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.

@Blossomtoes OK, to clarify for the pedants:

The top 1%of earners pay 33% of all personal tax and national insurance contributions.

@Maverickess Can you give an example of a well run efficient publicly owned service?

I’m happy to pay for it through increased NI.

As far as I can tell, this tax is not to improve social care, but to ensure that people still have an inheritance to give their children.

We are socially insuring relatively wealthy people against the risk of having to spend their assets on social care.

Perhaps this would be better funded out of an increase in inheritance tax?

We are socially insuring relatively wealthy people against the risk of having to spend their assets on social care. ... in the same way that the NHS insures relatively wealthy people against having to spend their assets on health care.

I'm glad someone started this thread as I was thinking in line with OP (that this seems one of the most unfair options).

[quote CBUK2K2]@Blossomtoes OK, to clarify for the pedants:

The top 1%of earners pay 33% of all personal tax and national insurance contributions.[/quote]
And that is also the issue with taxes on income Vs wealth. Older people who have often partially or fully retired don't get taxed on the benefits they've gained from years of massive house price gains, and (if wealthy) pay lower taxes when they realise capital gains on investments. Meanwhile someone in their 30s on a decent wage but still having to pay rent and not able to save a proper deposit, is facing an NI increase. It's ridiculous.

@MereDintofPandiculation

We are socially insuring relatively wealthy people against the risk of having to spend their assets on social care. ... in the same way that the NHS insures relatively wealthy people against having to spend their assets on health care.

And this is a discussion we should also have.

There are lots of options between 'free' and the nightmare that is the US. France and Germany have strong government funding with some contribution from those who can afford it, and have better survival outcomes for most cancers and more. Australia has compulsory health insurance, with again free care for those most in need.

I would likely have died of my undiagnosed rare condition if I hadn't been able to scrape together the money to go private and skip a massive waiting list. I'd happily pay £10 for every GP appointment if it meant that I could actually see my gp quickly and at a time that doesn't require me to take a day off work, and that would ensure that someone less fortunate than I am wouldn't die during a 5 month wait for diagnosis.

The solution is smoking. The tax raised more than covers any healthcare AND the lower life expectancy means lower pension and social care costs. Unlike death by Covid, smoking is at the time, a pleasurable activity for many and brings in large amounts of tax. There's no argument against smoking. Not anymore. Not when living longer means being neglected in a care home and/or being killed or disabled by Covid.

Btw the older generations have paid NI. For 40+ years.

@OverTheRubicon - heat, hear!

@Empressofthemundane

As far as I can tell, this tax is not to improve social care, but to ensure that people still have an inheritance to give their children.

We are socially insuring relatively wealthy people against the risk of having to spend their assets on social care.

Perhaps this would be better funded out of an increase in inheritance tax?

Increasingly it's becoming the only way their adult children, particularly disabled and long term ill, don't end their days homeless. The public health housing crisis emergency is just that. A crisis. Many people will never be securely housed without inheritance. Of course the solution should be urgently building and buying more social housing for the 100s of 1000s in temporary or insecure housing (many are stuck in this limbo for years).

Some older people are particularly concerned for the future of their disabled children. The vulnerable are left to rot in unsuitable substandard, down right dangerous 'supported' housing schemes - generally little more than expensive but poor quality private rooms in HMOs, with very little 'suppport'.

I work in social care and can't afford anymore deductions. I'm. Already on nmw and do very long hours in a very demanding job.

Tealights but the Think Tank estimate the cost to the public purse overall with more smokers would be higher due to indirect effects, fire services, sick leave from work, smoking breaks/lost productivity etc Even to the environment with people washing smoky clothes and hair more often.
As a nurse my clinics are full of smokers and ex smokers with related conditions. That's partly the reason you wait so long for your smear or your child to be vaccinated.
Modern medicine needs a rethink about trying to cure everything and make everyone live until a hundred and three, often with very poor quality of life. Many HCP and oncologists will tell you that.

@Tealightsandd, funding housing and care through inheritance is the wrong solution. What happens to the you get generation without wealthy parents?

YABU. If we don't fund social care now, there won't be any left when we are old.

I feel sceptical that pumping money into the current system would be work.

@buchanarab, sorry... if you're still reading... yep, I missed the point! In my defense, I was coughing and sneezing and about to come down with a fever so probably not thinking clearly.

When are they due to kick in and how much will they be?

It's ridiculously unfair. NI on anything over £50k is at 2%. Therefore higher earners pay much less NI as a proportion of their income compared to lower and middle earners. That's without even considering unearned income, like property or investments, which has no NI component at all. The less well off will be paying for the care of the well off, as the less well off are much less likely to live long enough to need care. It's a regressive tax, but it panders to the Tories key voters, i.e. the rich and the retired (who don't pay NI at all, even if their income in retirement is huge), so I am not surprised by this plan one bit.

@UrgentHelpforFriend I'm very sceptical too. With the current model, I'd wager pretty much all the extra tax for social care will be swallowed by the profits of the care companies. They're squeeling massively about their business model being unsustainable without more funding, that they can't get enough profit to keep going. They dress it up in different language, but that's fundamentally what's happening, in the current system it's all about their profit and they're threatening to close care homes because they don't get paid enough by councils. Does anyone really believe that the extra tax will go towards improving care or higher wages for staff? In a privatised model that has NEVER been shown to the the case. There's no reason it will be any different with care. Are we happy that higher taxes just go straight into the pockets of shareholders?

YABU. If we don't fund social care now, there won't be any left when we are old.

I definitely stand by my OP.

I also think it's naive to assume this will fix social care & make it better.

@CBUK2K2

No, I can't. I don't think any such thing can ever truly exist to be honest because someone, somewhere (be that a manager who stays under budget as a target, or a government dividing up taxes) has a vested interest in spending as little as possible.

That doesn't mean that I can't be of the opinion that any increase in tax and/or fees should actually go towards the care of the people it's paying for and not into profits.
Everyone gets so hung up on where it's going to come from, who it's fair to increase costs for, but no one seems interested in where it's going and where it's ending up, and while that's not monitored and accounted for properly, any increases will go the same way and never be enough.

Ejhhh no.

I've been worked in homes for for the older adults, had relatives in and them had sibling worth friends while owns and them.

1. extremely posh expensive home , the residents food budget was in pennies daily and they had no qualms about serving cold food. If a resident complained they were made to sat alone.

2. nurse working as care assistant whilst dc young, said residents not watered, one lady needed urgent medical assistance they fought not to give her it instead giving her proper fluids. Boss drove a Bentley.

3. siblings friend used for joke what colour should he get his ferrari spray painted... Biggest descion of his week.

4. gerry Robinson program... About dementia. We saw care home boss drilling down into bread slices and kicking off about night staff having a sandwich. Also drove fancy cars.

Yanbu, it should be a VAT increase so everyone pays, not just working people. I read only 26 million people pay NI at all, obviously children shouldn't pay (!!) but what about everyone else? Work should be incentivised not a cash cow for the government. I'm happy to pay tax, but higher rate taxpayers already pay 40% income tax and 2% NI, where is the incentive when you're only keeping 58% of any pay rise?

One of the huge issues we have is that so much of our tax goes into the hands of others as opposed to improving society. So we pay working tax credits because workers can't survive on their wages, we pay housing benefit because people can't afford housing etc.