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.

There are some really selfish responses on this thread. If we want better social care (and everybody should) then we need to pay for it - same as everything else.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that? It's about who & how it's paid.

I work in care, it needs a total reorganisation, not just a bit of extra funding. Unless they change the whole system then the money will make no difference. Some of it really should be put into helping people avoid needing care in the first place, health education, exercise such as Tai Chi etc. being available free of charge and second nature to participate in.
Why should the carers who work for my organisation, who earn little enough to begin with, pay extra out of their wages to fund care when it is to preserve the houses of those older people who have been able to afford to buy them so that they can pass the money down to their children who will probably already be relatively well off?
I'm afraid it is the Tory government once again helping preserve the assets of the already wealthy at the expense of those who are younger and poorer.

Caller on LBC right now saying that no one should be complaining about this ‘because the older generation fought in the war and were evacuated and were all sexually abused, and the younger generations just don’t get it’.

The council tax doesn’t work as the bands and consistency is already in question

Caller on LBC right now saying that no one should be complaining about this ‘because the older generation fought in the war and were evacuated and were all sexually abused, and the younger generations just don’t get it’.

Even if this was true it still doesn't make sense.

Careers in care being recognised and paid appropriately

Yes to this. Also more recognition and support for family carers - encourage employers to offer care leave in the same way parental leave is offered (up to 18 weeks per child) and to offer extended blocks of this leave in the same style as maternity/paternity leave with a return to work on the same T&Cs at the end. Increase Carers Allowance to support family carers and so that people who want to provide care to family members but who are restricted by employment/income can afford to do so. Carers Allowance right now is £67.60 a week for 35hrs care, the equivalent of £1.93 an hour, for those giving 24/7 care (a reality for many) it is just 40p an hour. Family carers and unpaid carers are currently propping up the social care system and they save the government over £130 billion per year in social care costs, if they all quit tomorrow the system would collapse as it wouldn't cope without them plugging the gaps.

A point for those demanding wealthier pensioners pay more tax for social care.

I would argue they already do. The private providers of care home places, are somewhat beholden to the rates paid to them by local councils (government). The payments they get from this central pot are very much lower than actual costs, they already lose money on council supported residents. They there hugely increase the cost for wealthy, privately paid residents. Those wealthy residents are subsidising council residents. An extra tax if you like, on accumulated wealth.

If you therefore only tax those wealthy pensioners, they may not have the ability to pay for themselves, and therefore we are then back to the catch 22. Everyone, all of society, has to pay more.

@Whycangirlsbesonasty

I have totally no problem with hitting pensioners in expensive houses with council tax. Downsize.

So that's sorted. All you need now is a political party to adopt it as policy and get it through the UKs voting system.

Most pensioners did not have the benefit of going to university, including myself. Many of the younger generation are in the same position - you pays your money and you takes your choice.

I’m not yet state pension age and pay voluntary NI for the day my pension finally arrives. In my mind NI is your government pension contribution so it doesn’t make sense to deduct it when that pension is in payment - same principle as employer pensions.

I would like to see NI paid at the same rate across the board, not dropping to 2% when it reaches the upper limit. It’s just a sneaky way of lowering the high-income tax rate.

@TempsPerdu

Caller on LBC right now saying that no one should be complaining about this ‘because the older generation fought in the war and were evacuated and were all sexually abused, and the younger generations just don’t get it’.

When you aggregate society you need to remember that it's a statistical fact that 50% are below average intelligence, and a proportion of those are quite dim.

I definitely agree that carers should be paid more & CA should be higher

Yanbu, it's revolting.

We as a society need to accept the requirement to pay more for care. That's all of us, not just the working age population deriving our income from work. NI is regressive enough already even without this, and we should merge it with income tax.

@shouldbeworkingmore

I'm in my 40s so not that young & have a home & of course I think social care should be funded & am aware it's not just used by the elderly. However I still don't believe it's fair to just target NI.

Erm, NI was set up to fund social care!

State pension, statutory sick pay, maternity leave and entitlement to additional unemployment benefits are all partially funded by NI.

Everyone at every age can be in receipt of payments from NI contributions.

Whatver you have read seems to be quite limited in its explanation of what is happening!

@shouldbeworkingmore

As I said, it's how it was written and I read it and answering both of both of your comments:-

Grammatically, the word we (as well as being person first plural ) can be used before a noun or after a preceding sentence to make it clear which group of people the writer is linking to or referring to. Therefore, grammatically your second sentence linked you & identified you with the first.

I don't want to get off the real point of the debate, am just answering your question about why I read it that way.

I'm not a grammar pedant but do write and review legal documents as part of my job and grammar really matters in those as there is no room for ambiguity

Most pensioners did not have the benefit of going to university, including myself. Many of the younger generation are in the same position - you pays your money and you takes your choice.

But this ignores the fact that many jobs that in the past didn't require degrees now do so the choice isn't quite a choice.

I'm not a grammar pedant

But you are pedantic about grammar

I was going to say YABU but having read your rationale, I didn’t know that retired people don’t pay NI, so your argument makes sense

I have totally no problem with hitting pensioners in expensive houses with council tax. Downsize.

Me neither. DP and I have already factored in that we’ll need to sell up and move to a smaller property when DD flies the nest. Surely it’s just pragmatism? But not exactly a vote winner…

How about it going onto council tax? As it’s local authorities who pay for social care. That way it would charge everyone, including the elderly, according to their means (council tax bands are based on house value.)

Its already part of council tax. Our council tax has a 4% (I think) surcharge on it to fund social care.

@RubyRhubarb I still don't understand why my bad grammar inferred I didn't think I would get old?

I don't want to get off the real point of the debate,

So why do you think it's fair to just target NI?

@OverByYer

I was going to say YABU but having read your rationale, I didn’t know that retired people don’t pay NI, so your argument makes sense

It doesn't. State pension is paid for from NI contributions. To take NI contributions from NI contributions would be double dipping, and just weird!

I do think those that had free uni ought to be taxed (thats another tax I’d advocate that I’d have to pay).

I'm 24 and perfectly happy to pay extra to facilitate care for older people or indeed anyone else who requires it.

I admit that it's probably easy to say for me as me and my husband are comfortable (though our household income is not above average tbh, we just have a low COL). I'd sooner see income tax raised for middle-higher earners (yes even if it included me and my DH before you all start) to pay for this than just NI being raised across the board, as it will hurt those on low incomes who are struggling as it is.

However, I just don't like the argument that "young people shouldn't have to pay for the elderly" as all my peers are certainly happy to pay. It just seems like a lazy argument/an excuse to justify not caring about others. Isn't looking after other people essentially the point of society?!

Also, surely ensuring elderly people are cared for will reduce the burden on their children to pay for their private care?

So why do you think it's fair to just target NI? Waht do you actually mean by that?

What is being proposed is an increase in contributions to the ringfenced government pot that pays towards state pension, statutory sick pay, maternity leave and additional unemployment benefits.

Everyone in the country is entitled to money from that pot and all of those who are financially active pay into it.

Most pensioners did not have the benefit of going to university, including myself

But back in the booming ‘60s my Dad walked into a lucrative white collar job in the City, aged 15 with zero formal qualifications. Same job would now require at the very least a degree, if not a Master’s. The landscape has changed.