Will Boris Johnson will break his manifesto pledge not to increase National Insurance in order to pay for social care in England?

Dinahmo

Doodledog If you are referring to the worriedwell's comment about an IFA I think she was saying that her relative's house was sold and the money was invested so that the income earned went towards funding her residential care.

Yes that is what happened, her house sold, her savings put in the same pot as the house money and the income has paid the balance of her care on top of her state pension, a widows pension from her late husband's employer plus attendance allowance that I claimed for her. As none of her care is funded she is entitled to the attendance allowance. I just wanted to put it out there as people always talk as if every penny from a house sale goes on care costs but if the house is worth a certain amount, and I know if some parts of the country houses are much cheaper, then you can generate alot of the money by investment.

WWM2 You are absolutely right. Income tax should be increased and not NI.

“Self Employed” covers a very wide range of businesses from Taxi drivers and market stall owners, to Barristers and Lawyers.
Not declaring cash income is possible although increasingly difficult due to card payments being used widely. At the bottom end no way of stopping it, further up with integrated tax systems you are not likely to get away with evasion and accountants are very careful to make sure clients don’t break the rules.

A lot of women are self employed, taking responsibility for their own affairs, you get more flexibility but you find your own clients, invest your own money, pay NI and your own pension, it can be very insecure certainly not an easy life. In a great many cases its an easier life to get a “proper job”.

A rise in NI is not in my opinion the fair option.

An example

“Out of interest is anyone actually defending the principle of a National Insurance rise that means:
- the landlord with hundreds of properties pays exactly zero pence, while workers foot the bill
- the 66 year old on £50k pays nothing, the 25 year old on £20k coughs up £100”

It has to be a tax rise. That way the poor do not get hammered and the wealthy pay according to means.

How this is arranged is for a government who is not intent on defending the very wealthy. A government who is intent on fairness.

PAYE would not encapsulate all income, particularly those who receive and survive very nicely on unearned income. The principle of a social contract should remain firm.

We then need a government who has the wit and intelligence to oversee an imaginative and comprehensive social care bill that does the job.

Some hope!

To raise a large amount of Tax Revenue you have to tax a large number of Tax Payers, increasing Income Tax is much fairer because everyone above the threshold pays, including the retired.

Increasing minor taxes CGT, Insurance Tax etc does not raise enough, with an 80 seat majority he will probably get NI increases through parliament.

Dinahmo

Doodledog If you are referring to the worriedwell's comment about an IFA I think she was saying that her relative's house was sold and the money was invested so that the income earned went towards funding her residential care.

I was using theworriedwell's figures as a rough guide to how much care might cost, not as an example of where the money was coming from?.

foxie48 I'm not sure what you mean by saying that many self employed people are able to legally avoid taxation. Do you have examples?

Doodledog If you are referring to the worriedwell's comment about an IFA I think she was saying that her relative's house was sold and the money was invested so that the income earned went towards funding her residential care.

I agree that there are people who fiddle their taxes, but that's not a reason not to make taxation the way to finance care - we just have to crack down on it, reduce the loopholes and prosecute those who try to evade tax (and their advisors).

The burden of tax always falls on those on PAYE, I think, but it seems to me doubly unfair that these people are then hit again when they need care (and I apply this thinking to any form of means test). We've seen on this thread that people in care are employing advisors to maximise their money and not pay as much as others. I'm not for a minute saying that this was not legal, or that I wouldn't do the same, but maybe it shouldn't be? I don't know, as I don't know what the advice was, and if I did I wouldn't know how fair it was.

It would be fair if everyone paid tax up front, though. And whilst you aren't keen to pay for the tax-evading Mr Y, isn't he also the sort to spend all his money so that there is nothing left when he goes into care, whereas Mr X has paid his taxes and saved into a rainy day fund, only to have it raided when it's his turn to go into the home?

It was mentioned upthread, and got a bit lost in the posts, but I would also crack down on 'cash in hand' jobs (prosecute both the worker and the customer) and any sort of fiddling. People are quick to condemn anyone who does a bit of work when they are claiming benefit, but are often happy to save a few quid by paying the cleaner or decorator in cash.

A fair tax system has to be enforced rigorously, but IMO when we have paid up we should be able to make choices about what to spend, save or give away without the government deciding that we can only have up to a certain amount before they will claw it back pond for pound. It just isn't fair to take away some people's savings and at the same time pay the bills of others who have spent.

And I know that not everyone can save. I know that. But those who can't will get care paid for anyway, and that wouldn't change if it were paid for out of taxes rather than out of money clawed back from those who have. The poor would not be any worse off under 'my' system*, the rich aren't affected anyway (they never are) and the ones in the middle - the Mr X's - will get to keep what they have worked for all their lives.

*and none of the above suggests that we shouldn't equalise society so that more people can afford to save. We could do both if we had the will.

Doodledog I agree in principle, the only thing that worries me is that so many self employed people are able to legally avoid taxation and there are too many people working in the "black" economy so the burden of paying for social care will possibly fall again onto the shoulders of those who are PAYE. I am happy to pay my share towards Mr X who has worked all his life and paid his taxes, less happy to pay for Mr Y who has paid a good accountant to make sure he pays as little tax as possible or Mr Z who does half his work cash in hand and claims working credits. Means testing people on what they actually have rather than what they say they have some how seems fairer?Don't know really, I'm prepared to change my view.

I have said numerous times that I would fund it from taxation, and then leave people to spend their money how they chose.

If we all paid a sensible level of tax (and don't ask me what that would be - I am not an economist) there should be no need for people to have to pay again when they need care, and definitely no need for a government to set a threshold beyond which people have their savings/equity taken from them - particularly when it has already been taxed at source and again when (if) it earns interest.

Doodledog sorry if my comment re Scotland grated with you, I was trying to make the point that living in an area where the house prices are high does has it's disadvantages. My younger daughter works in the NHS in Bristol but lives in Cardiff, even with the additional costs of travelling, she has a much higher disposable income than if she bought the same type of house in Bristol and if she had chosen to continue her training in Wales, she would have been even better off. If she worked in London, even at her level as a doctor she would struggle to afford to buy a decent house as it is she is able to save, pay off her, not inconsiderable student loans as she was a graduate entry medic, and still have a good life. Many people in the SE spend a huge percentage of their income in renting because they can't get enough deposit together to buy even when they have reasonable well paid jobs. Yes older people have done well with increasing house prices but even in the 80's you needed to have a fairly well paid job to buy in some areas. I'm all for levelling up and am more than willing to pay my share. I recognise that despite my own unpromising start in life I have done OK and have a responsibility to people who have been less fortunate (hence my charitable contributions. Not a boast by the way but a response to your first sentence). You still didn't say how you would fund social care.

Sorry if I missed it, but I can't see you saying you want to raise a threshold (of what? inheritance tax?) When Dinahmo suggested that it should be lowered (was that what you meant?) I agreed. I think we might have been at cross-purposes there.

As regards the rest - there really is a N/S divide when it comes to paying for care. Care costs are fairly even wherever you live - although in more cash-strapped councils they can be higher - so people with more equity in their houses are going to have far more left than those without. Say the care is £300k (which is less than theworriedwell was quoting upthread) - that could easily wipe out the equity of someone in Liverpool, but leave a Londoner (just as examples) with 50% of theirs. The Liverpool family is, effectively pauperised under the current system, but the London one has £300k left. How is that 'levelling up'?

As a percentage of their equity, the Londoners' care costs are significantly less, and there is a greater chance that they will have already benefited from 'bank of mum and dad' style help, which was also accumulated because of profit from housing, so the divide keeps widening.

I didn't mean to sound stroppy, but 'I could sell my flat and buy your street' comments get to wear thin after a while. Maybe you didn't mean to come across like that, but perhaps think twice before making 'jokes' to your Scottish friends?

I'm not sure what to say about your charitable donations - err, congratuations?

Doodledog, in an earlier post I did suggest raising the threshold but you obviously missed it. With respect to living like a laird, it was of course, tongue in cheek, as in deed was my comment "great and good middle classes". The sun is out and I'm feeling fairly cheerful, in future I'll try to more serious. However, I have several friends who live in Scotland and it is certainly true that you get a lot more for your money in some rural areas than you would where I live and I was making a personal comment.
However, I've offered to pay for my social care if required by paying more tax, continuing to pay NI regardless of my work status, and/or fund it from my children's inheritance and also raise the threshold. I may have missed it but what are you suggesting? (By the way, I make monthly payments to several charities as does my OH and have my two favourite children's charities in my will.)

Doodledog

A lot of IFAs will only take clients with more than £X though. It's not worth it for them when people have smaller sums, as they are paid on commission.

The IFA we used charged a fee rather than commission. It sounded high at the time but has been well worth it.

A lot of IFAs will only take clients with more than £X though. It's not worth it for them when people have smaller sums, as they are paid on commission.

"It's those who have managed to save a bit - not enough to qualify to get an IFA - who end up with nothing, which (as I keep saying) is the reason why means testing is so unfair."

I just wanted to clarify that my relative was a working class woman, left school at 15 and she bought a house with her husband, did it up and sold at a profit, did it 2 or 3 times so ended up with a house worth close to 450k plus a little bit of saving, less than 50k. Not the super rich by any means, she has a pension plus pension from her husband's old employer. The IFA has managed her money brilliantly and worth every penny. Obviously many people will have far less but alot of very regular working people will have as much depending on where they live and house values.

I have to say that being in a home costing around £6k a month for 5 years I never expected her to have virtually the same left in her pot as she started out with.

I think alot of people having to sell houses could benefit from using an IFA which can seem expensive but can be well worth it. I hope that might help someone.

I think that there are plenty of opportunities for people who have money they want to share to give it to charity.

Means-testing doesn't just affect the 'great and good middle classes'. It disproportionately affects those with less than that, but more than the thresholds set by government.

If someone has already paid their taxes (and there are far fewer chances for the non-rich to avoid doing so) then what they do with their money should be up to them. Taxation should be fair, and enforced with all the rigour that is used to enforce sanctions on benefit claimants, and then people should be left to make their own choices about how to spend what they have left.

theworriedwell

growstuff

PS. I do draw the line at paying for social care just so people can inherit multi-million estates from deceased relatives.

I don't think the cost of care is much of a burden for anyone with a multi million estate. I have LPA for an elderly relative, she had less than a million, more like half that. She's been in quite an expensive care home for nearly 5 years and her capital has hardly been touched. Her pension plus attendance allowance plus a good IFA to manage her capital has covered most of the cost. Someone with millions would probably see their wealth increasing even with care costs.

That's precisely why I support a means tested allowance, I want to pay my taxes etc to support people who are less well off than I am. Really wealthy people actually have all sorts of legal tax loopholes so they pay less than they should but I think it's difficult to change that whereas the great and good middle classes (like me) pay our taxes but generally have better health, live more comfortable lives, are often able to help our children through university and with their first house purchase etc so if I get soaked for tax and have to pay my children's inheritance to be properly cared for when I'm older and decrepit, so be it. Someone has to pay and I feel I've already had a lot of benefit from being better off than some.

theworriedwell

growstuff

PS. I do draw the line at paying for social care just so people can inherit multi-million estates from deceased relatives.

I don't think the cost of care is much of a burden for anyone with a multi million estate. I have LPA for an elderly relative, she had less than a million, more like half that. She's been in quite an expensive care home for nearly 5 years and her capital has hardly been touched. Her pension plus attendance allowance plus a good IFA to manage her capital has covered most of the cost. Someone with millions would probably see their wealth increasing even with care costs.

Yes, people with millions will always be ok. It's those who have managed to save a bit - not enough to qualify to get an IFA - who end up with nothing, which (as I keep saying) is the reason why means testing is so unfair.

I couldn't afford my home if I lived in Surrey for eg but here in the Midlands I can and tbh if I moved to a rural area of Scotland I could live like a laird. We all make choices, don't we?
You have choices if you have the option to move somewhere cheaper. If you already live somewhere where prices didn't shoot up then you are trapped. Most people in rural areas don't live like Lairds, and any chance of that happening is reduced when people from cities buy up houses with the profits from selling up modest houses and releasing capital that is beyond the reach of the vast majority of locals.

growstuff

PS. I do draw the line at paying for social care just so people can inherit multi-million estates from deceased relatives.

I don't think the cost of care is much of a burden for anyone with a multi million estate. I have LPA for an elderly relative, she had less than a million, more like half that. She's been in quite an expensive care home for nearly 5 years and her capital has hardly been touched. Her pension plus attendance allowance plus a good IFA to manage her capital has covered most of the cost. Someone with millions would probably see their wealth increasing even with care costs.

Nezumi65

JaneJudge

PippaZ, it is almost impossible to get continuing health care. There are actually quite a few threads on here about it. One poster was successful (Luckygirl, I think?) but only after her husband had sadly died.

My son has it, but only after sending 16 months in hospital. Actually he has section 117 but fully funded by health rather than shared or LA funded which is more usual. I had argued for CHC prior to his admission but couldn't get it. It is difficult and often quite random.

We were approved and then it was withdrawn at a further closed (ie just NHS) panel meeting.

PippaZ, it is good to share knowledge

Doodledog

I am not a young person, but I was once, and I have young people as family members, and neither I nor they would have chosen a care role over one at the same rate of pay that offered regular, sociable hours and was less physically demanding.

I think it takes a special sort of person to do a care job well. It takes patience, tolerance, the ability to do undignified things for people whilst preserving their dignity and so on. It's not something that I could do well, and I think that those who do it should get rewards and status commensurate with the demands of the role, which they patently don't.

I don't think it's something that people should be pushed into because they can't find anything else and their benefits are at risk if they turn down a job. It is vitally important that those who do the job are doing it because they want to.

I think it was alluded to upthread, but if carers got a better rate of pay, there would have to be a knock-on increase for nursing staff, and the government have resisted this for a long time now, despite it (increasing nurses' pay) having public support.

I agree you don't want anyone in care, but I think those that want to do it should be able to afford to live above the poverty line. In Holland for example people who work with people with learning disabilities have degrees and a properly paid for the skill the job requires. Here people are paid minimum wage and given barely any training. I don't think a degree is necessary tbh, but I think decent pay, investment in training and a recognition that the job is skilled is needed.

JaneJudge

PippaZ, it is almost impossible to get continuing health care. There are actually quite a few threads on here about it. One poster was successful (Luckygirl, I think?) but only after her husband had sadly died.

My son has it, but only after sending 16 months in hospital. Actually he has section 117 but fully funded by health rather than shared or LA funded which is more usual. I had argued for CHC prior to his admission but couldn't get it. It is difficult and often quite random.