See I prefer if it came from income tax tbh.
All this insurance scheme does, is say that those on lower incomes have to pay more effectively than higher earners, or not have cover in the future at all.
It only fuels the two tier social service system problem we already have.
My grandmother's care isn't covered by the state. There isn't enough funding for her, so she tops it up. If she couldn't afford to do that I don't know what would happen. She needs so many hours of carers a day, and without paying she wouldn't get it. She's 94.
In the UK, many people hitting 35 - 40 have limited pension plans as it is, in no small part due to the cost of housing. And are unlikely to get a state pension as things go.
They are having children later, so will be hitting the point of the social care insurance just as they have young children.
A voluntary tax at age 40 is nuts. I just don't know how many will afford it. They certainly won't sign up to it.
So how does this solve the issue?
The other issue remains that baby boomers are net receivers from the state system whilst their children are net contributers over the course of their life. And Boris isn't tackling that either.
This 'work hard all your life shit' pisses me off as it suggests that people in their 30s and early 40s are somehow lazy and havent done that.
We do need to look at the issue and funding the system better, but how we do it and where the money comes from is important.
I don't see Johnson’s proposal as a solution. It just drives a bigger wealth divide /generation divide rather than ensuring that everyone who needs care from the system in the future will get it even the basic level they need.
Sadly, this isn't Germany and our structural inequality makes this all the harder to address.