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

Yes. It all goes in the same pot anyway.

A lot of countries have a wealth tax. That sounds reasonably fair.

But yes this is still a tax on working people as hard hit employers are not giving pay rises to employees.

A lot used to have them but most have been repealed. Their track record is rather dubious. I think there are only three countries left in Europe with one.

Denis Healey's memoir has a good account of Labour's last ultimately unsuccessful attempt to design and implement one in the UK and the difficulties involved.

Or not hiring new staff or making current ones redundant.

Never mind that we don't have enough money to pay workers in social care, we don't have enough people willing to do the work in the first place!

Where does it end though?..the population is increasing year on year,it would be pointless working soon enough!

That's a really valid point - the people who are actually providing all this care are paid a pittance. And in the case of unpaid relatives doing caring, a tiny allowance that in no way makes up for the salaries and pension contributions they might otherwise be making. Both sets of people (and let's face it, they're mostly women) will end up impoverished.

I honestly think some form of inheritance tax is the only sensible way to go. We've been through this situation twice now, all of my gran's assets including the house went on care home fees - fair enough, my mum wasn't well enough to look after her safely and I was deep in the baby and toddler stage at that point, so care had to be paid for to keep her safe and well looked after. My father in law died last year and although he was paying for his own care, he only lived a few weeks after moving in to the care home so his assets were intact.

Both of them had great care, but surely it would be fairer to everyone (including those expecting to inherit) if that cost was shared across the population rather than being the luck of the draw? In the case of people with disabled dependants, as a PP mentioned up thread, there would have to be some kind of trust available to them to protect money needed for their care, but even there, if social care was able to be properly funded and staffed, the costs to the individual should be less anyway.

I agree that the people who are hoarding all the money should give up some of it for the good of the society that has enabled them to be so wealthy!
But the more money they have the greater is their ability to protect preserve and hide their money.
Governments end up taking money from the poor because they are easier targets.

Social care is funded by council tax, so increasing NI, income tax, or any other tax suggested would not go directly to fund social care anyway. What is needed is either an increase in council tax (or reduction in other council services) or social care to be brought into national government, the same as the NHS or as part of the NHS.

Well yes, and no. The government can introduce whatever laws it wants to prevent anyone from hiding anything from them.
America for example, famously taxes every American citizen wherever they live in the world. The only escape is to renounce US citizenship.
It’s all a matter of willpower.
On the yes side, people will always concoct elaborate ways to hide wealth. These can be closed down over time, like HMRC do for various tax avoidance schemes.

Some people don't have a family home to sell, and currently if they do have assets and are self funding they're paying extra to subsidise those who are paid for by the state as councils negotiate rates that are as low as possible - which is both understandable and unfair.

I work in adult social care, and I don’t believe working people should be taxed more, that is unfair.

We have a system in place- anyone over 23k is self-funding and anyone under contributes towards their care with the local authority.

The Tory proposed dreaded care cap was trying to stop wealthy people from paying for their own care. We simply, as a country cannot afford to pay for everyone care. ASC funding, amounts to a third of my local council budget (children’s is also similar).

If people want to protect their inheritance, they will have to step up and be carers so their parents can remain living at home longer! Of course, that’s not possible for everyone (someone who requires 2x carers/clinical needs)

Also, self funders often get placed in the same Care Homes as LA clients. People should be spending thier money when they can, downsize at retirement and enjoy yourself!

Roughly half of the social care budget is spent on disabled adults of working age. Pensioners are not solely responsible for causing
the funding shortfall.
Insurance for care home fees is no longer available because it wasn't profitable .
I have no problem with selling my home and using my savings to fund my own care if it becomes necessary.
However many people are not in a position to fund their own care, even home owners, especially if they have a partner who needs to continue living in the family home and needs an income to support themselves. Many older. women have not got enough pension income in their own right because they paid the married womens' NI and also did not go back to full time work after having children. These women are dependant on their husbands so if the husband goes into care, they need to claim half of his pension, which is then not available to pay for care.
I would be happy with paying more inheritance tax, but we need to bear in mind that it is an entirely voluntary tax, wealthy people are able to avoid it by taking tax advice.

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if it's already been suggest but....

The obvious way to raise funds for elderly social care would be to tax pensioners the same as working people. By tax I include income tax and NI. Pensioners don't pay NI so effectively pay less tax on their income.

After the personal allowance working people see a starting rate of 28% taken in deductions whilst a pensioner only pays 20%.

People should be spending thier money when they can, downsize at retirement and enjoy yourself! So if everyone follows. Your advice, who pays for social care?

’but surely it would be fairer to everyone (including those expecting to inherit) if that cost was shared across the population rather than being the luck of the draw?*. This.

How would this be substantially different to national insurance?

@Toodaloo1567 "Would I pay £35k out of my retirement lump sum for an insurance product to avoid the prospect of having to sell my home for care? Hell yes."

Who would you pay the £35k to? No commercial insurance company would offer such a product.

Who would provide the healthcare or retirement care that you think you've purchased for your £35k? No provider would entertain such an idea.

The only possible provider would be "the provider of last resort" - i.e. the government-funded healthcare service.

Your proposal might have some merit if everyone with a certain level of assets paid £35k into the national taxation kitty - the million richest people doing so would provide £35,000,000,000 which would go some way to paying for the nation's requirements. But this is at odds with your distaste of paying an extra penny in the pound NI. And the people who would be required to pay the £35k are probably the same people who are screaming about how unfair inheritence tax is, how they are "net contributors" rather than "scroungers" and how they would hide their money offshore, put it in Trusts and otherwise use any means possible to avoid paying this tax and letting Starmer or Reeves get their hands on it - voting instead for the likes of Hunt, Sunak, Johnson and Cameron who deliberately underinvested in vital public services so that their chums and donors could pay less tax.

@Toodaloo1567

Sadly because over 14 odd years we have taken the route of never increasing tax we now have a situation where we need to raise a lot of tax. I cannot see why we cannot increase the basic personal allowance to £20000 thus taking those on low income out of tax altogether and increasing the tax rate to say 24%

This.

I am well into my pension years and I really believe that pensioners who earn above a certain amount should pay NI. We are the biggest users after all. We have enjoyed years of free health care, eye tests, dental care and prescriptions.

Many of my peers take several holidays a year as well as the perks of being born a boomer. Those who say “we have paid enough in over the years” have we really?”

86% of my council tax funds social care (over 50% on children's services). Everyone wants "the council" to provide better services. No one wants to pay for them.

There has just been £70bn borrowing and tax in the last budget

That’s it apparently

@safetyfreak makes some very good points.
We seem to have reached a point where pretty much the same group are paying tax, paying for private healthcare and then having to pay for their care. There simply isn't the capacity for people to pay evermore tax. Too many deciding they don't want to work or work part time and getting everything funded.

All social responsibility has gone, everyone is looking for someone else to pay. The government wants to keep everyone alive even if they don't know who they are, where they are or who anyone else is. I don't want to pay for this, I'd rather die. I would like to see this challenged - expecting people to pay thousands to be kept alive whilst care home owners live it up it a scandal.

But it isn't a family home - mostly the family have grown up and moved out to their own family homes. It is granny's home which she no longer needs once in a care home and will not return to the house. It is the family who want to keep their inheritance.
I also think that if granny is looked after at home by council funded care then there should be a charge placed on the property to refund the council