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

Oh would you? So how would poorer people deal with that? Disabled people? People whose careers and finances were decimated by lying cheating exes (that may be personal!).

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Ebenezer Scrooge.

Social Care is NOT just about older people. However the additional pressure has been put on social care by the fact we are living longer. But we are not necessarily living longer healthily.

I would back a raise if it meant we can fund social care properly, and I would back finding a way to ensure people remain as healthy as possible ie incentives etc.

How are the concepts underlying the actuarial calculations different then?

The only confounding factor I can see is if the mainly responsible, who are also likely to be more healthy for longer, were more likely to purchase the insurance.

I wasn’t asking a question that applied to others in the social care system, such as children living in foster care.

Poorer people currently do not pay for their own care and there’s nothing in my proposal to suggest they would contribute.

Feel like I’m banging my head against a wall here.

I’m waiting for someone to say ‘your silence on the treatment of elderly pets is telling’

You could do with another look at statistics to realise what is actually affordable for those who are retired.

By your calculations, everybody would need to pay £35k for this insurance you dream of.

The average annual income of a retired adult in the UK is £13,884. So suddenly that £35k is actually 3 full years of income, not particularly realistic?

And to add, LOTS of adults now actually have to use a chunk of their lump sum to pay off their mortgage, so those people don’t have the £35k to pay for cover to protect said house.

Of course there’s a difference between needing help with washing/dressing/‘toileting’ as they like to call it, plus general supervision and someone on hand 24/7 - and actual medical care, involving doctors, nurses, hospital treatment.

There’s a reason why nursing homes (where a nurse must be on duty) are usually more expensive than ordinary residential homes, though TBH people often call any care home a ‘nursing’ home.

I think there should be a 3% (or around about) tax on all estates of all values for anyone who dies over retirement age and social care should be free. We would be taxing the dead who don't need the money (just greedy children want it all) and relieving the worry of how to pay. Obviously if you want 5* luxury people can pay for that themselves, but good standard care could be free. Everyone pays a small amount after they are dead (can be deferred until partner dies is needed) whether they needed care or not instead of some people paying every penny they have and others paying nothing. This pays for care without further burdening the already massively stretched working population.

Maybe at least out it on income tax so that everyone pays not just those below pension age. Could also pop a bit of the rise on capital gains tax too -spread the burden to all.

I would not agree with an NI increase. Effectively this protects the inheritance of middle class families (like mine) and asks young people who cannot afford housing or proper pensions to pay for it. A better approach is to tax inheritance more. Though this is unpopular.

I thought Reeves ruled out more tax rises after last hike and this would be a tax on ‘working people’

Is this likely?

3%? That won't fund much at all will it

So OP which none working people would you hit for the dosh ?

Elderly already have to pay if they have assets for care but most don't have enough

Childen don't have much assets and nor do those who can't work like the disabled , or those who can't work

Personally I would hit inheritance - because it's not something the beneficiary has worked for , and it's driving/supporting insane house prices for the first time buyer

Ok 10%
Whatever works out.
Inheritance tax would sit on top as it is now.

You’re right in part. Thank you for the challenge there - paying off a mortgage typically not a thing these days but will be in the future due to the housing crisis. I would say, Not everybody, but most people perhaps?

The 35k cost could be split into monthly premiums that start when you retire and finish after 10 years? A choice to not take out the insurance is a choice to gamble on whether you need to sell your home or not.

I’m trying to think about protecting families with young children here, where costs and taxes are already high.

The other option (apart from extra taxes on working people which would lead to recession) is the situation in some US states where children are responsible for paying their parents’ care. However, I think this proposal might be worse than the current system!

I agree. I’ve told my children (young Adults) that the house is will be sold if we need care. It’s my biggest asset and my home will be the care home, so I don’t need two homes.

But the issue with hitting inheritance tax really is that actually all of that wealth has already been subject to tax.

No it hasn't.

So? Dead people can afford to pay more tax.

Magic beans is my preference.

Seriously. It's unaffordable for the tax payer.

For most people today that inheritance is on the back of house price rises - so it has never been taxed

Isn't income tax plus vat double taxing anyway ?

You do know a substantial amount of social care spending goes on working age disabled adults, and a smaller percentage on children.

If adults have never been able to work, then they have never been able to afford a house, they could sell for their care. Even so, with a life expectancy of maybe 50 more years of adulthood, what kind of house would they need to have, to pay for 50 years of care home fees?

Parents can’t sell their houses to pay for disabled children’s care, and statistically they are more likely to be living in poverty, than the average family.

The other part of social care spending is child protection. If children get taken into care, who pays for that - it’s not likely their parents could afford it?

Social care for the elderly is either paid for, by unpaid familial care (mainly women) or the state. It’s all very well saying working age adults can’t pay any more tax, but who can afford to be an unpaid carer? It’s like insurance - the risk is spread among everyone.

Has it? Savings and investments from income maybe. But my mums house has increased from 75k to 500k since she bought it. When exactly has she been taxed on that 425k increase?

Your logic?

Anything that has been accumulated has been bought, with income that has already been taxed.

Yeah but what about increases in value? Your logic only works if people save up all their income and buy a property with no mortgage and the value of that property stays the same.

Is it OK for those who are not mums to consider your question?

This is a good idea. Hadn’t thought of it!

I think it would need to be about 10% of the estate but even so, a far better proposal than my insurance product. In effect, this would be like a deferred insurance.

The sticking point would be the media. They’d call it a ‘death tax’.

Dang it.

Back to square one?