Potentially, another national insurance tax increase to pay for social care

[Toodaloo1567]

Just stumbled on this and wondered about everyone’s thoughts. Essentially, the government is being advised to increase national insurance to pay for elderly social care. I’m not keen. apple.news/AQkrJ_mvnRmClZjz_HJzA9w

Well how do you think it should be funded?

That's a very misleading thread title, because it implies it's something the government is actually considering. Whereas clearly it's not.

We need to sort care out somehow and as soon as possible. If it costs more then we'll have to pay it.

Not sure, but I feel that working people have been hit hard enough. I understand the sentiment behind this proposal - to avoid having to sell a family home to pay for care, for example.

That’s why I included ‘potentially’

Raising NI is generally a bad idea, because it's a tax on labour and we have a labour shortage. You're less likely to have to pay it on unearned income, and exempt altogether once you reach a certain age. We're shooting ourselves in the foot right from the start, if we look to fund something as important as social care from such a limited pot.

This. There are countless threads on here daily about how underpaid NHS staff are, GP/hospital times and care, the lacking care for our elderly, everybody wants change but nobody wants to pay.

But how hard have people who need care been hit? What about all the sick people who can't get a hospital bed because of patients who can't be discharged?

I’d be in favour of some sort of insurance product to be purchased on retirement.

When you say "we", presumably you just mean workers who currently pay NIC?

How about WE spread the burden out broader and more fairly to everyone, i.e. an increase in income tax.

Just including that as some sort of disclaimer really doesn't alter the meaning of your thread title. You're suggesting that this is something the government is actively considering.

They may well be, who knows? But writing it like you have done looks like scaremongering.

If it funded quality provision and care, no issue. However, private providers charge a fortune and some of the provision is verging on the dangerous and bloody awful, if recent experiences are anything to go by. Care has to be taken away from 'for profit' provision, as we will just be funding shareholder dividends elsewhere or ineffective management and not certainly not care or salaries for those in the sector!

Would that be cheaper for you?

The problem is that it's the same people paying and they've nothing more to give. If they start to tax anymore I think there will be even bigger consequences.

this is where I’m very glad we have Labour in power- so far they’ve recognised you can’t go after income- income is barely enough to live on for most people. The western world needs to move towards an asset based tax system, but few governments dare. Social care is a huge mess, forget the money, I’ve yet to hear an actual solution that’s fair.

No mention of an increase in NI in this version of the 'story' - just frustration (entirely justified) re the time that it's taking.

I don't understand this idea of "protecting the family home". Why should working people, many of whom don't and never will be able to own their own home, pay increased taxes so that others can ring fence their assets?

Dilnot was reporting to MPs at the health and social care committee. This is how government works - experts consulted and then policy made.

Nope. I am not post retirement.

No mention of NI here either (in case you don't like The Guardian!)

Exactly.

We can pay for this through general societal resources, or through people using their own personal resources first. If your view is Option A, ok, but NI is a bad way of doing that.

I'm a little amused at your offence of my use of "we".

I'd be fine with either system. I just said it needs paying for somehow.

Right, but how much do you think that insurance product would cost, and what about the (many) people who can’t afford to pay it? Just leave them in the street?

Also, why should these people have to then self fund? At that point why not just scrap it all, let everyone pay for private healthcare and get rid of the NHS?

Dilnot was reporting to MPs at the health and social care committee. This is how government works - experts consulted and then policy made.

I'm well aware of that, thank you!

It still doesn't make your thread title any more accurate!

I agree but politicians know that a large proportion of the voting public will go bananas at the suggestion that they fund their own care. So they go after working young people instead, as always.