Address what I wrote, or carry on trolling. Your choice.

If you think that you know better than me, show me an alternative for this particular situation. How would the situation be better if we were still a member of the union of Europe? You think they would pay "to fix social care" for us? Or would it be more likely that UK would be helping to bail out failing economies in southern Europe? Making the matter worse for our own social care? You idealists just never think it through.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

As a retired man whose income is partially dependent on rent generating property purchased with his pension fund, I can see why some consider this to be an unfair way of funding the very real changes that are needed.

My income is, of course, still fully taxed, and I paid both personal NI whilst employed, and Class 4 NI when running my businesses, alongside employer's NI for my staff.

So over the 52 years I was paying NI, I have contributed a lot. Which I did willingly, as I understand how this works.

Apart from my state pension (which is also subject to tax), I have never drawn a benefit, not even sick pay. I do, of course, benefit from the NHS.

So is this fair? The answer for me is both yes, and no. It's fair for the low to average income pensioner and no for the higher income pensioner.

But not just higher income pensioners ought to pay more. All higher earners, from whatever source and at whatever age, ought to pay a little more via income tax.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Newly qualified graduates with student debt who earn over the £28k threshold now have a marginal tax rate of 42.25% with repayments taken into account. How is that generation ever meant to save to get on the housing ladder?

This isn’t the first generation in history.; it’s always been the same. How was I supposed to get on the housing ladder when I started work in the 70s and earned £26.10 a week?

It’s going to take a long time for this to sit right with everyone, but it will eventually. Young people will know that they’re all covered for care when they get old, and those who’ve prospered or ‘done the right things’ as is often used, won’t get taxed heavily while others get it free - whether that’s because they just didn’t prosper or didn’t care about anything and always knew the state would support them.

But we’re at a time when young people are getting the rough end of a lot of sh1t while knowing that people will be keeping hundreds of thousands of pounds while they’ll be taxed more and maybe not get any inheritance themselves in the case of generations of families in social housing. Whether that’s through choice or bad choices or not falls into the why should they get free care question.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (08 Sep 2021 12.05am)

COYP

Agree with a lot of this. The idea and principle is sound. How it’s being funded in the short term really isn’t.