Suggestion that over 40s pay slightly higher tax to fund social care

[Bishybarnybee]

This seems to make sense - at least it gives younger people a few years of not having to pay for care while they are getting established. I know many 40 year olds will still be right in the middle of raising children and there's never going to be a good time to find extra tax - but paying for care over the second half of your life seems as good a solution as any.

Why are we coming after 40 year olds when there are so many tax dodging companies/millionaires?

I'd be furious if this happened. Not only is this age group likely to be raising their own kids, many are caring for their parents (both physically and financially) as well. And this age group was the first to start paying uni fees and accumulating student debt as well.

I second @JingleCatJingle - there are many tax injustices that should be remedied first.

Why 40yos, sort out the tax system first. I already pay higher rate.

Oh ffs. Early 40s and struggling here. Dont even have a pension like boomer dad and his mates have.

Well over 60s also are high users of the nhs, so we could tax them more, and parents use schools a lot so let’s tax them more for that...

Nope. That’s not how our society works.

Why over 40? Seems rather arbitrary.
I don’t know why it’s being considered separately, why not just increase NI contributions for everyone.

The Guardian suggests this is about allowing the wealthy to hold onto their assets rather than funding care bills.

I have just turned 40. I was the first year group to pay uni fees. My youngest DS is 4, my eldest is 15 and thinking about uni in a few years. I have two elderly parents that I care for, spend a lot of money on to ensure they have a good quality of life. I am not unique. Chase those that are dodging, not those who are scraping by as it is.

Impossible. An ageing population is scary, so not surprised that this suggestion is floated around, but it would be impossible to put into practice.

Do we charge 75+ more to use the NHS? 40 and under because their kids use schools? What about people who don't have children? Can they pay less tax as they don't have children taking up a school place and using the NHS? If you have 4 children versus 1, do you pay 4 times as much? Probably better to leave the system as it is.... it might come back to bite you!

I wouldn't mind paying more to fund social care if 1) current tax revenues were seen to be used wisely and 2) you could trust the Government to use this additional income to actually resolve the problem.

By this rationale, people with children should be taxed more for education costs, drivers should be taxed more for road repairs, pensions should be taxed for elderly care, people with health issues should be taxed more for using the NHS.

Oh, suddenly it doesn’t seem so “fair” after all 🙄

Great, I'm 40s, already pay higher rate tax and have children and parents to care for, plus my own care will eventually be paid for out of my own money. This would not benefit me in the slightest.

Absolutely not, particularly when the 'older' generation are having money winged at them non means tested like attendance allowance- nearly £80 a week, and that's on top of pension other benefits etc, that's more than JSA on its own and 4x that of child benefit!

I have no intention of living beyond the point that I can function independently and I don't want to pay. I will not end my days in a care home.

Or maybe all the people who are actively avoiding paying tax could actually pay what they owe 🤷‍♀️

But when I need care myself I won’t be entitled to it because I have assets which will be sold to pay for my care. So whose care am I paying this extra tax for then?

We really need to stop this constant focus on how taxes are raised and focus more on how they are spent. Any government can lower or hike taxes, that takes no skill or intelligence. What we need is government that can spend the taxes they take from us effectively, efficiently, appropriately and optimally. As long as we continue to waste energy debating tax collection we will fail to properly hold government to account over how they use our money.

I don't object to 1.5% more tax or NI if it means you are guaranteed adult social care as needed when you are older. I am a bit puzzled by the suggestion 1.5% of employer's pension contributions could also be added-does that mean that money would not go into pensions but into this?

Where does that leave:
People who are already retired? My PIL took early retirement and reduced employer pensions. What would it mean for them? They each pay tax on their pensions - would they be taxed more? Their employers no longer make contributions as the pension pot is closed- does that disadvantage PIL?
People who don't work? Me at the moment - SAHM. Would DH pay 3% to cover both of us?
Some people never work or only work part-time- what would it mean for them?
Is it a system where you have to contribute a certain number of years? Do you get back what you put in up to that limit or are we all contributing to a big pot on the basis that many will never use it so will pay for those who do?
Is it an additional 1.5% of your total salary? eg On a salary of £50,000, is it an additional £ 750.00 PA or an additional 1.5% once tax and NI have been deducted.

Over-40s is a bit odd, but the principle of paying via taxation over years is good, rather than having to sell your home

It also means everyone contributes to care, so avoids the anger that some people feel at having to pay for care,
when others without assets get the same care for free

I'm in Germany, where longterm care insurance was implemented by adding a small % to income tax as soon as an adult starts earning
I'm not sure why the scheme would start at 40 and it probably means paying a much more significant % from that age

The over 40s aren't all the same. Many are the opposite of financially secure. They're the first generation to face housing insecurity. There's been a steady increase in over 40s privately renting including houseshares, partly fueled by divorce relationship breakdowns. It's ridiculous to go by age for any increase in tax. It should be done on income alone.

I was half joking on another thread about smoking. I suggested we stop encouraging smokers to quit. I'm an ex-smoker. Don't miss it but I sometimes regret quitting. Living longer at all costs has many downsides. Some very expensive ones. I don't relish the prospect of being neglected in a poorly funded care home.

If a large percentage of the population smoked, we'd solve the care home problem, the pension black hole, and get lots of tax including for social care and the NHS. We might also have a less stressed population.

I expect the current system would continue for current pensioners
and also working people above a certain age, as they won't have time to make enough contributions before retirement

Some 40 year olds, those in deprived areas, living in poverty won't live long enough to need care homes. Why should they have an additional tax burden to pay when they already struggle to survive?

We should tax on income and wealth (capital gains, etc). Not age.

"Impossible" ??

Both Germany and Japan have had a similar system for many years - funding longterm care via an extra tax on income specifically for this

So it is obviously possible in the Uk too

How about taxing:

Google

Amazon

Facebook

Ebay

Twitter

Elon Musk's British interests

All foreign powers' British interests

Etc.

And only then go after 40 year olds who are still paying off student loans, paying mortgages, raising children, caring for parents, working on shit wages, and paying ridiculously high amounts of money to travel to work...

...And who are frequently fatigued women trying to chase child maintenance and/or domestic assistance from men.

A lot of those over 40’s are like me providing care to elderly relatives and have less income because of that fact. I’d rather everyone pay rather than penalise the carers. Also fgs a conversation about euthanasia. I have no desire to live out my last years in a care home, demented, angry, incontenant, in pain and with no means of articulating or understanding my own distress but it’s increasingly looking like the most common way to die.

@TitianaTitsling Why are you singling out Attendance Allowance? There are many other allowances and benefits aimed at all age groups which are claimed by millions. People have a false impression about older people.

My mum was entitled to Attendance Allowance in the last two years of her life. The money was used to pay for carers to visit 4x a day so she could remain at home and to pay for a home help once a week. She had £10,000 in savings and lived in a council flat. She was certainly not rolling in money and apart from her OAP and winter fuel allowance had no other benefits. Many old people are not wealthy. Many who are comfortably off have paid into employment pensions for 40 years as well as NI contributions.

It is a myth outside of London that many people made a fortune from houses. My PIL owned a house in Bradford that cost them £200,000 and the interest they paid across the lifetime of the mortgage was about £130,000. So £330,000. In addition they twice put in a new kitchen, had wall-ties done, re-wired, damp-proofing, a new roof, an extension, central heating, attic re-fit, two new bathroom re-fits, a patio, the drive cobbled, the garage roof re-placed twice, plus all the repairs and maintenance that needed doing. They spent over £100,000 on it. It sold for £450,000, so they made about 20,000 profit over 25 years. Hardly a fortune. They have never claimed benefits in their lives, refusing even family allowance when DH and SIL were children. They look after DH's grandma (in her 90s) who lives with them and needs help and don't claim attendance allowance for that. They are comfortably off because they both worked full-time for almost 40 years paid into employment pensions all their working lives , paid NI all their working lives, paid off a mortgage and maintained that house properly.

I don't know why old people get such mean comments.