Social Care overhall

Well Doodledog today's first time buyers will still be paying their mortgage at 60. The average age FTB in 2020 is 32 and many mortgages now last 29or 30 years (we usually had 25). www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/first-time-buyers/first-time-buyers-zoopla/
Add to that a student loan repayments, small children in late 30s, university fees in late 40s or early 50s. And how can anyone say 40 year olds are better off?
You might have helped your children at Uni but so do today's parents. The difference being people are having children later, getting onto the housing ladder later, repaying their own student loans and now apparently will be taxed for their future care. If you consider the student loan repayments as a sort of tax they will be the most taxed generation ever.

We bought our first house in the 80s. The price seems cheap now, but it cost twice as much as it was three years earlier when a friend bought an identical one. 6 months after we moved in, mortgage rates shot up to 16%. Inflation was high, and although we did manage to pay, many lost their homes or ended up in negative equity.

Those who went to University may have had no fees, but by no means everyone could afford to go, as they were expected to contribute to the household income, and things like rent and living expenses while studying were beyond their reach.

I knew of few people who managed on one salary - I always worked, and at times was the breadwinner, as during the 80s there was a lot of unemployment where we lived, and my husband was made redundant.

As others have said, endowment mortgages were the norm, and we ended up with a shortfall on ours, which cost a lot to make up. On top of that, we had two children who went to University, and we did as much as we could to help them financially, so the notion of our generation as having had it easier than they did just doesn't ring true for me at all.

When I said I wouldn't have objected at 40 to paying more tax, what I meant was that starting earlier would mean paying less per month, not that we were awash with money - we were still paying a mortgage and supporting the children throughout our forties.

Things changed very quickly in the early 70’s.
We got married in 1970 & bought a 2-up 2-down for £1750, which was about MrA’s annual salary. I was still a student.
My sister got married in 1972 and bought a similar property, although much further south, for £8000.
Needless to say, salaries hadn’t similarly gone up.

It will be difficult to work out a system that’s fair to everyone, but I hope that for once, party political point-scoring can be put aside and the politicians work in the country’s best interests instead of their own.

Oh the 60s. Yes I'll give you that. I was married in 1971. If we'd had a deposit we could have bought a flat for a thousand. Eight months later later the same flat sold for £8000.

My husbands take home pay was £78 a month. Mine was £57.

GillT57

This is a difficult nettle for any political party to grasp for it is fundamentally raising taxes, something which the Tories have promised they won't do and Labour get criticised for if they suggest it, therefore it really needs to be something discussed in a non-political group, with some level headed grown ups who are prepared to face up to it. A lot of expensive decisions are not made because they may not be popular with a section of the electorate important to the incumbent party, and thus these difficult items are 'kicked into the long grass'. Most sensible people acknoweldge that social care needs a serious sort out; too many elderly people are in hospital beds when what they need is care, convalesence, looking after, not expensive hospital nurses. I would like to see this proposed in HoC, not used as a stick to beat any party with, but as a means of dealing with a very important and expensive part of health. It should never have been separated out, but that ship has sailed, and I for one, would be happy to pay some sort of tax and be assured that my children would not have the worry and/or expense of care for me.

Well said Gill ?
This has been a hot potato for various governments and it has to be sorted out as soon as is humanly possible.
I know age 40 up people still have things to pay out for, mortgages and so on, but it has to start somewhere.They will all be old one day.

The concept that I had an 'easy ride' always amuses me.
Just because I recognise the difficulties that 40 year olds are currently experiencing doesn't mean my life has been easy but quite frankly my personal experiences have little to do with it. The evidence is there. In the 1960s first time buyers were aged 23 on average, they are now 30. Many already have student debts. It takes longer to save a deposit and longer life mortgages are becoming more common. Most FTB also receive help from relatives (usually mum &dad).

I was in my twenties in the 70s but didn't have children until the late 70s early 80s because we spent 8 years saving enough deposit for a house.

The 80s were horrendous with the sharp rise in mortgage rates. Two thirds of my husbands take home pay was mortgage interest. Not even repayment.

I think people forget that there is a variation in ages here on Gransnet trisher .

Although I'm glad you had an easy ride trisher many of us wouldn't recognise the picture you paint.

We couldn't have paid a penny more in tax. As it was we couldn't afford to heat the house, ever have a holiday and my children s clothes came from jumble sales.

I worked evening jobs when they were small and went back to full time work when my youngest was 2.

I don't recognise the one salary, a house in your twenties etc at all.

Perhaps because you were comfortably situated you assumed everyone was.

You are so right about LA residential care Luckygirl I was a manager for many years and the staff training and care was second to none. A lot of things went wrong when privatisation took place.

I understand everyone's concerns about paying more tax but we have to start somewhere, I pay UK taxes and would understand if more was levied for this reason.

We are also the generation who had free education up to degree level, brought our houses in our twenties, were able to afford a mortgage with only one person working,

Not sure how old you are, trisher but the mortgages in my day weren't easy to get at all.

Early 80s I was wanting to buy a house with my first husband. In my 20s. We could only get a mortgage if we had a top-up loan which were popular with the banks at the time. Extortionate.

Interest rates were astronomical. Up to 15%. Holidays were 3 times the price. I used to fly back and forth to the Canaries a lot to visit family. Return flights would be about £200. By today's standards that would be about £600

Inflation was also sky high

www.moneywise.co.uk/opinion/jasmine-birtles/do-you-remember-days-when-bank-england-interest-rate-was-double-digits

Then we got stung with endowment mortgages in the late 80s. It wasn't all good by any means.

As for this idea of getting 40+ to pay towards care, it's been denied today by Number 10. According to the Mail that is. Who knows what the truth is

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8564761/Downing-Street-dismisses-claim-wants-40s-pay-tax-fund-social-care.html

I don't know where this "40" came from and why "40"?

My DS is 40 and is just about to lose his home . He has 3 children . Are the government assuming that at 40 everyone is nicely settled with a comfortable income ?

And there is already a 2 tier system for social care. those who can afford to go into a pleasant home with the best of care and the rest of us .

This is a difficult nettle for any political party to grasp for it is fundamentally raising taxes, something which the Tories have promised they won't do and Labour get criticised for if they suggest it, therefore it really needs to be something discussed in a non-political group, with some level headed grown ups who are prepared to face up to it. A lot of expensive decisions are not made because they may not be popular with a section of the electorate important to the incumbent party, and thus these difficult items are 'kicked into the long grass'. Most sensible people acknoweldge that social care needs a serious sort out; too many elderly people are in hospital beds when what they need is care, convalesence, looking after, not expensive hospital nurses. I would like to see this proposed in HoC, not used as a stick to beat any party with, but as a means of dealing with a very important and expensive part of health. It should never have been separated out, but that ship has sailed, and I for one, would be happy to pay some sort of tax and be assured that my children would not have the worry and/or expense of care for me.

Doodledog

I don't think I would have objected to paying more tax at 40 if I knew it would cover me and mine for social care in the future. Better to spread the load than to whack on a tax in later life, when a lot of people's earnings are declining because of going to part-time hours, or being less able to get work.

My concern is that there will be a generation of older people (probably including most of us on here) who are no longer earning a regular salary and won't be able to contribute a lot. Will we be excluded from the scheme and expected to fund our own care? We are the generation who missed out on childcare grants, mortgage tax relief, pensions at 60 (often without contributing NI) bus passes and many other things for which we were either too young or too old, and who are simultaneously blamed (as 'Boomers') for everything from global warming to economic decline.

We are also the generation who had free education up to degree level, brought our houses in our twenties, were able to afford a mortgage with only one person working, and had child benefit for all our children, regardless of income.
So you might very well not have objected to paying more at 40. Todays 40 year olds are struggling and trying to balance finances at a time when many of them have young children. A new tax would be too much for many.

When I was a SW I always used to look first at care homes run by the local authority. I knew that their staff had stringent training and (more important) on-going support. They were employed by the LA, as was I, and I could easily approach their managers if I had any concerns. I knew that internal as well as external monitoring was in place. There was a uniform high quality that gave me reassurance and confidence in them. Their sole aim was to care.

The privately-run homes were out on a limb, especially as regards monitoring, training and staff support. Giving feedback or expressing concerns was difficult. The quality was/is extremely variable. The main aim of their owners was profit.

Agree social care always used to be under the NHS and instead of privatising the NHS should just be properly funded as it used to be. And the Health and Social act abolished

NHS renationalised some day.

Social care shouldn't be in the private sector ,should come under the umbrella of the NHS

The system certainly does need a cross-party overhaul.

For a start the going rate that SSD will pay buys very poor care in some instances, and there should be good care across the board, however you are funded. The "top-up" I had to pay for my OH's nursing home care was about 80% of the real cost - so "top-up" was a bit of a joke. I looked at some of the homes that fell within SSD funding limits and there was no way - just no way - that he would have gone there.

Good care for all should be the aim.

I don't think I would have objected to paying more tax at 40 if I knew it would cover me and mine for social care in the future. Better to spread the load than to whack on a tax in later life, when a lot of people's earnings are declining because of going to part-time hours, or being less able to get work.

My concern is that there will be a generation of older people (probably including most of us on here) who are no longer earning a regular salary and won't be able to contribute a lot. Will we be excluded from the scheme and expected to fund our own care? We are the generation who missed out on childcare grants, mortgage tax relief, pensions at 60 (often without contributing NI) bus passes and many other things for which we were either too young or too old, and who are simultaneously blamed (as 'Boomers') for everything from global warming to economic decline.

Once again the tories are raiding the Labour party policy from their manifesto. But they never do it properly

PS. I agree a flat rate would be regressive, as taxation is increasingly becoming. Both National Insurance and Council Tax are capped. The government only receives 25% of its income from "progressive" income tax.

I also agree that hypothecated taxes aren't all they seem. It gives a government an excuse to say there's nothing left in the hypothecation "pot".

Why not just increase tax across the board?

The people who benefit most from their parents having "free" social care are the ones who inherit their assets. The ones with most assets would benefit most.

I would like to see a radical re-think but I doubt if this government will do it. It might for example be interesting to look at all those who are stuck in NHS hospitals when they could be accommodated somewhere else and compare the costs.

Maizie Hypothecated (i.e assigned to one specific purpose) taxes at a fixed single rate are 'regressive'; in other words the people with the lowest incomes pay out the largest percentage of their income

That only applies if the tax is fixed, like VAT.
If a poor person buys a new washing machine, they pay the same VAT as a rich person buying the same machine, so it’s a higher proportion of the poor person’s income.

I don’t think it’s been suggested that the social care contributions should be a fixed sum per person.

But if it’s a percentage, then they pay less.

Unemployed people on benefits could be credited with contributions in the same way as NI contributions are credited.

I know, why can't the plan have some of that £350 million that was going to go to the NHS when we leave the EU?

There you go; financing sorted...