Tory ministers are reportedly considering radical plans to increase tax for everyone over 40 to pay for social care, and apparently, those over 40 would have to pay more in tax or national insurance or have to take out insurance against ending up in a care home.
The proposal bestowed to ministers would help plug the growing, multi-billion pound gap in social care funding, which will only increase as people live longer. However, a government source dismissed Health Secretary Matt Hancock was championing the idea as the Guardian reported.
And also, the source didn’t deny the plan was under consideration and said it wasn’t a solid plan. However, they continued that Matt Hancock was an advocate of the plan and had been contending for it in government, which was just plain crazy.
But a Downing Street spokesperson emphasised that it wasn’t true, that they were viewing the policy, and the idea mimics one that was established by Tory former minister Damian Green in 2018.
He suggested a levy could cost a worker on a normal wage of £27,600 an additional £364 a year and someone making £52,000 a year would pay an additional £884, and Damien Green said that more and more people are going to live to 100 and that they need a plan for that, and that the next generation or two wouldn’t have the same amount of money invested in their homes.
And he said that we should add perhaps 2 per cent in a mandatory National Insurance levy cutting in at about 40 years old, as they do in Japan so that our social care is guaranteed so that we won’t have to sell off our house.
A year ago Boris Johnson insisted there was a clear plan they’d planned to fix social care. However, he failed to outline any aspects of that plan, and was still discussing it with opposition parties, and couldn’t promise it would be published this year.
The only firm promise is that nobody will have to sell their homes to pay for care. So, this is the transition from the prevailing system, which bills some people until they have only £23,250 left.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said that they remained committed to bringing forth a system for social care, so that everyone is handled with decency and respect, and so that nobody has to sell their home to pay for care.
The Health Secretary has solicited views from across Parliament, but this is one of the most complicated matters they’ve encountered, and that it was right that they take the opportunity to develop a fair and sustainable solution.
And when asked to confirm the Prime Minister had no plan when he said he had one a year ago, and the spokesperson replied that they would continue to work on the proposals.
The spokesperson also said that they don’t shy away from the fact that this is a really complicated domain and that they need to make sure they get it right, and that they deliver a solution which is fair and also sustainable.
But why not tax the millionaires who can afford it?
However, whether we like it or not, social care does need serious improvement and consecutive governments can’t keep kicking the problem into the long grass for someone else to dispense with.
Sadly, it’s something that will affect us all at some time in our lives, so, therefore, needs to be suitably financed and if that means we must all give a little more to accomplish that, perhaps that’s what we should do, although I must confess we pay enough in taxes as it is.
The entire system requires serious reformation. We have private care homeowners hardly paying their carers minimum wage, and it should be means-tested so those who have the least still get to live out their last years in dignity and not used as some kind of commodity by private care owners.
We’re supposed to be a caring society, so our government need to make sure the elderly are looked after in their closing years. And it’s supposed to be the National Insurance service, not an insurance scheme, that’s why everyone in the country has a National Insurance number, and not a policy number.
And how about all those overcompensated puppets, I wonder if they would be prepared to take a pay cut? Instead, the government should be taxing the millionaires and billionaires, while they leave people alone who feasibly can’t afford a larger tax bill, but then that’s government indulgence for you.
People have been paying into the system for years and years, for their pension, for the NHS and probably a lot more that we don’t know about. With the older generation believing that they would get their pension, a pension that they paid into, by the way, to find out they wouldn’t get when they believed they would. All lies, lies and more lies, and this government just can’t keep moving the goalposts.
If the government makes a pledge, then they should have to stick to that promise by law. It’s not a game like Monopoly, these are real people that our government are playing with, and if that’s what our government think this is all about, then I want my £200 when I pass go – I’d probably be worth a tiny fortune by now, just like many in our government are.
I thought that age discrimination was illegal in the United Kingdom. Oh, it is! Because age is one of the preserved features under the Equality Act. So, now it seems as if we’re being treated unjustly because of age or because we’re of a particular age group.
And now that we’re out of the EU, well, we’ll be out of the transition in December, and then the UK government can, and probably will remove a number of EU directives such as this, and there will be no recourse in law to dispute it.