and the money will end up in providers pockets.
I'd be happy to pay a bit more NI if it actually was directed into the care, training of staff, better treatment of staff (to improve recruitment and retainment), equipment and supplies - so that every penny that is paid by, or on behalf of a person needing care actually pays for that care rather than going into profits, but that won't happen while social care is a business.

Even with the proposed increases, where it goes needs to be monitored and accounted for which means placing more demands on the providers to use the money they're paid to provide care and not profits.
But then, who's going to want to run that sort of business?

@tigertantrum

Absolutely agree with the OP and many other posters.

It's very unfair and will cause an even greater inter-generational divide.

I can't understand why so many feel that they shouldn't fund their care despite very significant assets. It makes no sense to me that young, poor people should fund the care of wealthy old people.

Why people feel they should not pay for dementia care is because if you need care or treatment for cancer, heart disease, organ failure etc. then it is covered by the NHS, but if the disease you get is dementia then it seems some people expect that to be paid by the individual. Why should someone with cancer get their treatment "for free" when someone with dementia pays?

I am in my thirties, as is my husband, we will both be paying any tax rises for at least thirty years, I do not resent paying for a better society.

It makes no sense to me that young, poor people should fund the care of wealthy old people

This is just not true. Wealthy old people currently pay for their own care, and care homes. They will continue to do so. The increase is to help fund care for those who cannot afford it. Currently wealthy care home elderly subsidise those who don't have cash or assets. The council pay way below cost, and care homes therefore charge private (wealthy) elderly more to make up the loss.

An increase in tax for health and social care will go towards those who most need it, not everyone, and not the wealthy who will continue to fund their own care.

People with dementia do not pay for medical treatment the same as people with cancer or heart disease do not

The difference is that dementia actually has very little medical treatment attached to it. There’s little that at the moment that can be done beyond tablets that relieve some symptoms.

Ppl with cancer or heart disease absolutely do pay for the care they need if it’s deemed to be social & not medical leading to ludicrous arguments over where a bath is a medical bath or a social bath

@tigertantrum

Absolutely agree with the OP and many other posters.

It's very unfair and will cause an even greater inter-generational divide.

I can't understand why so many feel that they shouldn't fund their care despite very significant assets. It makes no sense to me that young, poor people should fund the care of wealthy old people.

It wouldn't, if it were true. Which it's not. Or I'll ask my mother's carehome for the 34 grand a year she paid back.

@woodhill

I'm surprised at that

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

You don't have to be bed bound to need help with washing, toileting etc. There are many elderly people living in their own home but having 4 visits a day from carers. Remember too that half the social care budget goes on younger people with disabilities, and some of them will need care 24 hours a day. So, no it's not "minimal".

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

I can't understand why so many feel that they shouldn't fund their care despite very significant assets. Because most people want to pass on something to help their children/grandchildren, especially if they themselves had help from their parents/grandparents. And we have a system whereby it's completely random - one neighbour has a terminal illness whereby several years of care may be paid for completely, another dies quickly of a heart attack and both their families inherit, whereas you get dementia and can pass on nothing.

And because it's so open ended, you can't take out insurance, like you would against your house burning down.

I don't think people have any objection to paying "normal" living costs themselves, it's suddenly having to pay £50,000 a year for basic living costs (not including clothes, personal spending, presents for grandkids etc). And then finding you're paying maybe 40% more than is being charged for residents paid for by local authorities, so you're not just paying you're own costs, but part of someone else's too.

The difference is that dementia actually has very little medical treatment attached to it. There’s little that at the moment that can be done beyond tablets that relieve some symptoms. I think the problem is that people with dementia are suffering from a disease which vastly increases the costs of daily living because they start needing someone else to do nearly everything.

Ppl with cancer or heart disease absolutely do pay for the care they need if it’s deemed to be social & not medical That's absolutely not true once they need residential care - the social care too is paid for. The entire nursing home fees are funded, whereas a person with dementia in the same nursing home will get a small contribution to nursing care, but will be paying £50,000 a year for "social care".

It's very unfair and will cause an even greater inter-generational divide. I'd be happy for a system that spread the cost across older people according to means, so that if I was fortunate enough to not need residential care, I would have contributed to the costs of someone that did, and no-one had to meet the whole costs themselves.

People with degenerative illnesses or simply frailty through old age 'will' pay for care if they need it (as they should). Dementia or not. So why shouldn't anyone with an illness pay for it? Why should someone with £23k savings not pay for their health treatment, they could afford to pay for that operation privately, or that hospital birth.

@MereDintofPandiculation

People with degenerative illnesses or simply frailty through old age 'will' pay for care if they need it (as they should). Dementia or not. So why shouldn't anyone with an illness pay for it? Why should someone with £23k savings not pay for their health treatment, they could afford to pay for that operation privately, or that hospital birth.

Because we have a free at the point of delivery health service.

I guess part of it is knowing if LAs are paying the true cost of care, and self funded are overpaying (and where is that extra going?) or if LAs are underpaying the true cost of care and self funded are making up that shortfall.
So if a care home, filled with LA funded only residents, can still meet the care needs of those they are looking after, or if what they're paying doesn't cover the cost of the care.
I personally think that LA and self funded should be paying the same for the level of care they need, but that will need an increase in taxes of some description to pay for it.
In a way we're all subsidising social care more than just the direct contribution from our taxes/NI/council tax in the contribution we're making towards the welfare budget to support people working in this sector on low wages that need in work benefits and things like social housing and childcare support.
Unless where the money is going is monitored though, there's no guarantee that any increase won't just go straight into the profits of the care companies rather than towards the care itself.
Where it comes from is one consideration, but where it's going needs to be another.

Ppl with cancer or heart disease absolutely do pay for the care they need if it’s deemed to be social & not medical That's absolutely not true once they need residential care - the social care too is paid for. The entire nursing home fees are funded, whereas a person with dementia in the same nursing home will get a small contribution to nursing care, but will be paying £50,000 a year for "social care".

There are far fewer people getting residential care for heart disease, though, and when they or someone with cancer enters the system it will generally be at end of life. With dementia, any of us could live on - with poor quality of life and massive social care needs - for many years.

Yes it's unfair, but so are lots of things about any disability. This one, however, is crippling our system and meaning that older people are getting treated horrifically, and younger people often aren't getting treated at all or for many years.

Because we have a free at the point of delivery health service. that was the point I was making. Some people are saying why shouldn't someone who needs extra care because of elderly frailty or a medical condition like dementia pay for their own care - so why shouldn't someone with another medical condition pay for their own care? There's no moral difference between them.

LA funding is totally inadequate @Maverickess. I used to work on a project around care for the elderly and the manager responsible for sourcing care placements was at his wits’ end. He had something like £320 a week and no care home would accept it because they could fill every place with a fee payer.

The result was people being sent miles away or staying at home and not receiving the care they needed. The latter were in and out of hospital constantly so the NHS was picking up the LA’s shortfall. Scandalous really.

Pension cant be called a tax its optional in most cases as well as receiving benefit for individual from work in most cases.

@Funkyfraz

Pension cant be called a tax its optional in most cases as well as receiving benefit for individual from work in most cases.

Almost certainly there won't be a state pension for all by the time today's 20 somethings come to hit retirement age. All the forecasts for the past 2 or 3 decades have highlighted that state pension for all is simply not affordable. It's almost certainly going to become means tested at some stage in the next 30-50 years. Given that likelihood, workplace pensions ARE equivalent to today's NIC, i.e. contribution towards an equivalent to state pension.

[quote Theeyeballsinthesky]@PinkSparklyPussyCat yoh wouldn’t be. The home cannot be touched if it’s still lived in by the spouse or civil partner or a dependent child

I think one of the things that makes discussing this issue so difficult is that most people aren’t aware of what the rules are now & what assets can & cannot be used[/quote]
I know that's the case now, my post was in response to a poster saying people should have to sell their homes to fund care. Fine if you're single but not if you've got a partner. Not that our flat would pay for too much care anyway!

@PattyPan

Yanbu, the burden should fall more on older than younger people. I already have to pay an effective extra 15% tax in the form of student loan repayments that older people never had to.

Because hardly any of them went to university. 10pc when I went and I'm only 60

I'm worried about the increase in NI contributions.
My electric and council tax have gone up, I'm expecting the gas to go up too but my wages have increased.