advertisement


Who should pay for social care ?

hifinutt

hifinutt

hifinutt
Well this subject keeps coming up and affects many of us . We had a few threads on the rising costs of houses . So should Mrs Giles who has a house worth 500k have to sell it to pay for her care ? OR should the tax payer who may not have such a house fund this care ? [ allowed to keep assets over 23,250]

Many in my family believe that houses should pay for your care , but many voters are not happy with this
what do you think

 
Get rid of NI (not for companies) and increase income tax to compensate. This way we automatically have many pensioners contributing (myself included in a couple of months).
 
Eastern European lorry drivers and Filipino nurses should pay for the legions of ailing, old white British folks…;)
 
If only it was that simple. When NI was introduced what was it supposed to pay for? Health Care, Unemployment, State pensions. Why should pensioners be paying for future state pensions?
 
My local council have added £85 a year to the council tax for social care , Been doing it for about 3 years now
 
I think there’s been an unnatural distinction between healthcare (NHS) and social care, and if you support public funding of one, the logical thing is to support the same for the other.

I support funding from higher taxation - call it NI if you like, but the distinction is artificial. I’d be happy to see them add 1% to basic rate and another 1 or 2% to higher rate taxpayers, if that would fund both properly. But that higher taxation could and should include inheritance tax. So don’t force Mrs Giles to sell her property to fund her care, but take a chunk of her estate to put in the pot that funds health and social care when she dies. Do that across the board, no lower threshold.
 
NI is smoke and mirrors. Abolish it and increase income tax, this way the burden is equally shared. Or alternatively increase NI, and once again those of working age will continue to subsidise the boomer generation. Now let’s think, who votes Tory? It’ll be the second option then.
 
Bob McC said:
I support an NI increase but I would also charge NI to all tax paying pensioners as well.
Click to expand...

With fiscal drag on allowances and the lock on pensions we're nearly at the point where that is all pensioners on full state pension.

Might as well just add it onto the Income tax rate
 
It’s one of those things which most think somebody else should pay for. Should be like the NHS, funded through general taxation and free at the point of use if required. If some want to pay for alternative options, that’s entirely their choice, in the same way as healthcare and education.

Nothing is ringfenced. NI just goes into the pot. It only exists to keep headline income tax rates palatable.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think there’s been an unnatural distinction between healthcare (NHS) and social care, and if you support public funding of one, the logical thing is to support the same for the other.

I support funding from higher taxation - call it NI if you like, but the distinction is artificial. I’d be happy to see them add 1% to basic rate and another 1 or 2% to higher rate taxpayers, if that would fund both properly. But that higher taxation could and should include inheritance tax. So don’t force Mrs Giles to sell her property to fund her care, but take a chunk of her estate to put in the pot that funds health and social care when she dies. Do that across the board, no lower threshold.
Click to expand...

Definitely uneasy about the whole concept of a death tax. It's a tax on taxed funds and if you're organised and die at the budgeted time it can be avoided.

As such, apart from the extremely rich, it is paid by those who die prematurely, often in tragic circumstances.

A simple graduated income tax rate without the nasty marginal rates just over £100k would be fairer, easier to administrate and clear.
 
For starters I'd make rich old pensioners like many of us here pay NI and I would also introduce some sort of general wealth tax and use the money to help fund social care. It would be unfair for younger earners to pay extra taxes, unless they are wealthy, to fund social care for old people.
 
hifinutt said:
Well this subject keeps coming up and affects many of us . We had a few threads on the rising costs of houses . So should Mrs Giles who has a house worth 500k have to sell it to pay for her care ? OR should the tax payer who may not have such a house fund this care ? [ allowed to keep assets over 23,250]

Many in my family believe that houses should pay for your care , but many voters are not happy with this
what do you think

Click to expand...

Why stop at social care? I mean, why not charge the estate of the deceased for some or all of all healthcare and social care used in their lifetime? If someone needs a hip, they get treated free at the point of need, and when they die the state rakes some of the costs back.

You could do the same to get some money back for some of the schooling of their children too.
 
The Tories will obviously look after their own. They are an entirely corrupt and reckless party with a voter demographic largely over 65. They are owned by billionaire tax cheats and bribed by large corporations who, with the full permission of the government, evade tax. As such it will be small business and chumps on PAYE that get to fund this. It always is with Tories. Jacob Rees Mogg and his ilk will be safe.

PS Not for a second implying Labour are any better. Both parties deliberately let the richest and most powerful off the hook for various pork barrel or party donor reasons, e.g. don’t expect the likes of Nissan or other mass employers to pay tax, the tax payer effectively pay them to be here to keep those jobs. The whole thing is corrupt to the core. There is no level playing field. Just till-dipping, backhanders and pork barrels.
 
Ponty said:
Some would say the current 60% is ‘not enough’!!
Click to expand...
This happens because income tax is mainly on earned income. The 0.1% mainly live on lightly taxed investment income and are very good at getting their businesses to pay for a lot of their lifestyle without being hammered for benefit in kind somehow.

Wealth taxes are tricky as a lot of us near retirement are worth a lot on paper, a fund that I might have to live on for 30 years if I match my parents and actually living in a country where I have to pay for a lot of my medical care
 
Everyone should pay through taxation as many, many will require care at some point. I don't like the value of peoples homes being used for social care, however, appreciate that this is a complex issue that successive governments have kicked down the road.
 
davidsrsb said:
This happens because income tax is mainly on earned income. The 0.1% mainly live on lightly taxed investment income and are very good at getting their businesses to pay for a lot of their lifestyle without being hammered for benefit in kind somehow.

Wealth taxes are tricky as a lot of us near retirement are worth a lot on paper, a fund that I might have to live on for 30 years if I match my parents and actually living in a country where I have to pay for a lot of my medical care
Click to expand...

They are very different risk v reward profiles. PAYE should be taxed more heavily than other income (although the delta is pretty negligible in the UK now) as there’s not a lot of risk involved to earn your reward. You turn up, do your job, get paid. If you run your own business you try and win customers, do your job, hope you get paid and pray you don’t lose the collateral you’ve had to put up to fund the business. If you ‘invest’ you may get back less than you put in, as the saying goes. Wealth which has already been taxed shouldn’t be taxed again. As you say, you build a pot to try and see you through old age. If that gets taken away, why bother?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top