‘Free’ social care could cost taxpayer £18BILLION as Labour floats scrapping pensions triple lock and introducing ‘death tax’ to pay for it
Andy Burnham said Labour should seek a national care service offering social care free at the point of use, funded by raising billions in revenue. The proposal could cost about £18 billion a year, according to experts, and has prompted debate over tax rises and pension changes.
The Prime Minister said the funding model would depend on Louise Casey’s review, but that a 10 per cent tax on inheritances remained under consideration. Government sources reportedly said scrapping the pensions triple lock could also be considered; former minister Darren Jones argued tax alone would not cover the cost. The Conservatives and Reform UK ruled out tax rises, while Labour said it hoped to build cross-party agreement and would include its plan in the next manifesto.
- Labour is considering free-at-use social care.
- Experts estimate the plan could cost £18 billion annually.
- Possible funding options include inheritance tax and pension changes.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Social care is a fundamental human need, yet the current system leaves many facing catastrophic costs that devastate family finances and consume lifetime savings. A publicly-funded, free-at-point-of-use model would ensure provision based on need rather than wealth, removing a cruel postcode and class lottery. Other developed democracies successfully operate universal social care systems, demonstrating that treating care as a public good rather than a private commodity improves both equity and outcomes.
The case against
Whilst social care reform may be warranted, the proposed funding mechanisms present genuine concerns about fairness and economic impact. Raising £18 billion annually through inheritance taxes and pension changes would fall disproportionately on middle-class savers who have made provision for their own futures, whilst the UK already sustains relatively high tax rates. The case for reform should first examine whether existing public spending can be better targeted, whether these specific solutions offer cost-effectiveness, and whether durable cross-party consensus on funding can genuinely be built before implementation.