Paying for Social Care

Having had in laws and parents living well into their nineties, needing care in dementia units, local hospitals, at home etc it doesn't matter what they did in life, it is about the care that they needed at the time.

M0nica

Introduce a care contribution to be paid by tax-paying people who no longer pay NI contributions and set at the level of NI contributions. Since you would need to be tax paying to pay it, poorer pensioners would not pay it.

I have never understood how anyone fortunate enough to own a house could not see the immorality of poorer people being taxed to support them in old age so that their children, in general in better jobs and better educated, should be able to pocket a larger inheritance when their parents die.

I have always said, that as much as I would like to leave my children an inheritance, if the house should need to be sold to fund my future care, so be it.

I do not understand people's obsession with leaving money to their children. Nice if you can, but if you cannot, so what?

I suspect that many of us older ones had parents who inherited nothing or very little from their parents, even if we inherited from them.

Totally agree M0nica, I dont' always agree with you

My money or house will be used to pay for my care if necessary, as much as I would like to leave something for my 3 daughters and 6 grandchildren its my money, my late husband and I worked hard for it, if it will make my life a bit better for what ever years I have left then so be it. I will try to invest some for the future but it may well be my own future not necessarily the families.

Well said Varian! The rich get rich on the pandemic and the workers get to pay for this Governments waste of billions of pounds of money on contracts for old friends for unusable ppe equipment and nightingale hospitals never used let alone the abuse of companies using the furlough scheme, no it is grossly unfair.When the rich are not penalised as well!

Jennyluck

I agree with razzy and Maddyone. The system of care should be fair to everyone. Most people who end up having to sell their house for care home costs, are just average people who’ve worked hard to buy their own property. Not the wealthy who can afford their own care or people who have rented a property all their life. But yet again it’s the people in the middle.
The details of the new plan are now available.
It’s seems that we’ll all be paying, which I haven’t got a problem with.
But it seems is will only really benefit people with very little money.
This seems like a con. Because this section of society were already being looked after.

Jennyluck Please read the small print! These changes won't help people with very little money. They won't help the people in the middle either. The only people who will benefit are those with high-value homes. In fact, they won't benefit from anything either, but their children will.

This is one big con! It's all being done under the NHS/social care banner, but it's just a way of raising taxes for those who can afford it least. Don't fall for it!

A decent standard of care should be available to anyone, free at point of use (like the NHS). Yes, some of us will pay in far more than we take out - that's fine with me.

Others will pay in little - and take out far more. It's just what a civilised society, in a rich country, should do. It can never be made 'fair' but there's so much room for improvement!

I agree with MOnica's post too.

Hetty58

A decent standard of care should be available to anyone, free at point of use (like the NHS). Yes, some of us will pay in far more than we take out - that's fine with me.

Others will pay in little - and take out far more. It's just what a civilised society, in a rich country, should do. It can never be made 'fair' but there's so much room for improvement!

The principle is fine with me too, but these changes mean the poorest will pay a disproportionate amount (not more) and the richest will gain most. That's not fair and it's not fine with me!

yaiyai

I think that it’s not fair that someone who has worked hard and paid both NI and tax for 50 years, chose to have only 2 children, did without many things to enable to buy a house, should be subsidising feckless (poor) people who have never worked a day in their lives and have several children etc. As far as why should the young pay for us oldies, isnt that what we did?

Maybe you'd like to explain your post because it's nonsense.

Many poor people have worked every day of their adult lives, but still end up poor, despite paying NI and income tax. Some of them don't even have children.

No, you didn't pay for oldies to the same extent as today's younger people are because when you were a young person, oldies died much younger than they do today.

Yaiyai wrote:
"(Caleo,) Rich people generally support themselves eg private healthcare and education. Also, regardless of how much or little tax they pay from their earnings (thinking celebs), it is the rich people supporting the rest of us. Do the maths. The average working person does not contribute as much as it costs to educate their children and healthcare etc. Look at figures quoted for a hospital birth alone then there is the rest."

Private health care and private education by their very nature deprive the less well off.The total amount that private health care and private education give back to society is a very small portion of the overall national effort to care and to educate.

Rich people don't support the rest of us, on the contrary rich people take more than their shares from a limited gross national profit.

Some rich people such as Carnegie are exceptions. Some rich people do not wish to be the only rich person in the graveyard and give away their wealth.

Tax the very rich and leave the lower paid and poorer people alone.

It’s unjust and unfair.

But that’s a Tory government for you. And it always will be as long as they are in control.

How about scrapping HS2 and Trident, then tax their Mates, who benefitted from overprices and often useless ppe and track and trace. Cash found!

Caleo It isn't rich people who are supporting the rest. It's the "rest" who do the work which enables the rich to make a profit.

Greciangirl

Tax the very rich and leave the lower paid and poorer people alone.

It’s unjust and unfair.

But that’s a Tory government for you. And it always will be as long as they are in control.

So freebies for all unless you are rich. I’ve never been well off, always paid my way, still pay taxes, never claimed benefits, am I envious of those with more money no, if we all use the facilities, then we should all contribute, however small the amount.

Sorry Caleo. I've just reread your post and seen that you were replying to Yaiyai. I agree with you.

Lincslass

Greciangirl

Tax the very rich and leave the lower paid and poorer people alone.

It’s unjust and unfair.

But that’s a Tory government for you. And it always will be as long as they are in control.

So freebies for all unless you are rich. I’ve never been well off, always paid my way, still pay taxes, never claimed benefits, am I envious of those with more money no, if we all use the facilities, then we should all contribute, however small the amount.

Who's getting freebies?

With this latest NICs increase, nobody will receive any freebies.

People seem to think that making the boast that they "never claimed benefits" is somehow a situation worthy of praise that places them above the hoi polloi.

Benefits are there to support the people who need it. Benefits are not freebies for the feckless scroungers. I claimed benefits when I can back from abroad and couldn't find a job for a few months. The amount of tax I've paid in the last 30 years has more than covered what I got to keep me going. And whether you like it or not, if you're on the State Pension, you're claiming benefits.

Its a triumph of the Conservative way of thinking that "claiming benefits" is still seen as something shameful.

Why is being rich constantly maligned?

The so called rich (which used to be known as comfortable) are the employers in your local town, the shop owners, the small businesses, the head teachers, doctors, dentists, accountants and solicitors.

How about the entrepreneurs who create jobs and apprenticeships?

How much money do you consider too much?

Is it the mega rich which are actually being referred to?

Lets be clear. The number of 'rich' people like Carnegie etc can be counted on the fingers of two hands.

There are 37 million tax payers in this country. Only 1 million earn more than £100,000. Even of you took every penny they earned, the take would be limited.

This wonderful idea that if only we taxed the rich all our national spending problems would be solved is on a par with believing in the tooth fairy.

Sad to say, if you are looking to increase tax takings through income tax, it is the small increase for the many rather than the swinging tax increase for the wealthy that brings the most money in.

Similarly the idea that all those earning over £100,000 are high flyers with huge funds, clever accountants that protect them from paying tax, is also an illusion. Yes, among those with incomes in the millions and those that get their income in large lumps, may be caught up in such schemes, but the majority of people earning up to £600-700,000 are 9.00-5.00 day PAYE earners or people running SME (your local successful builder, high tech company owner, consultant or owner of a small chain of stores), consultants of all kinds. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-by-income-range

growstuff, I failed to point out that I'm bitterly disappointed with the proposed changes (so called) - and certainly not a fan.

I'm not surprised either, though. It's exactly what I'd expect from our current government.

What really puzzles me is - why do so many people vote for them, when so few benefit?

Try telling your average single parent living on Universal Credit that those on £100,000 haven't got huge funds.

As for the idea that people earning £600,000-£700,00 are just 9-to-5 workers, well that's just farcical.

Maybe it's aspirational voting? (Next year, Rodney, we'll be millionaires!)

Can we stop with all this divisive nonsense about 'thrifty' folk? the truth is that most of us with a decent amount to leave to our children are fortunate to have bought a house at the right time, in the right place. I haven't worked any harder than somebody in a rented property, I am just fortunate that I was able to buy a flat in the South East when I was single, and we were then able to buy a house when we got married. Several houses later we are now, ridiculous as it sounds, worth in excess of £700,000. Had we done the same process, and worked as hard in another area, we would be sitting worth considerably less.

M0nica I agree with your post of 15.48.

I was trying to say the same, just not as well as you.

Yaiyai does have a point re. some people - I won't call them feckless but there is a segment of society who have not paid into any type of pension fund (perhaps choosing and I mean choosing not to work), frittering their money away on smoking, drinking and gambling

But what about the taxes they have paid on said alcohol and cigarettes?

So many people mention "fair" in their posts but "fair" doesn't exist in life, we were all told that when we were children. We all face "unfairness" in our lives, some more than others. It's not "fair" being widowed at an early age, having a serious illness that affects our ability to work, being born into a family that doesn't value education, being born less able than others etc. The list of things that affect our life chances is endless. I've been lucky, not as fortunate as some but more than others. If I have the ill luck to develop dementia or some other condition that means I need care I am happy for every bloody penny I have to be used for ti and if that helps someone else who has been less fortunate than me, then I will die happy.