Gransnet forums

Care & carers

So Just Where Has The Money Set Aside For Social Care Gone?

(56 Posts)
mae13 Fri 19-Jul-24 05:18:44

Council's are bleating that the expected new cap on social care for 2025 (approx 84,000) cannot now be implemented - apparently the money that was earmarked to action this "has been spent elsewhere", they have confessed.

Where?

Time and again it seems funds for care are treated like a bottomless piggy bank by central and local government depts. that are slipshod at managing budgets. Why is money set aside for elderly, disabled and vulnerable not ring-fenced? Or is this a deliberate policy - because respect for these groups is less than zilch?

Merion Fri 02-Aug-24 08:28:09

November 17 2022

As widely trailed, Hunt used his autumn statement today to announce a two-year delay to the adult social care charging reforms, including the £86,000 cap on care costs, which are now due to come into force in October 2025, beyond the next election.

However, instead of retaining the funding allocated for the reforms in the Treasury, Hunt said it would still go to councils, with £1.3bn available in 2023-24 and £1.9bn in 2024-25 to spend on adults’ and children’s social care.

www.communitycare.co.uk/2022/11/17/hunt-announces-two-year-care-cap-delay-to-allow-councils-to-deliver-200000-extra-care-packages/

Read that carefully - spent on adults' and childrens' social care.

The county council here budgets over 2.7 million per day to provide these services in 2024/25 - 2.2 million for adults and 500k for children.

The previous government knew that the care cap scheme was going to be difficult to fund and implement which is arguably why they postponed it to beyond the election so it would become the problem of the next government. Labour have now scrapped it altogther so we shall have to wait and see what social care reforms they come up with.

Most people I've spoken to didn't understand how the cap was going to work anyway. They didn't understand that it wasn't retrospective - costs before the introduction date wouldn't count. They didn't understand that is was only going to cover "the care" element of overall costs. Specifically, the cap wasn't going to cover the cost of residential accommodation, food and ancilliary charges.

David49 Fri 02-Aug-24 08:37:57

It comes down to the fact that LA spending is grossly
underfunded, they have legal obligations, in many cases not fulfilled, they have been robbing other budgets to keep going as best they can.

At the end of the day if we want social care to be funded adequately WE are going to have to pay more, either directly through Council Tax or indirectly through national taxation.

Primrose53 Fri 02-Aug-24 08:40:39

Grantanow

The Buffoon never had a social care plan, oven ready or not. The Tories underfunded public services including local Councils so it's not surprising several are effectively bankrupt including Tory controlled ones. It's going to take years to put right and it's the poor and old who will continue to suffer. Thank you Tories and good riddance.

Why do Labourites always have to use childish or offensive language in a discussion?

I am certain Conservative voters could find equally nasty words to describe Starmer but wouldn’t lower themselves to Labour levels.

Doodledog Fri 02-Aug-24 08:44:10

David49

It comes down to the fact that LA spending is grossly
underfunded, they have legal obligations, in many cases not fulfilled, they have been robbing other budgets to keep going as best they can.

At the end of the day if we want social care to be funded adequately WE are going to have to pay more, either directly through Council Tax or indirectly through national taxation.

Exactly. People want the impossible - they don't want to pay more tax, but they want more spending on things that benefit them. If the government put up taxes they will 'bleat', but they also 'bleat' when there are spending cuts.

Callistemon213 Fri 02-Aug-24 08:44:37

Greyduster

If they are as good as our council is at wasting millions on vanity projects that die a death because no-one has thought them through properly, then there’s no hope.

I thought I'd posted on this thread previously but it can't have posted.

I do agree, Greyduster, that LAs are not the most savvy when it comes to managing their finances.

One would think the income would largely be spent on the public services for which they are responsible, with a contingency fund set up for emergencies in a safe haven.

Instead, they invest money in areas which prove to be dodgy or do not do research into what investments are safe. Remember the Icelandic banks scandal? Local Authorities lost £millions although I believe compensation was paid.
Our CC invested £millions in commercial properties just a few years ago but then found it could not rent them out and they are worth less than they paid for them.

Their incompetence is wasting money that is needed for essential public services.

(Don't even mention their wonderful new headquarters.)

Fartooold Fri 02-Aug-24 09:06:36

Come on Ladies it is our country we all have to contribute so things can improve!

Doodledog Fri 02-Aug-24 09:13:00

Fartooold

Come on Ladies it is our country we all have to contribute so things can improve!

Agreed.

Callistemon213 Fri 02-Aug-24 09:13:29

Fartooold

Come on Ladies it is our country we all have to contribute so things can improve!

Yes, we do.

But we want our elected representatives to manage their finances and spend our money responsibly on those public services we expect them to provide.

Perhaps Central Government should not interfere in the allocation of Local Council funds.

maddyone Fri 02-Aug-24 09:25:10

We already do contribute. We pay income tax, council tax, VAT, road tax, and other taxes. Why is the suggestion being made that we don’t contribute?

Doodledog Fri 02-Aug-24 09:35:29

maddyone

We already do contribute. We pay income tax, council tax, VAT, road tax, and other taxes. Why is the suggestion being made that we don’t contribute?

Because as soon as there is even a rumour that the government might possibly think about considering having a discussion about the idea of raising taxes there is an outcry?

I agree that there should be a rethink about the funding of LAs. I don't know what would work better than now, but councils that have higher calls on their purses tend to have less coming in, as they have more houses in low council tax bands, and more people getting free services. Obviously the reverse is also true. Geographical inequality is something that needs to be addressed, IMO.

flappergirl Fri 02-Aug-24 10:38:28

gulligranny

Well of course now that we have a La-La-Labour government, "all things shall be well, all things shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well". So no worries.

You see, I find this sort of comment so strange given the utterly appalling record of the last government. They had 14 years in power, 5 prime ministers (a record I believe) and innumerable reshuffles.

Fair enough if you don't think Labour can do any better but to imply that the last government was the answer is breathtaking. They left the country with the highest burden of taxes since the war, the highest illegal immigration levels, crumbling social care, the NHS teetering on the brink, a terrifying shortage of doctors, nurses and teachers, prisons overflowing, roads too dangerous to drive on and young professionals without a hope in hell of buying a home. I could go on, but hopefully I've talked some sense into you.

Fartooold Fri 02-Aug-24 10:57:54

flappergirl
I totally agree. However we must pay more to support vulnerable people. Surely percentage on income would be fair, 1% of income, I would pay £1.90/week from my pension. Also would be quite happy to lose 1% from my 3 disabled children’s (now adults) disability income if it sort this country out.

Doodledog Fri 02-Aug-24 11:07:38

I agree with both of you. Taxes (not just income tax) have to rise if we are to have better services. Yes, those who only think of themselves will 'bleat', but tough. Better that we are all a little bit worse off in the short term if we are looked after when we need to be.

Cossy Fri 02-Aug-24 11:18:04

J52

Sometime LA money has to be spent in a particular way, by a specific time or it goes back to central government.
For example there may be money to improve open spaces, so new park benches are bought. Meanwhile the school needs to be painted. The first lot of money can’t be spent on the latter.
A simplified example.

Completely agree.

There are statutory services which MUST be funded and in common with central govt there are “different” pots. Many councils, under all political controls, ie all political spectrums, have seen their budgets slashed but their statutory commitments rising especially in children’ services and elderly care.

Crossstitchfan Fri 02-Aug-24 11:23:58

Doodledog

You lost me at ‘bleating’, OP.

Harsh!

Cossy Fri 02-Aug-24 11:24:38

gulligranny

Well of course now that we have a La-La-Labour government, "all things shall be well, all things shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well". So no worries.

Without wishing to be rude, your comment is as unhelpful as it is ridiculous.

There’s nothing “lala” about trying to put right 14 years of fiscal disaster and an inherited mess.

I just wish people would at least give this govt 1 year before dissing and ridiculing all their proposals.

The previous govt wasted £££££m in all kinds of ways and now we al have to pay the price.

Casdon Fri 02-Aug-24 11:31:29

Was it a Con Con government before do you think? 🤔

David49 Fri 02-Aug-24 12:45:20

Doodledog

I agree with both of you. Taxes (not just income tax) have to rise if we are to have better services. Yes, those who only think of themselves will 'bleat', but tough. Better that we are all a little bit worse off in the short term if we are looked after when we need to be.

Yes it will cost us more, either through extra taxes OR a reduction in benefits for those that don’t need them, including WFA.

Prioritizing growth investment will help in the long term but don’t expect results quickly, we have a lot of catching up to do.

Callistemon213 Fri 02-Aug-24 12:47:25

Cossy

J52

Sometime LA money has to be spent in a particular way, by a specific time or it goes back to central government.
For example there may be money to improve open spaces, so new park benches are bought. Meanwhile the school needs to be painted. The first lot of money can’t be spent on the latter.
A simplified example.

Completely agree.

There are statutory services which MUST be funded and in common with central govt there are “different” pots. Many councils, under all political controls, ie all political spectrums, have seen their budgets slashed but their statutory commitments rising especially in children’ services and elderly care.

Yes, I made that point too, use it or lose it ie pay it back at the end of the financial year.

Grantanow Fri 02-Aug-24 14:32:04

As to 'offensive' language I recall a voter being asked in a street interview on TV whether he would vote for Johnson or Corbyn to which he replied that he preferred a 'lying buffoon' to a 'Marxist' any day.

Doodledog Fri 02-Aug-24 15:40:22

Crossstitchfan

Doodledog

You lost me at ‘bleating’, OP.

Harsh!

But true.

Norah Fri 02-Aug-24 16:07:30

maddyone

We already do contribute. We pay income tax, council tax, VAT, road tax, and other taxes. Why is the suggestion being made that we don’t contribute?

I don't see suggestions we don't contribute. I see suggestions that some should contribute more. Why? Because we're benefactors of society.

To my mind taxation must change.

Current NI: £242 to £967 a week (£1,048 to £4,189 a month = 8%, Over £967 a week (£4,189 a month) = 2% Why in the world aren't people on over £967 a week (£4,189 a month) paying a much higher percent, say 12%?

"About 18% of a citizen's income tax goes towards healthcare, which is about 4.5% of the average citizen's income." Why could not high earners pay 12%?

Fartooold Fri 02-Aug-24 21:25:29

Norah I like your idea but I don’t think the wealthiest will.

David49 Sat 03-Aug-24 07:08:07

Fartooold

Norah I like your idea but I don’t think the wealthiest will.

Nobody volunteers to pay tax, it has to be mandatory and supervised to stop evasion. Then it needs to be distributed fairly to those that need help or provide services we all use.

What happens in practice is that benefits are often used as political inducements to one group of voter or another, rather that who needs help.

Whiff Sat 03-Aug-24 07:10:46

Governments for decades have instead of spending the money on this country has been sent to other countries. Millions every year money that is needed here for social care,housing , schools, hospitals etc. Stop helping other countries and put the UK needs first . Stop taking in people from other countries with hard luck stories. Look to our own people who live here and work pay taxes and NI who need help I don't just mean people who are born here but people who come here to make their home and work for their families and pay into the country. . They pay into the country but still need help because of low wages. Need healthcare ,housing etc. The need for food banks is rising, affordable housing ,access to healthcare of all sorts and a benefits system where people are treated with respect and not treated like dirt.

My own experience is universal credit and the health part of universal credit people you like a human being and care. People dealing with PIP treat you like dirt and the only people I have found treat you with respect and help you are at the PIP tribunal. But many are put off going that far. But I could only do that because of the Brain Charities support and getting me a solicitor pro bono took over a year to get to tribunal but thankfully I won. But it had taken me 35 years of trying to get disability benefits and I was born disabled.

I am glad to say in my local town there are council flats being built and affordable housing built near by .

Healthcare is a postcode lottery took me a move of over 100 miles to the north west to get the healthcare I needed . Without the care I get know still wouldn't be on treatment which is helping me or know the 2 things I was born with .

If the government gave bursaries like decades ago more people could afford to train as nurses, doctors and other medical professionals we need.

Stop people who work here putting their money into banks like in Jersey and other places where they get away with paying less tax and earn higher interest rates. Make high earners pay more tax and NI and stop MPs voting to give themselves a pay rise every year . Give it to people who need it.

Found out the other week why my local Sainsbury's is trying to get people to use self service check outs as I talked to the store assistant manager. Sainsbury's have cut there staff hours by 200 hours per month so staff are working reduced hours therefore haven't got the staff to man the staffed checkouts.

I know this has gone off subject but all this has been going on for decades . I really hoped having a new government they would help the country ,but like all governments they target the vulnerable and reward the rich.

Gone is the day when before people became MPs they actually did a proper job for a decade or more before becoming a MP . People who not just did office work but worked on the factory floor who could only afford a week's holiday in a caravan a year. Where if they wanted things they had to budget and save for it.

I am not very political but those that need help aren't getting it . Taking the winter fuel payment off people how many people are going to die if we have a bad winter because they can't heat their homes. I remember when they had to have refrigerated lorries at hospitals because so many people died during a very hard winter.

Sorry this is a distorted ramble but it's how my mind works . But hopefully people understand what I am trying to say.