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

www.npcuk.org/post/ni-rise-not-enough-to-cover-social-care-crisis

Statement from Jan Shortt, the General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention commented:

The percentage increase in National Insurance - whatever the government decides - will not deal with the crisis in social care, or replace funding lost by the NHS.

Capping the cost of care will not make inroads into what is a grossly underfunded system. It also goes against the PM's statement that nobody would have to sell their houses to pay for care. In fact it will drive more into the arms of equity release companies.

Only radical change to a National Care Service funded by taxation, free at the point of need for everyone, will bring a publicly accountable service.

As it stands there are still questions over how much of the NI or tax raised from this increase will actually go towards the struggling care sector, as the government seeks to cover the costs of playing catch up with the NHS waiting lists.

Over 10 years of funding cuts to the NHS and care has left both services in crisis. The spending priorities of the government are not in tune with the needs of the population.

growstuff maybe no one in your family has needed social care but they may have had medical treatment that is expensive. As you say, it's insurance.

I'm not sure that NI has ever been ring-fenced for specific purposes. It exists as a separate figure on balance sheets, but it's always gone into Treasury funds. If there's a shortfall or a surplus, the Treasury makes up the difference or notes the surplus on the balance sheet and spends it elsewhere.

Lincslass Income tax and national insurance don't make up the majority of the Treasury's income. There are loads of forms of taxation in the UK, which everybody pays almost every single day. It's a huge mistake to think of taxation only in terms of income tax. The government knows people do that, which is why it's a policy to keep the headline figure low, while raising money elsewhere.

All should pay this tax, for a decent Social Service. all may need it one day. Nothing is free, we all pay for the NHS one way or another. As soon as you start working, a specific tax should be for this Social Services.. Problem started when NI contributions went into general taxation, and not kept separate for health, social services. I have worked since age 15, left school then, never claimed a thing, apart from family allowance, and I’m still paying tax. 60 years on. That money should go into providing care if it’s needed.

Doodledog

growstuff

Ooops!

I meant ... somebody with a million pound house will only pay 10%, whereas somebody with a £200k house pays 50%.

Yes, and that's the bit I think is unfair. Or if not unfair, it is not going to do anything to 'level up' the geographical inequalities across the UK.

I guess the only way to be 'fair' would be to tax even more, and make it free for everyone, which is pretty much always my answer to this sort of thing.

I think, if you really want Craddle to Grave care (including Dementia) it has to come from tax and be free for everyone. However, I don't see this government taking it that far. I would be happy to say "well done" if they did.

Ilovecheese that last one made me laugh?

Doodledog Fri 03-Sep-21 13:32:10

I am not sure that "the young paying for the old" or "the old paying for the young" is the problem. It is the idea that this might be happening which will be whipped up by the media and cause anger that isn't necessary and doesn't do any good.

I think it would be better to come from income tax than NI, because pensioners pay income tax as well, so would be less likely to cause intergenerational conflict, as has been said.

lemongrove I worked for the Council Tax dept of a local authority for a while. I am absolutely with you that we should all do our best for society as a whole, but you should have heard some of the people I spoke to on the phone who complained about for example:

"I don't have children, why should I pay for schools?
"I don't have a car why should I pay for road maintenance?"
"I live on a private estate, why should I pay for pavement upkeep?"

or a slightly different "I can't pay the Council Tax I am saving that money to take my husband to Tenerife!"

lemongrove Every older person in the UK today (at least those who were born in the UK) has already had an education.

The divisive talk (as you call it) is being deliberately manufactured and exists. The vast majority of younger people will not need social care - it's pot luck. For example, I am not aware of any member of my family who has ever needed social care. The clue is in the word "insurance".

It is a fact that older people "on average" have a higher disposable income than people of working age and I believe that's wrong. National Insurance is currently 12% on incomes over £184pw. Most lower paid workers pay more in NICs than they do in income tax and NICs are capped anyway. Therefore, even a 1 or 2% increase will hit those who can least afford it hardest. Pensioners won't be affected at all and I think that's unfair. (JMO of course)

growstuff there are many older people who didn’t have children and grandchildren but they don’t grumble about paying taxes for their education, and younger people today will one day need social care.All the divisive talk about the generations is so wrong, we do the best for society as a whole, or should do.I don’t use public libraries but am happy to pay for their upkeep.

I was agreeing with you Doodledog.

Unfortunately, it will be a political decision and the Conservatives won't want to upset their core voters, who tend to be over 45 and asset rich. Fairness will have nothing to do with it.

growstuff

Doodledog Younger people are being expected to pay a much higher percentage of their income on National Insurance than you ever did and they will receive less in return. Those paying into pension schemes are paying more for less too ... and that's before paying back student loans, which about half have ... and the much higher property prices and rents.

I did say I support it coming out of tax. For a number of reasons I think that is much fairer.

I was just adding that I hope this isn't going to be used as another way to foster generational conflict, as that is nowhere near as simple as it's sometimes portrayed.

growstuff

Ooops!

I meant ... somebody with a million pound house will only pay 10%, whereas somebody with a £200k house pays 50%.

Yes, and that's the bit I think is unfair. Or if not unfair, it is not going to do anything to 'level up' the geographical inequalities across the UK.

I guess the only way to be 'fair' would be to tax even more, and make it free for everyone, which is pretty much always my answer to this sort of thing.

Doodledog Younger people are being expected to pay a much higher percentage of their income on National Insurance than you ever did and they will receive less in return. Those paying into pension schemes are paying more for less too ... and that's before paying back student loans, which about half have ... and the much higher property prices and rents.

lemongrove

Why is breaking a manifesto promise a lie, when we have just had a pandemic here which has affected the economy in so many ways ? It’s not a lie it’s what needs to happen.
I just hope Downing St is brave about it all and makes it much more than 1% 1.5 at the very least, this money is to sort out social care and also to give money to the NHS.
There can hardly be anyone who can’t see that it’s necessary.
Manifesto promises are all very well in normal circumstances, but we are far from normal circs just now.
Younger people will be old too one day, this is for society as a whole.I don’t begrudge money spent on education after all.

But you've already had money spent on your education.

Ooops!

I meant ... somebody with a million pound house will only pay 10%, whereas somebody with a £200k house pays 50%.

PippaZ

^I'm not sure whether this is saying the same thing in a different way, but as I read it it was not so much a cap on assets as a maximum charge that people will have to pay for care.^

Doodledog, do you mean May's scheme was to take the first £100K while this would leave you with £100K? If that was the case it would be better than May's. However, there are still many problems with it. For a start, older people do not pay NI - unless they are suggesting changing the system and I don't know how you do that. If it was an ordinary tax it would be more progressive. It would also not be just the younger part of the population paying.

We shall see. It is only just being talked about. The leaks/briefings must have been for a purpose.

No, it's the opposite way round if it follows Dilnot's suggestions. May's idea was much fairer to people with fewer assets, ie with lower priced housing.

A cap of £100k means that somebody with a million pound house will only pay 50%, whereas somebody with a £200k house pays 50%.

Not only that, increasing National Insurance instead of tax places a massively unfair burden on people of working age on lower incomes. It should be a tax increase!

I agree with your post Lemongrove

Good post lemongrove. Of course he'd be criticised if he didn't do anything to try to address this matter.

As you say Doodledog "the devil will be in the detail" so we'll have to wait and see wont we.

PippaZ

^I'm not sure whether this is saying the same thing in a different way, but as I read it it was not so much a cap on assets as a maximum charge that people will have to pay for care.^

Doodledog, do you mean May's scheme was to take the first £100K while this would leave you with £100K? If that was the case it would be better than May's. However, there are still many problems with it. For a start, older people do not pay NI - unless they are suggesting changing the system and I don't know how you do that. If it was an ordinary tax it would be more progressive. It would also not be just the younger part of the population paying.

We shall see. It is only just being talked about. The leaks/briefings must have been for a purpose.

No. The report I read (today's Guardian) says that there would be a cap on spending, not a cap on the amount of assets left after that spending.

As I said, Hunt is suggesting that it should come from tax, instead of NI, in order to bring in 'generational fairness'. I agree that we should all pay, so tax is a better way of bringing in the money, although setting it out in that way suggests that the young are being paid for by the old, which is only true up to a point - the old have paid in all their lives, both to pay for previous generations of old people, but also to pay for the young, many of whom also need healthcare, and all of whom need education. Young people will be old too, one day.

I was just going to post something similar to lemongrove, though I'm sure she put it better than I could have. If the extra money is used for its stated purpose of improving social care, I have no objections. I agree that the government should be upfront about it; it needs doing.

The lying is another matter, though.

Whilst I am broadly in favour with a rise in taxes (I say 'broadly' until we know the detail, eg whether it will be ring-fenced), but it is not fair to get elected on a manifesto that says one thing, and then do another.

I didn't vote for Johnson, you may be surprised to learn, but if I had, particularly if tax had been the one thing stopping me from voting Labour, I would be angry. As someone who would much preferred to have seen a Labour government in power I am angry that Johnson is now adopting so many socialist policies after getting into power by saying that they wouldn't work.

Labour voters knew that taxation needed to rise, and that the 'magic money tree' was there all along, but the Tory broadcasts were all about Labour profligacy, 'how are they going to pay for it?' questions, and banging on about how Brexit would fix the NHS.

It must be a quandary now for Labour MPS - do they oppose policies that they supported in their own manifesto, or do they support the government for doing exactly what they said they wouldn't?

I'm not sure whether this is saying the same thing in a different way, but as I read it it was not so much a cap on assets as a maximum charge that people will have to pay for care.

Doodledog, do you mean May's scheme was to take the first £100K while this would leave you with £100K? If that was the case it would be better than May's. However, there are still many problems with it. For a start, older people do not pay NI - unless they are suggesting changing the system and I don't know how you do that. If it was an ordinary tax it would be more progressive. It would also not be just the younger part of the population paying.

We shall see. It is only just being talked about. The leaks/briefings must have been for a purpose.

Why is breaking a manifesto promise a lie, when we have just had a pandemic here which has affected the economy in so many ways ? It’s not a lie it’s what needs to happen.
I just hope Downing St is brave about it all and makes it much more than 1% 1.5 at the very least, this money is to sort out social care and also to give money to the NHS.
There can hardly be anyone who can’t see that it’s necessary.
Manifesto promises are all very well in normal circumstances, but we are far from normal circs just now.
Younger people will be old too one day, this is for society as a whole.I don’t begrudge money spent on education after all.

He will lie, why would he change? This is just the first manifesto promise to go. Did anyone else see ITV news last night about the desperate shortage of carers? Heartbreaking. To be honest, I will be quite happy if Johnson breaks his promise as it is one he shouldn't have made in the first place. Taxes have to rise, the NHS needs funding, care needs funding, education.......