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.

There has been a lot of stuff in the Press about a one-off tax to pay for the economic effects of the costs of Covid-19. Some think tank has been asked to produce ideas and one, which has been high-profile- has been the idea of a 10% wealth tax, one-off payment. So 10% of the value of our homes and savings and any high-value belongings like jewellery, paintings, stocks and shares, investments etc.

Add that to this idea of a further tax on the over 40s for adult social care and Johnson's promise that he would not increase taxes to pay for any of this seems laughable.We are talking x thousands per family.

Perhaps we should write a nice letter to Jeff Bezos asking for help? He apparently now earns so much, it's impossible to spend it all. A one off donation in recognition of the reduced tax paid by his company would be a lovely gesture.

Fuck that !!

I'm about to turn 40 and only just got to a place where I have good disposable income and a life of my own to enjoy.

I've spent the last 20/22 years paying for my house and raising DS (still raising DS who is 12 and at some pint may need my help with uni fees) - I'm not now giving up my spare cash to the taxman!!

Social care is a huge cost. At moment elderly people with s house or savings not just.has to.fumd their own care but also are made to.subsidise spaces for other elderly people who can't find themselves.

At one time I think Cameron as suggested every adult pay an insurance deducted from salary and about £8-10k over working lifetime, so only very small amount extra per month. If all working adults paid only some would need social care. It sounds fairer than current system.

An alternative argument - home owners, including a lot of over 40s, already have assets to cover the cost of their care. So should the increased tax only be applied for people without assets?

It could also be argued that LA not paying their bills on time is driving down the standards (and increasing prices) for all care homes, so why not just let the poor fend for themselves and reserve good quality care to those who can afford it?

Or maybe lets tax the companies like Amazon, HSBC or Google who use legal loopholes to avoid paying tax outside a single country.

@JamieLeeCurtains - all those companies you mention are already taxed. Same as Elon Musks (and any “foreign powers”) “British interests”. revenue generated in the Uk is taxed in the uk.

Maybe you should google before you post?

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@JamieLeeCurtains - all those companies you mention are already taxed. Same as Elon Musks (and any “foreign powers”) “British interests”. revenue generated in the Uk is taxed in the uk.

Maybe you should google before you post?[/quote]
Ok, how about 'taxed appropriately according to their billions'?

You didn't really believe that that I thought they weren't taxed at all ... oh never mind

Arguably younger people are less likely to have children or elderly parents to care for, so why not burden them with the extra tax? I don't agree with that as it's as ridiculous as suggesting over 40s pay more.

Maybe people with children should pay less tax as they are providing the future workforce, or maybe they should pay more as their children are a higher burden unless they become high tax payers eventually.

A flat tax rate for all is fair, and I agree with others that the focus should be on large companies paying fair tax.

Interesting range of responses. Ok, not a popular one then...

• I agree with everything people say about big companies, tax dodgers etc. But I suspect it will take more than that. Plus this government may never go after the super wealthy as that is not their style - they are very much in the pockets of big business.

• People on very ;low incomes wouldn't pay, because they would be under the threshold for tax.

• I thought it was good that they were giving the younger half of the population a break. But I can see why 40 year olds would be resentful as it kicked in.

"I don't intend to live that long" - hmm, I wonder if you will feel like that when it comes to it. I have an elderly relative who has said for twenty years she doesn't care if she goes in her sleep - but her day to day behaviour is still very much focused on staying alive and healthy, Most of us do try and stay alive as long as possible when it comes to it.

"Why don't we encourage more people to smoke" There have been a few articles suggesting that smoking generates more income than the cost of treating the subsequent illness. However, the reality of smoking related deaths is often years of poor quality life and long drawn out illnesses. That's just not a sane solution.

I do think we will have to look at assisted dying for those with long term untreatable degenerative conditions. But this should not be for financial reasons as that would be the thin end of a very big wedge of dehumanizing the vulnerable. Do we really want to live in a society where we kill off the vulnerable rather than pay to look after them? However, I am making a will that states I don't want to be kept alive once my faculties have gone and hopefully that will become more usual.

I am surprised this is so very unpopular, it did seem like a practical and manageable solution to me. Maybe it would fly better on forums for younger and older people!

Your age doesn't define your economic status. Like I said upthread over 40s are increasingly private renting. Not as a choice but because they can't afford to own. Their financial situation is more precarious than it is for younger people, who will have more time to save and prepare, not to mention the limited mortgage options for over 40s. Under 40s also have the benefit of taxpayer support in saving for a home. The government discriminated against over 40s by locking them out of the help to buy ISAs. They could and should've made them available to all would be first time buyers.

Your idea might be reasonable if it was a tax based on income rather than age. Why should a struggling 40 something living in a shabby rented flat in a deprived area (with a lower life expectancy because of poverty) pay this proposed tax, and not an affluent 20 something living in a house bought with help from the bank of mum and dad? People of all ages are in very different circumstances.

Do we really want to live in a society where we kill off the vulnerable
I don't, no, but unfortunately we do - and lots of people seem perfectly content with it. I'd rather we all paid higher taxes (based on ability to pay, so income and wealth). However, assisted suicide as a way out of intolerable life circumstances is a preferable option to the current system that lets people die slowly and painfully from poverty. If being condemned by the UN didn't stop this, I don't know what will. I hope things do change because I agree with you that we should look after our vulnerable.

I advise anyone who doesn't want to be kept alive in certain circumstances to make an Advanced Directive. You can download one online from the Compassion in Dying website. A Will is only read once you're certified dead. If you want to make your wishes clear on things like DNR, etc, you need an AD. You can give a copy to your GP to keep on your medical record.

@TitianaTitsling

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!

That's unfair. They have to be in need of support for every day living. The £80 is only if they need support during the night. Pension credit only brings them upto full state pension levels if significantly below.

Why attack others in society, rather than sorting out the issues which are blatantly the government!

I support the principle, but think it should be a lower amount throughout your working life, and not just slapped on during your 40s.

In London the average FTB is 31. At 40 my cohort still all have very young kids and are paying for extremely expensive childcare with huge mortgages. Many friends who freelance don't have any pensions at all, others (like us) have small and poorly-performing stock market linked pensions. We are all still paying off student loans. Something has to give!

Knowing the government, despite promising it would be spent on future care, it would end up going on care for today’s pensioners. Nothing left for those of us in 30 years time.

Knowing the government it would more likely go on todays youth than pensioners, who're dying being killed off in care homes. The middle-aged will lose out twice. Additional financial burden that many can't afford AND no pension or care when they're older.

I'm trying to pay into my pension having brought up my kids, I'm also not able to work full time due to aged parents - I can't afford to pay more tax! I was meant to retire at 60 but now it's 66.

Social Care is and going to be more of a major problem, the current system is not working but I don’t think now is the right time to be making major decisions about it.
I think the only way forward needs to be fair to everyone. As awful as it sounds the government will have saved a fortune in pensions as a result of the COVID so this could be a good starting point. I also think that social care needs to be streamlined and funded in a similar way as the nhs.
I know it will mean an increase in NI contributions but we need to pay for it eventually anyway.

Fuck that! I already pay higher rate tax, have a mortgage, children, support my FIL and pay into a pension. If my husband or I need care our assets would be used.

I'd happily contribute to an insurance scheme, but I'm not paying for something else which is pretty much guaranteed I won't benefit from.

This really pisses me off. I'm late 40s and my generation missed out on the privileged pensions, pretty much guaranteed in most jobs, that the baby boomers got. NEST only kicked in a few years ago so that's going to be a pittance for us, but at least the next generation after us will have the NEST pensions, albeit they're a bit crap compared to the baby boomers pensions, but still they'll be better than the zilch we got. Unless we could afford to pay into personal pensions ourselves or worked in the public sector, we're the generation that pensions forgot. So we have pensions to fund, and now this care thing - presumably which will start going to the baby boomers while us 40-odd year olds work ourselves into our late 60s or 70s. If we survive the pandemics of course.

AlsDiner@ gosh you really don’t know much about baby boomers do you, particularly women.

I don't personally have an issue with social care funded this way but I don't like single issue bolt ons done like this.

Our tax system is rather a mess, imo we don't pay in enough and don't get out enough. We certainly don't tax large corporations enough, the tax take from e.g. big tech is derisory.

Should be more progressive tax system full stop, with this built in.

I am not thrilled at taking employers bit out of pensions either - that just seems to be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I'm sorry to be partisan, but if this is a Conservative plan, it really won't be intended to benefit what gets referred to as 'average people'.

I think this country seriously needs a properly thought through review of how the taxation system works. It started with New Labour and Gordon Brown being the slight of hand with black door taxes and now the system is farcical.

So someone who in their 40s might earn enough to just put them in the 40% tax band, ie £50000 sounds a lot. But not really as some hit it from doing overtime to support family etc. So someone with two kids will be taxed at 40% on income. Another 20% child benefit high income charge and 9% student loan repayment. A grand total of 69%. How much more can the state seriously tax people? It is bad enough now in that I see it where I work with people on universal credit who work. Do a good job, get promoted and then boom...they realise it will reduce their UC and the next thing is they apply to reduce their hours. Cause and effect.

A few months ago MN ran a campaign about the child benefit high income charge. Adding yet more taxes which will undoubtedly kick in at an income level will just act as a disincentive which we have also seen with the HICB charge

We need a National Care Service, funded like the NHS. Sadly no Tory government would ever consider such an idea, and the Labour party today wouldn't have the balls to put the idea forward, they still balk at the idea of re-nationalising the railways, despite all evidence pointing to it being a more cost-effective service than the one provided by Branson, the French and German governments.

Just realised I didn't make it clear in the OP - this is a government suggestion, not my idea. Something similar seems to work well in Germany and Australia.

I actually agree with the poster who said we don't pay enough tax generally. I'd vote for the Scandinavian model of higher taxes and effective welfare state against the American low tax /low state model any day. But I know most people don't agree with that and it's not on offer in the current political climate anyway.

I’d rather sell my house later than pay tax now, as I have no children go pass my wealth onto.