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.

@Pumpertrumper

I agree. But my point is, and I say this as someone who lost their father to dementia so I do know a little about this, I could not have cared for him at home when his illness was really bad. This isn’t just about money alone. There are many other factors involved in elderly care, not just money.
There is no way I could have physically cared for my dad 24/7 even if I had the £

Fuck that. We were the first generation to get uni fees and unaffordable housing. We'll probably be the first to have large numbers of pensioners in unsecure, expensive private tenancies with a state pension that barely covers the rent top up between housing benefit and the actual cost, let alone food and necessities. And probably the first where middle aged dc living at home is widespread because the following generations are even more screwed than we are.

We could afford a tax increase, and would do so gladly if it was going where it was needed most, which isn't the wealthiest generation. I know government will do literally anything to keep the grey vote but I think they might find this would be the straw that broke the camels back.

I don't want to pay anymore tax to this government. We are not getting value for money, the big corporates are allowed to get away with paying disproportionately small amounts due to loop holes and state education has failed my eldest.
The NHS for me hasn't been great for me either, having to pay privately twice in the last decade or so because chronic pain and discomfort wasn't agonising enough to warrant state care.
I don't understand where all the tax revenue is going.
I cannot believe I am writing this. I have always voted Labour, consider myself a socialist, happy to pay tax and NI, but this government give very little in return. There is no accountability. I feel like if I did pay more, they wouldn't invest it in social care.

Housing is not unaffordable in many areas of the country. We shouldn't judge everywhere on places such as London or other expensive areas. It is perfectly possible in the north-east to buy a two or three bedroomed flat or house in an ok area for £100,000- £120,000.

When I bought my first flat it was a 1 bedroomed flat in a conversion and not a great area. I had to do work to it. I struggled to pay the mortgage myself and had to get extra jobs in a youth club 2 nights during the week and an off license one day at weekends, as well as teaching full-time. All my furniture was second hand.

After a couple of years, I had enough equity to buy a 2 bedroomed house but again had to work extra jobs for a couple of years to pay the mortgage and then my salary increased. It was when I met DH at 30 that it became easier because he had a flat and he sold it when we got married and we used the equity to pay off a chunk of my mortgage.

I know plenty of people in their 20s - single and couples who buy a flat or a small house. It is possible here.

Many young people in their 20s and 30s will benefit because they will inherit money/houses from their parents.

DH and I are 40 with 3D aged 1, 3 and 5. We pay a lot of tax and NI.

My parents are dead and did not own property or have big savings. DH's are retired and comfortably off and likely to leave money to DH and SIL - depending how much care they need in later life. They are not rich, they both worked full-time for 40 years and paid tax and NI. I am not sure why people are so down on that generation. Many of them did not own property and rented council property. Many never had the chance to go to uni - my parents certainly didn't and none in my family in that age group went.

I thought this was a good point from Twitter

@HotSauceCommittee

I cannot believe I am writing this. I have always voted Labour, consider myself a socialist, happy to pay tax and NI, but this government give very little in return. There is no accountability. I feel like if I did pay more, they wouldn't invest it in social care.

I think all governments give little in return as they are bloated bureaucracies and struggle to implement what they want. CV is the latest example of that.

Blair had exactly these concerns and hence why he set up a powerful No 10 unit to check delivery...and found it was a constant nightmare. Johnson as the same issues, hence why the Cabinet Office is being strengthened to do what looks like a similar role.

Some goats are happy to tax but very poor at getting value for money, especially with IT projects. The Corona virus App...£11m thrown down the drain on that

BigChocFrenzy@ in principle yes, people of benefits would not pay and the care is certainly not the same.

I vote for euthanasia 🤭

Posters like Pumpertrumper can afford to have the breezy attitude of not my family, not my problem, because they have obviously not dealt with the huge head and life fucker upper that is dementia. Assuming that people in residential homes have been immediately placed there upon diagnosis, and that providing care to elderly relatives and residential care is an either/or case of entirely taking on care from the get go or abdicating it. No, what happens is families, sometimes with health needs of their own or young children gradually start to bare the responsibility for years, even decades until they reach the point of collapse. Instead of appreciating these families we weigh them down with obligations and guilt and delight in the fact that they generationally loose secure housing due to lost inheritance. It’s a long term false economy because when their time comes they will not have the pensions, savings or housing to pay for care and the tax burden will rise. This is an issue now because it needs to be addressed but I don’t see any benefit in reducing it to be the burden of the over 40s as less money will be raised.

I agree with you completely @SinisterBumFacedCat

@SinisterBumFacedCat

Posters like Pumpertrumper can afford to have the breezy attitude of not my family, not my problem, because they have obviously not dealt with the huge head and life fucker upper that is dementia. Assuming that people in residential homes have been immediately placed there upon diagnosis, and that providing care to elderly relatives and residential care is an either/or case of entirely taking on care from the get go or abdicating it. No, what happens is families, sometimes with health needs of their own or young children gradually start to bare the responsibility for years, even decades until they reach the point of collapse. Instead of appreciating these families we weigh them down with obligations and guilt and delight in the fact that they generationally loose secure housing due to lost inheritance. It’s a long term false economy because when their time comes they will not have the pensions, savings or housing to pay for care and the tax burden will rise. This is an issue now because it needs to be addressed but I don’t see any benefit in reducing it to be the burden of the over 40s as less money will be raised.

Spot on. Absolutely.

@Russellbrandshair
@SinisterBumFacedCat
@SheepandCow

I literally wrote
Severe dementia is a disease and therefore would require professional care. I don’t think I can be any clearer than that and if you’re choosing to ignore it in order to find offence then so be it!

Posters like Pumpertrumper can afford to have the breezy attitude of not my family, not my problem

My whole post was about how families SHOULD take responsibility for their elderly loved ones! I can’t even fathom how you’ve drawn this conclusion but well done.

JUST being elderly and unable to live alone with medical conditions and low level immobility is somewhat expected in old age and CAN be managed at home.

No, what happens is families, sometimes with health needs of their own or young children gradually start to bare the responsibility for years, even decades until they reach the point of collapse. Instead of appreciating these families we weigh them down with obligations and guilt and delight in the fact that they generationally loose secure housing due to lost inheritance

So essentially, we’ll look after them until it’s too hard or inconvenient, then the gov can look after them. But we still want to inherit their house and money please...because we don’t have our own?
(In situations without mitigating circumstances such a dementia or cancer this is essentially what you’re saying^)

My family are currently juggling care of 2 elderly relatives, a cancer patient and a disabled/chronically ill youth... so I can empathise, I’m just not entitled and grabby.

As usual it’s the middle ground who get caught. Those who pay through the nose for everything. I lose on average £50 a month every year in private rent when the landlord increases it, plus travel increases. No help really and DH pays higher rate tax. How much more do they want....blood? It seems you’re ok if you pay no tax or you earn hundreds of thousands.

So essentially, we’ll look after them until it’s too hard or inconvenient, then the gov can look after them.

Inconvenient? Seriously you talk about advanced dementia and then say families give up when it’s inconvenient? Have you honestly had any experience of getting a relative into residential care? It’s about always playing catch-up, my DF wasn’t placed in a residential home until he was literally smearing shit on his walls. This had way surpassed the the status of “inconvenient”.

My family are currently juggling care of 2 elderly relatives, a cancer patient and a disabled/chronically ill youth... so I can empathise, I’m just not entitled and grabby.

Granny and entitled. How dare you. I have zero expectations of inheritating anything from my parents but a genetic disease. It just pisses me off when I see people who have had zero caring responsibilities inherit big houses and have massively easy lives. I accept that is unreasonable and jealous but I’ll own that. Grabby and entitled? Tell it to someone who does fuck all.

I'm a long way off 40 and think this would be an absolutely horrendous policy!

I'd increase inheritance tax, despite the fact that my dad keeps telling me how much of "my" inheritance will go in tax.

I haven't earned it, I don't deserve it. Why should get a big windfall just because of who my parents are?. People who can pay for care should, even if it means selling homes they no longer need, anything other than the very smallest estates should be taxed to contribute.

What?! This is the most stretched time financially for us and our peers are the same.

@SinisterBumFacedCat

You are entitled to feel however you feel but you are not entitled to twist people’s words to find offence and have a go. I quite clearly was referring to generic elderly relatives and even added the clarification that those with dementia definitely wouldn’t come under that umbrella as need specialist care.

I’m sorry you went through that with your DF but I don’t think hijacking a thread and twisting words is ok.

why not just increase NI contributions for everyone.

First we need to charge NI for everyone. At the moment, most people aren't paying it. It's only paid by workers. Everyone else is exempt: pensioners, benefit claimants, buy to let'ers, those living on investment income and those living on foreign income.

If we extended NI to all income, from whatever source, we wouldn't need to raise taxes at all.

Or even better, just scrap it and add a few percent to income tax.

[quote Pumpertrumper]@SinisterBumFacedCat

You are entitled to feel however you feel but you are not entitled to twist people’s words to find offence and have a go. I quite clearly was referring to generic elderly relatives and even added the clarification that those with dementia definitely wouldn’t come under that umbrella as need specialist care.

I’m sorry you went through that with your DF but I don’t think hijacking a thread and twisting words is ok.[/quote]
Ok, I apologise. I’m having a shit time of it and didn’t mean to take your words personally. Elderly relatives with low needs are different to dementia sufferers but I still think my comments are relevant to the thread.

Hmmm sounds like a perfect excuse to emigrate if you have the resources. There are some very nice places in the world worth considering.

so the people who benefit most will be low earners whose parents are rich. People loosing out will the high earners whose parents are poor.

Should high earners be expected to pay more so that low earners can inherit? Personally i think you have to work hard to earn loads of money, and you already pay loads of tax and subsidise low earners. Should you do this more just so parents can pass on property - No.

NI had a specific purpose when it was introduced - to pay for your pension and a sort of insurance if you couldnt work. Personally i dont think its ethical to hijack it for another purpose, nor do i see why people who dont need this type of cover have to pay for it - eg pensioners.

I'm not in the uk but that would really make me see red. I had no affordable childcare to make it possible for me to work full time until my youngest was 11 although I had scrappy jobs before that. I was a single parent and was cornered in to being on a hamster wheel for 7 years or so. If they do this to women who have JUST got back in to the workplace after having been sidelined by motherhood/childcare itssues, it would be extremely unfair.

Workers in the prime years are already paying more than their fair share of "tax". They're the ones paying NIC, student loan repayments, workplace pensions, maybe already higher rate, maybe having their child benefit clawed back. Overall deductions of 40-60% are already pretty common.

Compare that with pensioners who pay just 20% on their occupational pensions, interest, etc. Or those who don't pay NIC when living on dividends or foreign income.