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

Many aren't going though. The social care costs are huge and increasing all the time !

I agree some spend their money, holidays, travel and don't intend to leave inheritance but do they keep enough for care costs for their ongoing needs? Or spend and expect others ie taxpayers to pay.

Every service in this country is woefully underfunded. If we want a system that provides its citizens everything that they need then it is up to us to pay for it.

So yes, I would be more than happy with any increase, so long as it is costed effectively. I also think that there should be an additional tax entirely for societal issues, such as helping provide safe drinking water in countries that need it and housing refugees into secure accommodation.

ABSO BLOODY LUTELY!!!! I wish we could say where our taxes go, it certainly would not be to the lazy and feckless

I agree. There are many people who could work but don't, it can be a lifestyle choice for some. Severe disability and illness excepted.

I could name quite a few parents at local school who could work even part time but don't. The can walk, go out socialising to the pub, shop and spend but don't contribute anything just wait for their 'pay' and spend.

Some on benefits are very poor, others aren't especially if they get their numerous I'll behaved with no boundaries children labelled adhd

Most people who want everyone else to pay more tax hardly pay any or pay none. When you pay higher rates of tax and live in an expensive area, you might think differently. Many many people are struggling to pay bills and live without financial worry, eg childcare costs and mortgages going up. Few have spare money to pay even more tax. We have millions with poor pension provision too. This is why we have a ticking time bomb with fewer people working, fewer babies being born and more people getting old.

If they own a house it doesn’t matter how much they spend, they’ll still have to pay for their care.

I don’t think this is true,@TizerorFizz

My family has been hit with swinging IHT more than once. It seems fair to me and I don’t complain. But I don’t think it should be such a cliff edge, especially with the social care problems we face.

I share your concerns about the ability of many to pay their bills. A lower threshold, low banded IHT is one tax that doesn’t affect this.

Also there is no reason comfortable pensioners should not continue with NI payments. With DH now emeritus I also have skin in this game also.

In Scotland income tax is higher than the rest of the UK and I wouldn’t mind paying more to actually see improvements but we aren’t seeing any. My village GP can’t cope with demand and we were promised a new surgery 8 years ago…there is now a moratorium on NHS Scotland building anything new.

My other sat in hospital for 2 months till they could arrange a care package for her discharge, it was hard on her and us and very distressing. The hospital was bursting with patients and had extra beds pushed into each ward, they had to put up a screen as these beds had no curtains.

Raising income tax hasn’t worked and has just pissed a lot of people off.

@poetryandwine I was meaning taxes paid by the employed population. The ones with higher living costs. IHT is different and not that many pay it. I’m pretty sure we will but I intend to minimise what we pay. My DDs are more deserving than the government I’m afraid. Most people feel like this who have DC. I had an aunt whose estate paid IHT and she was unmarried and didn’t give 1p away before death. I’m not making that mistake but I will keep some back for care home fees!

It’s fair to legally minimise one’s IHT burden,@TizerorFizz . Well, I think the law should be tightened. It is wrong that some gazillionaires pay almost nothing.

That is separate from the question of who pays. A very low rate of IHT at £100K or thereabouts makes sense, emphasising that we are all in this together.

What’s your view of NI payments for comfortable pensioners?

What’s your view of NI payments for comfortable pensioners?

My view (on the verge of being a 'comfortable pensioner' ) is that NI - a tax on being employed and on employing people - is a baffling concept nowadays. Why not scrap it and increase general taxation such that people in employment are paying the same overall rates as now and pensioners and those with other 'unearned income' are taxed at this same rates?

Simplifying tax would be good, I'm cynically inclined to think there are too many people making an unproductive living off its complexities (both state and privately employed) for it to ever be cleaned up.

@poetryandwine I believe NI should be levied on all who work regardless of age. I would look at a reduced rate of NI (but I would not call it that!) for better off pensioners.

However we also have to recognise that often these people are unpaid carers and financial supporters of grandchildren and might still have aging parents for whom they help with costs because they have spare money.

Plus we have retired friends who will need expensive care. They might feel they need their money. They have generous pensions but no access to draw down pension capital as it’s the local government scheme. However they own property and have been left money under the IHT threshold. In general though, the older better off should pay more but lots are property rich and cash poor and will never pay IHT either. The very rich are a minority and maybe give in other ways? Charity etc. However what do we do? Taxing more just means they give away more. Or use trusts. How do we identify these people? Many of whom will have been employers and entrepreneurs. If taxes are too punitive, people do find ways not to pay.

Interesting….. I don’t much care what it’s called. It just feels wrong to be left out sheerly on the grounds of age.

Not everyone requiring care gets as far as retirement. Some don't get as far as work.

And if you involve the insurance industry you run the risk of misselling.

An insurance scheme certainly isn't a universal solution, but some sort of insurance product might be useful to reduce the 'but I don't know how much I'll need' phenomenon, and the random unfairness of some older people needing vastly more care than others. As with all forms of insurance I'd be happy to pay and never use it.

You could also ask why things like dementia and Parkinson's should be treated differently from cancer or heart disease.

Many of us are quite happy to fund our own social care. Fuck leaving an inheritance and making people pay who are poorer than we or our kids will ever be. We saved for a rainy day and will put the umbrella when it becomes necessary.

Many don’t want to pay though…

If they own a house it doesn’t matter how much they spend, they’ll still have to pay for their care.

I thought houses were excluded from care in the home contributions?

Simplifying tax would be good, I'm cynically inclined to think there are too many people making an unproductive living off its complexities (both state and privately employed) for it to ever be cleaned up.

Agree

I think people wouldn’t be so angry about IHT if younger people didn’t need help to get on the ladder. High house prices and stagnant wages means many need help to have secure housing.

Sure, a minority of the very rich give in other ways. But the cherry picking is a form of control. That’s fine if and only if you are also paying your share of IHT which goes towards the priorities of our elected government, whichever party it may be.

A very low rate of IHT at a lower threshold wouldn’t raise a huge amount of money. (It needs to be kept low enough not to disrupt dreams of home ownership for DC, etc.). But the principle is sound. Unless we find a better way to fund social care.

I have unbounded admiration for unpaid carers, but I am not sure what their situation has to do with paying taxes? I don’t know anything about the Carer’s Allowance. Is it means tested? I would favour financial recognition for all carers. It is a devastating job.

My understanding is that if a partner or dependent lives in the house it will be discounted. I don’t know if they can come after the house proceeds if partner/dependent dies or themselves require care.

IHT is payable on the death of the last person. So IHT still payable if it’s due. Carers allowance doesn’t replace a decent income. Lots of people do stay in their homes though because they are comfortable there and London prices mean loads could pay IHT. Fairly ordinary homes and definitely ordinary people. I think IHT can stifle an economy. Not growing a business or bothering to employ anyone. However some people will find ways around a lot of taxes. My DHs method is to reduce IHT by buying cars! Spending money! Anyone just above a tax threshold won’t want to be there! I guarantee it.

I think the other issue is lack of trust in the state. Does anyone think they spend taxes wisely? Or get value for money? Or ensure everyone pulls their weight? We have millions of people who don’t. They could do more but prefer benefits. I have family members who do exactly this. Benefits come with no effort. A little job a few hours a week (16 or less) means they keep benefits. Others who work hard and pay taxes do resent this. It’s a fairly widespread view. I have always supported those in need being supported by the state, but deliberately not working and taking benefits is not what I support.

The other huge argument for being careful about IHT is helping the next generation who need much bigger salaries and much bigger deposits than ever before. Older people can help level the playing field by generosity to the living. What the state gets afterwards and after care costs is a bonus!

Older people can help level the playing field by generosity to the living.

It doesn’t level the playing field, it promotes inequality. Rich older people enrich their descendants while young people from poor families get nothing. Inheritance is one of the biggest causes of financial inequality which is why I don’t care of my estate incurs IHT. After all I’ll be dead.

I think IHT can stifle an economy.

Housing costs have already fucked our economy.

Rich older people enrich their descendants while young people from poor families get nothing

Yes, it’s become about what your parents have & what they can give you rather than what job you can get. Not great for productivity.