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.

@TheHateIsNotGood

Just popped back after a couple of hours of smoking and drinking - us community-minded people like to do our bit - and I've saved a bit of cake for later.

There are so many valid points to consider but blaming and getting all bitter and twisted about how 'others' have had it 'easier' really only serves to make the life we have less enjoyable.

It isn't any generation's fault that global economic circumstances favoured or penalized them and, not every member of every generation benefits or is held back by such generalistic views.

It is what it is right now, as I've pointed out upthread, the numbers of elderly requiring social care has significantly reduced due to Covid, the state retirement age is increasing and life-expectancy is decreasing.

So what it is right now is not how it will always be.

That's a brilliant post @TheHateIsNotGood I'll raise a glass to it (a little tax boosting nightcap

@garannenee
I agree that increased income tax (with the higher threshold for liability) might be fairer than raised NI. I know the government aren't proposing it but perhaps they should.

As for the future. We'll probably all be dead long before we need care. If not from stress, perhaps climate change. Or the robots will kill us.

The over 40s private renting. Yes it's partly because some have never been able to afford to buy. It's also due to relationship breakdowns. Those who could never afford to buy - due to low incomes and life circumstances (i e. disability or illness), would in the past have been given social housing.

I was helped to buy s home - in my 50s, after my Mum died - she managed to accumulate a lot more wealth than I ever could in the same circumstances that she lived through, and I put the whole lot down to buy a cheap house with a mortgage.

Although she was my Mum and I loved her, I still think she 'generationally' benefitted economically in ways completely unreflective of her work/care output, not even reaching the levels of output that many younger people deal with now just to pay their rent.

I'm 59 and over the hill, in terms of career, being an LP of a disabled child now adult tends to that - my main thing is keeping a roof over our head and wringing every bit of economic advantage I can from the previous generation's advantage to make sure DS has a roof over his head after I'm gone.

As no one wants to pay for caring for our current elderly population I don't hold out much hope that any one would give a toss about DS either.

social care is not just for the elderly?

Yes it's meant to be there for people, including children, who are disabled or long term ill too, if they need care. Unfortunately increasingly this happens:-
leaving the vulnerable to not cope and die.
Not a civilised society, and particularly shocking for a supposedly rich country.

Selling homes doesn't solve the problem of care funding because not everyone can afford to buy a home. That's always been the case. We need higher taxes and better public services - including social housing. Otherwise, the next generations will be more costly in their old age, because of the private renting housing benefit bill.

It might be worth bearing in mind that we'll going to see an increase in the number of people unable to work, or only able to work part-time, because of Long Covid. (Although hopefully new treatments will come along and people won't be condemned to long term disability).

So many people do not realise that that people in England pay for home care if they have savings or capital or income. It is means tested.

Your capital What you will have to pay
Over £23,250
You have to pay your own fees as a 'self-funder'.

Between £14,250 and £23,250
You qualify for financial support from the council and pay a contribution from your income – such as pensions – plus a 'tariff income' based on your capital.

This 'tariff income' is worked out by assuming you have an extra £1 per week in income for every £250 (or part of) you have between £14,250 and £23,250 in capital.

Less than £14,250
The council provides financial support and you will still contribute from your income, but you won't have to pay a tariff income.

I haven’t read all replies (sorry!) but of course a Tory government will avoid targeting older voters by keeping the increase to NI contributions and avoid any wealth taxes.. I don’t find it surprising! Unfair yes; everyone should pay- big business should contribute more back to our society & so should those who have a high net worth. Everyone should pay relative to their means. Current system isn’t fair & definitely won’t be any fairer whilst people choose a right wing government. x

It isn’t even a party political thing. No political party ever wants to look at this issue which is why we are in the mess we are in and it is only going to get worse.
We live in a society where everyone wanted to make money from housing and everyone was happy house prices increased but this is coming home to roost now. The social care bill will be massive without people having capital from their homes.

We are having a bit of a pointless discussion as we don't know the actual amounts of money that will be raised. I'm not sure at what rate the elderly population decreases but perhaps making the elderly pay is not viable as after, say 80 years of age, as there are not enough of them.
The working population spans 20 to nearly 70 years of age so the costs are spread over a much bigger number.

We live in a society where everyone wanted to make money from housing and everyone was happy house prices increased but this is coming home to roost now. The social care bill will be massive without people having capital from their homes.

This is the crux of it, our economy is built on house prices & them ever increasing. They can't raise interest rates so people cant make money on savings & assets keep on inflating. Wages have stagnated despite house price growth, so even when on the ladder people find it difficult to move up unless they bought years ago.
people want to pass their house or some of it onto their dc in order to help them onto the ladder when actually if prices weren't so crazy & rents not higher than mortgages it wouldn't be necessary. I don't think people would resent higher taxes so much if they felt like society was working for them.

Where do you think the money should come from then ?

Extrmely rich people, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Starbucks etc. Would be a drop in the ocean to them

Extrmely rich people, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Starbucks etc. Would be a drop in the ocean to them

Whilst this should be what happens it's not something the UK can do alone. It's needs global legislation

@PopcornMuncher

Where do you think the money should come from then ?

Extrmely rich people, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Starbucks etc. Would be a drop in the ocean to them

The reason Amazon pay very little CT is because they make very little profit as they reinvest nearly everything back into growth, CT is a tax on profit not turnover. The others pay little tax in the UK due to variations of offshoring, transfers etc. That is being slowly tackled but it has to be an international response.

With regard to "rich people" the problem is there are not enough of them, a small tax 1% tax rise on everyone will raise a lot more than a large tax rise just on "rich people". If you look at countries with adequate state funding (Scandinavian countries, Germany) then everyone pays more tax, they do not have the childish view that "someone else" should pay, they accept that everyone should contribute.

My father who gave his whole life to the NHS as a consultant/doctor had to spend £130,000 in his last year of life on at home dementia care (he died in his house as he wanted just as his life savings were exhausted). There is one thing for use the NHS is often not there for many o f us so just let us opt out and pay less tax. His lawyer said in Newcastle about £100k was the usual amount for that kind of care (as you need someone at night too). By the end he needed 2 people due to lifting issues. He died at 79 having worked to 77 and put all his spare money into pensions and his NHS pension died with him (his wife had died first). When he drew his pensions at 75 whilst also still working the pensions were taxed at 40% income tax.

There is an awful lot of tax - our two certainties - death and taxes.

There are not that many rich people so that is why Hammond when Chancellor proposed more NI for "white van man" as there are loads of people on middle/lower incomes so you get a lot of tax from them if you add 1% to their tax bills.

With regard to "rich people" the problem is there are not enough of them, a small tax 1% tax rise on everyone will raise a lot more than a large tax rise just on "rich people". If you look at countries with adequate state funding (Scandinavian countries, Germany) then everyone pays more tax, they do not have the childish view that "someone else" should pay, they accept that everyone should contribute.

I'm happy to pay towards my care out of my house. I personally think the 50k cap is too small for some & too high in places eg where houses are 100k. It should be a %. I'm not that fussed about immigrants or the "feckless poor" who don't pay anything but get it all for free narrative as imo the vast majority need that help.

Extrmely rich people, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Starbucks etc. Would be a drop in the ocean to them

Aren't Amazon investors/ owners teh extremely rich people.

We all choose to use amazon facebook etc - It's our choice and their profits. Stop using them.

The government are apparently proposing a lump sum to the NHS to catch up on the huge backlog (for Covid delays and the pre Covid backlog).
This is the response on Twitter from a doctor

“Please don't throw a one-off pot of money at the NHS.

We are exhausted. No amount of money can buy overtime from a workforce that is dead on its feet.

We need a long-term sustained investment that gives us money to buy, train, and care for new team members.”

We all choose to use amazon facebook etc - It's our choice and their profits. Stop using them.

This would be way more effective at making then change their ways than tax changes.

The trouble is also that “very rich people” and companies can avoid paying tax. This isn’t the UK’s fault alone, as a pp pointed out. Other countries are happy to host people/organisations who can domicile (if only in spirit) themselves in a more favourable tax regime. Amongst the culprits are not only big bad companies, but sportspeople (eg Lewis Hamilton Isle of Man) and pop stars. Even lesser people (friend of dh’s) spends x months a year in South Africa to escape tax.

The upshot of this is that the taxman is then obliged to target the next layer, ie the people who earn a good salary but are PAYE and cannot avoid paying the full whack. So, for example, you get a multimillionaire racing driver paying a fraction of the tax of some schmuck commuting every day, doing long hours, paying a big mortgage and for not the greatest house either (that would be us!).

It's yet another benefit for the baby boomers - (of whom I am one)

It isn’t though. As boomers, if our houses are sold to pay for our care, it’s no skin off our noses, we don’t need the house any more. It’s a benefit for our kids. In our case the kids don’t need our money or our house so as far as I’m concerned, the whole lot can go to pay for care.

As boomers, if our houses are sold to pay for our care, it’s no skin off our noses, we don’t need the house any more. It’s a benefit for our kids.

But many can't separate the two & see taking it off the kids as taking it off them.

@LuluJakey1 £179 a week is the maximum most people qualify for. Many get way below that- because of how many years NI they paid. You need to pay 10 years NI to qualify for any state pension and 35 years to qualify for the £179.00. Many people, particularly women do not qualify for the full amount.

You don't have to "pay" for any years at all to get full state pension. You get "credits" for all the years spent as a carer (ie of young children) for all the years on certain unemployment/disability benefits and for the years you were a "low" earner, earning more than the lower NIC threshold, but not high enough wages to actually pay NIC. It's "credits" earned that count for state pension, not NIC paid.

@DottyHarmer

The trouble is also that “very rich people” and companies can avoid paying tax. This isn’t the UK’s fault alone, as a pp pointed out. Other countries are happy to host people/organisations who can domicile (if only in spirit) themselves in a more favourable tax regime. Amongst the culprits are not only big bad companies, but sportspeople (eg Lewis Hamilton Isle of Man) and pop stars. Even lesser people (friend of dh’s) spends x months a year in South Africa to escape tax.

The upshot of this is that the taxman is then obliged to target the next layer, ie the people who earn a good salary but are PAYE and cannot avoid paying the full whack. So, for example, you get a multimillionaire racing driver paying a fraction of the tax of some schmuck commuting every day, doing long hours, paying a big mortgage and for not the greatest house either (that would be us!).

Exactly. They can't go after Premier league footballers, pop stars, TV personalities, oscar winning actors and Olympic medal winners, as they've enough money and are flexible enough to organise themselves to be out of high tax countries for long enough to avoid paying tax, and "base" themselves in tax havens instead.

As you say, that leaves the next tier who aren't as flexible. Hence the 62% marginal tax rate which so badly hit the likes of dentists and doctors, the experienced of whom can earn £100k plus so fall right into the 62% marginal tax rate band, and who, in large numbers, reduced the hours they worked to get their income levels below £100k to avoid the 62%.

Just like in the 1970s when virtually every author and pop star moved abroad "for creative reasons" to avoid the punitively high tax rates of the time.

A quick google showed that 246 Premiership football players were being investigated by HMRC in 2020.

What they do is set up a company, get paid mostly in “image rights” and are therefore only taxed at a corporation rate of 19%. Then if that company is registered abroad they pay even less. Kerching!

@sjxoxo

I haven’t read all replies (sorry!) but of course a Tory government will avoid targeting older voters by keeping the increase to NI contributions and avoid any wealth taxes.. I don’t find it surprising! Unfair yes; everyone should pay- big business should contribute more back to our society & so should those who have a high net worth. Everyone should pay relative to their means. Current system isn’t fair & definitely won’t be any fairer whilst people choose a right wing government. x

Are you too young to remember Blair/Brown's 13 years in power where they actually reduced taxes and increased NIC twice????

@DottyHarmer

What they do is set up a company, get paid mostly in “image rights” and are therefore only taxed at a corporation rate of 19%. Then if that company is registered abroad they pay even less. Kerching!

And the 2012 London Olympics where HMRC did "sweatheart" deals with a few Olympic athletes to grant them immunity from UK taxes whilst they were in the UK for the Olympics!