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.

What do you suggest then OP?

I think the proposed system is very unfair on the young and lower paid. I am retired and do not pay NI. I think the extra funding should be generated by increasing VAT.

Everybody pays VAT, and everybody has some degree of control over how much VAT they pay. The extra VAT would apply to business and individuals and should be ringfenced.

TheGalloPpingGoumet@ this seems a good idea, however I am not sure it will raise enough. We are talking millions of pounds so there has to be money generated from somewhere.

I agree re private providers making massive profits while paying staff minimum wage. The whole system needs reform before throwing more money at private companies.

No, I don't think they make massive profits or there would be loads of them (making a fortune) when there is a shortage of homes.
I imagine much of the high fees paid go to compensate for the low fees paid by councils for residents without savings.

According to the Daily Mail there will be an 80,000 pound cap on charges for care. This might release more money into the country now - once they've got their 80,000 stashed somewhere safe older people might pass on their wealth earlier to DCs.

@Pixxie7

What do you suggest then OP?

Don't know about that OP, but what about direct taxation?

@TheGallopingGourmet

I think the proposed system is very unfair on the young and lower paid. I am retired and do not pay NI. I think the extra funding should be generated by increasing VAT. Everybody pays VAT, and everybody has some degree of control over how much VAT they pay. The extra VAT would apply to business and individuals and should be ringfenced.

VAT is a regressive tax that hits the lower paid more heavily.

I think the proposed system is very unfair on the young and lower paid. I am retired and do not pay NI. I think the extra funding should be generated by increasing VAT.

@TheGallopingGourmet err, surely it’s obvious that a VAT increase would hit the lower paid harder than anyone else - including those not earning anything at all?

I think this is an excellent policy personally - it’s about time something was properly done to tackle the issues surrounding social care.

Also, people complain that the Tories are underfunding the NHS. They increase taxes substantially to pour money into the NHS and everybody is in uproar! Sorry, but where do you think the money is going to come from? If we want better services then we need to pay more tax, like many other European countries. You can’t expect to get something for nothing I’m afraid.

I’m ok with it personally but I think it should be combined with a cap where those with assets , savings or a house should pay say £80k or whatever up to that amount of their own income first. It’s definitely not fair that wealthy people use none of their assets at all.
So a couple with a house pay max £160k assuming both need long term social care.

So it's 1.25%.
I also don't understand why the cap is not a %, people within cheaper houses will lose a lot & those will million pound ones not much.

Also if it's going into the NHS for 3 years how will it then go to social care? The NHS will still need it.

The money will never go into social care. The NHS won’t give it up. Can you imagine the outcry when they try to take it off them?!

The NHS is a bottomless pit, I can guarantee there will be barely any improvement seen for patients. I’m sure they’ll have a lot more diversity officers though.

This won’t change anything. There are not and don’t be enough paid carers , if it’s not ring fenced for social care the NGS will absorb it all & none of it will change the bewildering mess that is the social care system

@moppat

Also if it's going into the NHS for 3 years how will it then go to social care? The NHS will still need it.

This is a good point. Look at the struggle to stop the £20 UC. Once you give something it’s hard to take it away again. It’ll have to be ringfenced for a specific purpose. E.g hip and knee surgery backlog or something

And definitely not diversity officers

We probably do need to fund this with a tax increase but I agree national insurance isn't the one to increase.

I agree OP.

There should be a higher rate of income tax on higher pay.

Also a financial transactions tax.

Also tax buy to let and buy to leave.

Also increase inheritance tax.

@JassyRadlett

Your argument makes no sense. Not only that but it’s disingenuous. You are exactly the demographic that benefits from this additional tax. You will get your nice inheritance while those who get nothing will pay for parents care because their care cost will be capped while sitting on assets.

@sashagabadon

I’m ok with it personally but I think it should be combined with a cap where those with assets , savings or a house should pay say £80k or whatever up to that amount of their own income first. It’s definitely not fair that wealthy people use none of their assets at all. So a couple with a house pay max £160k assuming both need long term social care.

People seem to be under the impression that the wealthy aren't paying already. They do.

DM had a rental property, no rent as my DB was living in it (long story, not relevant here). So she paid 150k for it a long time ago, and sold it for 370k. HMRC got £60k CGT, £220k went on care costs for herself and her husband. She lost money on her asset.

Now that is fine, that's what she bought it for, to pay for her old age, but she also used all her other savings and we were about to sell her actual house when they both died earlier this year.

The tax man and the care system did pretty well out of her.

@Tealightsandda 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.

Agree with the point about social housing, but not about house sales. By making those who can have a charge against their homes, there will be a larger pool of money available.

@Ritasueandbobtoo9 - that's the issue, that there are care costs for someone who lives in a rented home but has £20k coming in via state and private pensions, but no or little cost to someone who is living in a £2m home but with little income (and who may well have cleverly organised it to have it this way), who will then be able to leave their house to their DCs.

I don't think it's fair that struggling working people, who may themselves be unlikely to be able to own their own homes, pay more NI so that rich boomers can pass their wealth onto their children. If social care is to be free it should be paid for by a massive increase in inheritance tax. It's deeply unfair that older people who don't need care get to preserve their assets under the current system, asserts which are not the result of hard earned income but exponential increase in house prices.

Surely any resident in a home has to pay up to 80,000 with the new arrangement, that's not peanuts - if I remember correctly most people die within either a year or two years of entering a care home so say, 3,000 a month - that's 36,000-72,000 in total so no cost to anyone except the elderly person

Stir, that is what I remember when Mrs may was trying something in this area too - that the figure they make you spend before you get "protection" is about as much as most people spend on a care home anyway so the whole thing was just a smoke screen. It essentially meant no change -that if you set money aside you lose £80k of your savings. If you live a life of riley, never work and spend every penny the hard working tax payers and savers pay all your care home costs.

@Stircraazy

Surely any resident in a home has to pay up to 80,000 with the new arrangement, that's not peanuts - if I remember correctly most people die within either a year or two years of entering a care home so say, 3,000 a month - that's 36,000-72,000 in total so no cost to anyone except the elderly person

£4k a month.....

[quote sst1234]@JassyRadlett

Your argument makes no sense. Not only that but it’s disingenuous. You are exactly the demographic that benefits from this additional tax. You will get your nice inheritance while those who get nothing will pay for parents care because their care cost will be capped while sitting on assets.[/quote]
What do you think I'm arguing for?

I'm pretty clear I want to see greater inheritance tax, abolish the iniquitous 'extra allowance' of up to £500k for housing inheritance before IHT kicks in, and for this tax to be on income tax rather than NI so that people like me on higher salaries would pay more, as would retirees earning income from more generous pensions and investments.

I totally benefit from this being on NI, from a salary perspective alone. But I've been consistent on this thread that I don't think it should be on NI, because I'm not the demographic that should benefit.

Tell me again what you think I was arguing?