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.

@ZombieFan

No surprise that on MN no one wants to pay more tax for better social care. Tax is only good if its other peoples money being hit, am I right

40 yo seems a good age to start it. Personally I think making people sell their house is a better idea. Legalising assisted dying might also help.

Closing tax loopholes, catching tax dodgers, increasing the digital taxes etc can all be done as well, its not an either/or.

I'd rather sell my home to pay for care, should I need it. I'm happy to fund my own private care, so I definitely don't want to pay a tax for social care.

I dont much fancy paying more tax - who would. But its not as easy as saying ' i wont need care, i intend to die' as you cant really plan in your stroke, or infection or the fall that changes thing. i'd rather the country tackled the issue. How does actual insurance work. If we had compulsory insurancd that evrn benefits covered would the premiums be low as for most people ot didnt pay out or would they be really high and the insurance company gets rich.

Not sure how this would work, given the current climate. The Government are giving incentives for employers to take on younger workers so those over 40 would be more likely to be passed over when it comes to finding a new job so where would the extra tax come from? Is it right that an over forty, on minimum wage should be taxed more than a 20 something on the same wage? If that 40+ person is a lone parent then surely they would have to claim more "in work benefits" as a result than the younger worker which doesn't make a lot of sense really.

the financially best option is to incentivise and cultivate a society where families look after their own elderly relatives
This approach will incentivise the use of care homes though, because people think “well I’ve paid for it so I’m going to use it”. In contrast to the current system where relatives are incentivised to care for the elderly so they don’t lose the house.

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
This is exactly the problem. I’ve spent 20 years paying tax to fund other people’s pensions, but I won’t get a pension myself. This will be the same sort of scam.

Not until there is an opt out with a euthanasia choice thank you. Am both broke and have no wish to ever be in a care home.

Employers are already cutting employer pension contributions for older workers so yes, generation X really is the forgotten generation, and if I hear someone say “OK boomer” one more time I will thump them! I was lucky enough to grow up with enough food to eat and warm clothes, but I certainly didn’t have the luxurious childhood that many do these days (I appreciate that not everyone does and many people struggle to put decent meals in their children even now). For example, we didn’t have a telephone, television or central heating and certainly no foreign holidays (not really many UK holidays either, just two I can remember or staying with grandparents).

I'd vote for the Scandinavian model of higher taxes and effective welfare state against the American low tax /low state model any day.

Absolutely. As an American, I've always felt the Scandinavian model was a far better one. It will NEVER happen in the UK. Ever. But the UK is definitely steamrolling towards an all-American model. We're kind of already there. But low tax and deregulation is our next port of call. I grew up with that. Now I'll grow old living with an economic model I ran away from in my youth.

Mixed feelings about this. It may be the least bad option. And I see the logic to an age-related tax. I would resent deductions from employer's pension contributions MASSIVELY, however. I make big contributions to make up for the fact that in my first, poorly paid, job there was no contribution until you'd been with the company three years. Then they put in 2%. I missed out on both the compulsory contributions that help low-paid workers now and the generous final salary pensions that I would once have enjoyed in the better paid job I have today. It is very difficult to build up meaningful pension pots at all and I'm opposed to any measure that makes it even harder.

However, the icing on the cake as someone hitting 40 this year is the message from the government that, yes, I am getting old and it's time to start planning for my care home. Cheers!

I'd rather sell my home to pay for care, should I need it. I'm happy to fund my own private care, so I definitely don't want to pay a tax for social care.

The amount of money needed to pay for your care might be more than your house is worth anyway, should you have a long decline or need specialists one to one care. Then the state picks it up and often people end up being moved to cheaper care homes which is pretty distressing for them.

So to those who say I'm happy to pay more tax, if you are all ready paying 69% tax rates due to marginal tax rates, child benefit income charge and student loan, how much exactly should they pay in tax....why not just make it 100%. Be getting near the rates of the labour government in the 70s when they had 95% top rate.

Remember that the aspiring middle class is essential to any government getting into power and I for one would not vote for it as it removes any aspiration....exactly like universal credit has done with the sliding scale of benefit removal.

If they raise the tax for over 40s, anyone in this age group in need of housing should be top of the list for social housing. The 40-50 cohort deserve a break. They were the guinea pig generation for student loans, the first generation to be impacted by right to buy, and they were excluded from the taxpayer funded help to buy ISAs.

@TheVanguardSix

Totally agree.

If I’ve learnt anything from MN it’s that Everyone in the U.K. wants the Scandinavian funding and facilities but in return for US low tax rates.

Nobody is actually willing to pay for it, except those who wouldn't actually pay for it (unemployed, retired, low income...etc). BUT people in that bracket taking the moral high ground though and berating the middle earning masses just gets everyone’s backs up and pushes us all further towards the American ‘I’m alright jack’ American system.

Because if there’s anything the stretched middle despise more than potential tax rises it’s ‘grabby entitled’ poor people telling them how greedy and selfish they are for not paying even more tax than they already do.

Nooo I can’t fathom why we aren’t able to function like Scandinavia

Does this mean that selling your house to pay for it would be scrapped then?

Pumpertrumper@ what makes you think retired people don’t pay tax? Tax is paid on income so if your income is higher enough you pay tax.

Maybe there should be an incentive to get private “care home insurance” - same system as now where it’s taken from your estate if you can’t afford a care home, so those that want to keep inheritance for kids pay the insurance just in case.

The best solution I heard for funding social care was a death tax of about 2% on the whole estate of everyone who dies and is past retirement age. Charged whether they used social care or not. I feel really strongly that we can't just put yet more on the shoulders of the young so if the proposed over 40 tax was implemented I wouldn't mind too much, I'm 50.

I don't expect posters will like the above suggestion about a death tax. That's the problem though, the public don't like ANY solution.

If people don’t have to pay for social care a death tax maybe the way to go. The problem is most people are greedy and want to have everything without paying out.

I'm sure probate has gone up a lot recently and the deceased has often paid a lot of tax in their lifetime so not necessarily greedy.

Well said Pumper exactly it

I suggest an increase in National Insurance on a sliding scale similar to existing but with no upper threshold. But - when someone needs to go into care a set amount is given towards the cost of care (at whatever level is needed), which along with the contribution from state pension should be sufficient for a standard care home place. The person can top up this amount from personal funds to get the added extras of a more expensive home. I disagree strongly with those who have saved all their lives not being entitled to the basic level of funding that everyone else gets.

the financially best option is to incentivise and cultivate a society where families look after their own elderly relatives

How? Who can afford to give up their job to care for a parent? Not only that, what if their house isn’t big enough? What if they have young kids like the sandwich generation- looking after children and aging parents. Not to mention severe dementia means often getting up 50 times a night, it involves potential wandering or leaving the gas on etc there are significant risks involved and I think it’s unrealistic to expect a person to have the energy to watch their elderly parent all night and look after young kids all day. This could work if you have a very large family to share the burden but as an only child? I don’t see how this is possible without collapsing of exhaustion!

NO. Lets instead collect all the tax that is due and close the tax gap. There are plenty of tax dodgers out there from major multinationals who structure their companies to side step debt to the restaurant or grubby takeaway that isnt even on he radar, doesnt pay tax and only takes cash. Dont come asking me for more money when i see so much taxpayer cash spaffed on rubbish.

Remember when the tories were like don’t vote labour because boooo they’ll raise taxes?

Lol

@Russellbrandshair

Severe dementia is a disease and therefore would require professional care.

Being elderly and needing help with cooking/cleaning/washing and general day to day tasks is not an illness and shouldn’t be put on the gov to fund anymore than childcare should.
If an elderly person has no family, requires specialist care or is in danger of neglect then the gov should step in just as SS would with a child but it shouldn’t be this flippant ‘my parents aren’t my problem’ attitude.

Most people can’t afford to quit their job, would struggle with space and do have kids but that doesn’t make your elderly relatives any more the governments responsibility than yours. The gov is also unable to afford and accommodate them.

Difference is, you choose to have kids, you know it will cost you. Nobody asks to be born. The last thing I'd want is my children thinking I'm their responsibility, I'm not. I chose to have them, they didn't choose to have me.