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

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.

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.

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.

Dinahmo

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 know. It's seems we've been lucky. The point I was making is that I don't mind paying for others to have social care, even though nobody in my family has needed it and it's probable I won't either (most people don't).

I still think that the cost should be spread over the whole population via general taxation and not just a relatively small section. National Insurance is just about the most regressive of all taxes (apart possibly from council tax) because it's only paid by working people below pension age and the lowest earners pay a higher percentage than the highest earners.

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

Growstuff, if most people don’t need Social Care why is there such a vast bill to pay for it?

growstuff

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

I agree with that.

Nanna58

Growstuff, if most people don’t need Social Care why is there such a vast bill to pay for it?

That's a good question.

Nanna58

Growstuff, if most people don’t need Social Care why is there such a vast bill to pay for it?

Are you disputing that most people don't need social care? It's a documented fact that they don't.

The reason there's a vast bill is because it's expensive and people haven't been paying enough - certainly in the UK. The situation is different in some other countries, where a social care tax is paid.

Dinahmo

growstuff

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

I agree with that.

Me too.

because it is privatised, and those care companies exist to make profit.
if it was organised as a national care service, with proper training and career progression, standard recognised qualifications, many economies of scale could be made.
also increasing numbers of people need care due to frailty or disability, the population is living longer on average, and fewer families are able to do the care needed.

The threshold of need to qualify for state funded social care is very high and rising because of inadequate funding, which I think is why only a small percentage of people receive it. however that doesn’t mean thousands more don’t need it - they and their families and friends/neighbours find ways of providing it instead, or not in which case people live in squalor, don’t eat, etc.

Doodledog I disagree with you, our generation are the boomer generation, so that ‘boom’ means that the younger generation, of which there was a contraction in numbers, will have to pay more comparatively than we had to, to pay for our care and medical needs.
We have a greater voting block so vote for governments that suit our needs not theirs, houses, education everything is much more expensive with wages comparatively lower. My old job that I was made redundant from at the beginning of the lockdown, the wages for new hires (pre pandemic) was significantly lower than for what colleagues were paid who started fifteen years to a decade ago, and inflation has gone up since then.
These reasons were part of the overall reasons my sons left, including brexit, and both have said from what they have seen from the U.K. gov since they left if has confirmed they made the right decision.

I do wish the conservatives hadn’t pissed away billions on their mates companies during the pandemic so that young people and working families didn’t have to pay more for our care.

Casdon

The threshold of need to qualify for state funded social care is very high and rising because of inadequate funding, which I think is why only a small percentage of people receive it. however that doesn’t mean thousands more don’t need it - they and their families and friends/neighbours find ways of providing it instead, or not in which case people live in squalor, don’t eat, etc.

How does that justify not paying for social care out of taxation?

I agree with fixing the social care system, but to do that taxes need to increase - across the board, not just for people of working age with a disproportionate burden on the lower earners.

welbeck

because it is privatised, and those care companies exist to make profit.
if it was organised as a national care service, with proper training and career progression, standard recognised qualifications, many economies of scale could be made.
also increasing numbers of people need care due to frailty or disability, the population is living longer on average, and fewer families are able to do the care needed.

Yes, it needs fixing and proper financing with the burden borne by everybody.

? growstuff I didn’t say the fact that social care is capped because of the threshold being so high justified it not being paid for out of taxation.

Casdon

The threshold of need to qualify for state funded social care is very high and rising because of inadequate funding, which I think is why only a small percentage of people receive it. however that doesn’t mean thousands more don’t need it - they and their families and friends/neighbours find ways of providing it instead, or not in which case people live in squalor, don’t eat, etc.

Whilst I am more than happy to pay more tax and/or NI towards a fairer care system, I hope that when we see the detail of this scheme, whatever it is, it will be made clear that there will be no postcode lottery when it comes to allocation of places in care homes, and that there won't be lots of people waiting so long to get care that they end up paying as much as many have to do now.

I don’t see how the government could prevent a postcode lottery Doodledog, as social care is not directly their responsibility, it’s under the remit of local authorities, who have the unenviable task of allocating ever diminishing budgets across the whole range of services they provide.

No, I know.

It would be better if social care were centralised somehow. I'm not saying I know how it should be done, and obviously people want to be near loved ones which complicates things further, but the way things are now, it is people who live in wealthier council areas who get more services when arguably it should be the other way round.

I think it's only right that we should all pay more towards ensuring that there is care for those who need it, but someone needing care in one area should have the same chance as someone in another.

It’s very complicated for sure. In Wales you’re less likely to get social care if you live in a wealthy council area because the funding formula is based on deprivation so the councils is wealthier areas have less allocation, but that’s not fair either for those who do need it.
I’m not in favour of central government control, as they are too far removed to be able to make sure implementation is fair. Agreed eligibility criteria across the board would be a good start though.

Not wanting to sound flippant but franchises such as McDonald's seem able to provide a consistent product across all areas. It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to be able to centralise and provide a consistent level of care across the country, eliminating as far as is possible any postcode lottery. This should go for other areas of cradle to grave provision too. I hope BJ does go back on his manifesto, but I'd prefer income tax to rise rather than NI contributions, or bring in NI contributions for everybody, retired or not. Nobody should be exempt from paying a fair contribution for the good of all.

I know what you mean, Rosie. The only way I can see that working would be if there was an entirely separate budget for care, though (and possibly for other areas of healthcare) which would get complicated, as there is a lot of crossover between clinical care and social care.

Even then, a centralised system could end up meaning that a patient from London got a place in a home in Wolverhampton (or similar), which would be counter-productive if they got no visitors as a result.

Doodledog I'm not for one minute pretending I'm clever enough to work it out, but I imagine there could/should be people who could There would be enormous problems to overcome, but if we don't try we'll never know if they could be overcome. I'm a great believer in "you don't truly fail until you stop trying". Let's try, if we fail so be it, we can look ourselves in the mirror knowing we did our best and failure is no shame if you've truly tried. Not you, but too many throw up their hands saying "it's impossible". Maybe it is, but if we don't try we'll never know. Steps down from soapbox......

Casdon

? growstuff I didn’t say the fact that social care is capped because of the threshold being so high justified it not being paid for out of taxation.

Ah! OK! In that case, I agree with you. I think the whole system needs a thorough overhaul.

Didn’t the Labour Party suggest a rise in the top rate of income tax? That would be fairer, but oh no that’s too much like Communism the Tory media howled and that it would mean all our top earners would flee the country. N.I. Is not a fair tax , income tax would be fairer and I would like the Tory apologists to explain why they are not choosing that route. Could it be because their supporters would be shelling out more?