Potential solution to adult social care funding?

[Ian Geary]

Can't see a thread on this, but worthy of discussion I think.

During my 20 year career in.local government, a solution t o "fix"' adult social care funding has been awaited.

It seems like a new proposal may be coming, basically over 40s to pay additional tax, or be made to insure themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/26/uk...


Advantages seem to be
- seems to work well in Japan and Germany
- actually brings some new funding from somewhere (god knows it will be needed) albeit fishing in the same pond as for every other public spending commitment
- ends forcing equity to be squeezed out of children's inheritance into care homes profits
- potentially will help adult social care sector get stronger if decent funding is committed

Disadvantages
- depends if you're over 40 in guess
- often a preference or view that it should be "someone else" to pay
- complicated transition arrangements (though anything would have)

[Saleen836]

So anyone over 40 living a life on benefits doesn't have to contribute or worry about making ends meet thanks to increased tax/NI, very fair!

[Murph7355]

Taxation has proved very capable of dealing with stuff thus far...so obviously more taxation is the right answer

Safety net care provision for those needing it, to a standard that our general taxation can afford - available to all. If you have assets that allow you to pay for something better and are prepared to put them to that use, fill your boots.

[mikeiow]

Won’t be surprised.
Covid19 will cause all kinds of changes over coming years....much of it falling on the wealthier amongst us, one way or another.

Another other “think tank” proposed a 10% 'property capital gains tax' with the suggestion that might raise £421billion over the next 25 years to help meet some of the costs of Covid19 by the older generation too.

Feels like there are plenty of things that form a “decent society” that really do need more funding, & it doesn’t feel like regular forms of tax will cut it.

[Gecko1978]

We have many services in the UK and we hsd to what the provide each year and so the cost goes up. Tax then has to fill the whole.

I have felt for a long time tax v benefit recipients is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So why not rebalance and provide somethings with a fee.
1) GP visit same aa a prescription charge
2) schools a nominal fee say bring in 4 years from now so no one with kids today has tooay but thoes about to or who have not yet got kids do.
3) higher tax on things like vape, sugary products like chocolate and cakes,
4) tax on off premise alcohol

[greygoose]

Gecko1978 said:

We have many services in the UK and we hsd to what the provide each year and so the cost goes up. Tax then has to fill the whole.

I have felt for a long time tax v benefit recipients is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So why not rebalance and provide somethings with a fee.
1) GP visit same aa a prescription charge
2) schools a nominal fee say bring in 4 years from now so no one with kids today has tooay but thoes about to or who have not yet got kids do.
3) higher tax on things like vape, sugary products like chocolate and cakes,
4) tax on off premise alcohol

Alcohol is already taxed. Are you not going to allow children into schools if the fee is not paid by their parents?

[GT03ROB]

I don;t get the over 40s bit surely better if you just put the levy on everyone?

[voyds9]

And of course there will be a larger inheritance.

So the government can benefit from that as well

Win:win (for the government)

[Gecko1978]

greygoose said:

Gecko1978 said:

We have many services in the UK and we hsd to what the provide each year and so the cost goes up. Tax then has to fill the whole.

I have felt for a long time tax v benefit recipients is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So why not rebalance and provide somethings with a fee.
1) GP visit same aa a prescription charge
2) schools a nominal fee say bring in 4 years from now so no one with kids today has tooay but thoes about to or who have not yet got kids do.
3) higher tax on things like vape, sugary products like chocolate and cakes,
4) tax on off premise alcohol

Alcohol is already taxed. Are you not going to allow children into schools if the fee is not paid by their parents?

Re Alcholo I am suggesting like in other nations the cost of buying at supermarket goes up. Re schools it would be like the prescription system so some would be exempt others not and with my 4 year time horizon everyone would know. Then the deduction could be added to council tax for example.

[PeteinSQ]

It's effectively an additional form of national insurance which I've seen might be an extra 1.8% tax. I'm a higher tax payer but I would support this. Even for the reasonably wealthy social care can destroy an entire lifetime's accumulated wealth with care homes costing a minimum of £1000 a week and often much more. So it's a bit of a lottery right now and some way of sharing that risk across the entire population isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.

I'm a higher rate tax payer already so would be disproportionately effected when this comes in and I'm 40 in a year and a half so will be paying this for the full 30 years too.

[Electro1980]

Gecko1978 said:

greygoose said:

Gecko1978 said:

We have many services in the UK and we hsd to what the provide each year and so the cost goes up. Tax then has to fill the whole.

I have felt for a long time tax v benefit recipients is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So why not rebalance and provide somethings with a fee.
1) GP visit same aa a prescription charge
2) schools a nominal fee say bring in 4 years from now so no one with kids today has tooay but thoes about to or who have not yet got kids do.
3) higher tax on things like vape, sugary products like chocolate and cakes,
4) tax on off premise alcohol

Alcohol is already taxed. Are you not going to allow children into schools if the fee is not paid by their parents?

Re Alcholo I am suggesting like in other nations the cost of buying at supermarket goes up. Re schools it would be like the prescription system so some would be exempt others not and with my 4 year time horizon everyone would know. Then the deduction could be added to council tax for example.

So your suggesting increasing taxes, but in a very regressive way?

[Uggers]

Would this be a UK wide thing. I already pay best part of £2k more in tax for the privilege of living in Scotland. Can't say I have seen an increase in public services compared to the rest of my family in England.

Frankly after seeing nearly half my salary go straight away in NI, income tax and council tax the thought of more tax to pay for a service I am already making provision for. Just makes it an easier decision to stop earning the money I do.

I think why bother. Might as well get a job with no responsibility or stress and let some other schmuck pick up the tab.

[Electro1980]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your issue is that people get benefits then? Do you know how many people are long term claimants of benefits who could be working? Do you know what group gets the majority of all benefit payments?

[GT03ROB]

PeteinSQ said:

It's effectively an additional form of national insurance which I've seen might be an extra 1.8% tax. I'm a higher tax payer but I would support this. Even for the reasonably wealthy social care can destroy an entire lifetime's accumulated wealth with care homes costing a minimum of £1000 a week and often much more. So it's a bit of a lottery right now and some way of sharing that risk across the entire population isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.

I'm a higher rate tax payer already so would be disproportionately effected when this comes in and I'm 40 in a year and a half so will be paying this for the full 30 years too.

Except of course an extra 1.8% of tax starting at 40 isn't going to fund many weeks at 1000/week.

[Flooble]

Electro1980 said:

Your issue is that people get benefits then? Do you know how many people are long term claimants of benefits who could be working? Do you know what group gets the majority of all benefit payments?

Trick question. The Government breaks pensions out into a separate box.

[Uggers]

Maybe if they raise the retirement age further to 75 (and I expect it will be by the time I reach that age) a lot will have already worked themselves to an early grave and won't need the care home money. Win win.

[GT03ROB]

Ian Geary said:

Advantages seem to be
- seems to work well in Japan and Germany
- actually brings some new funding from somewhere (god knows it will be needed) albeit fishing in the same pond as for every other public spending commitment
- ends forcing equity to be squeezed out of children's inheritance into care homes profits
- potentially will help adult social care sector get stronger if decent funding is committed

Disadvantages
- depends if you're over 40 in guess
- often a preference or view that it should be "someone else" to pay
- complicated transition arrangements (though anything would have)

The reality is that the bold point is probably the right answer......

....the children need to do the caring......it was always the way.

[anonymous-user]

GT03ROB said:

PeteinSQ said:

It's effectively an additional form of national insurance which I've seen might be an extra 1.8% tax. I'm a higher tax payer but I would support this. Even for the reasonably wealthy social care can destroy an entire lifetime's accumulated wealth with care homes costing a minimum of £1000 a week and often much more. So it's a bit of a lottery right now and some way of sharing that risk across the entire population isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.

I'm a higher rate tax payer already so would be disproportionately effected when this comes in and I'm 40 in a year and a half so will be paying this for the full 30 years too.

Except of course an extra 1.8% of tax starting at 40 isn't going to fund many weeks at 1000/week.

And you’ll be lucky to find decent care at anywhere near £1k a week.

Just the usual rearranging of the deck chairs.

The same people will pay now rather than later. The same people won’t pay at all.

[GT03ROB]

REALIST123 said:

GT03ROB said:

PeteinSQ said:

It's effectively an additional form of national insurance which I've seen might be an extra 1.8% tax. I'm a higher tax payer but I would support this. Even for the reasonably wealthy social care can destroy an entire lifetime's accumulated wealth with care homes costing a minimum of £1000 a week and often much more. So it's a bit of a lottery right now and some way of sharing that risk across the entire population isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.

I'm a higher rate tax payer already so would be disproportionately effected when this comes in and I'm 40 in a year and a half so will be paying this for the full 30 years too.

Except of course an extra 1.8% of tax starting at 40 isn't going to fund many weeks at 1000/week.

And you’ll be lucky to find decent care at anywhere near £1k a week.

Just the usual rearranging of the deck chairs.

The same people will pay now rather than later. The same people won’t pay at all.

....and the extra raised will just go into the same pot as every other piece of taxation......

[Electro1980]

Flooble said:

Electro1980 said:

Your issue is that people get benefits then? Do you know how many people are long term claimants of benefits who could be working? Do you know what group gets the majority of all benefit payments?

Trick question. The Government breaks pensions out into a separate box.

The OBR, ONS and DWP all class it as a benefit, and it makes up over 60% of all benefit payments. The largest being pension, then there is 1.5 million claiming ESA.