Social care - who should pay?

I agree with your overall point re Scandinavian levels of state support on US tax rates M0nica and find attitudes very sad. Those of us born after the war have benefited from so much that was put in place so the state offered support all through our lives and yet some do not see how lucky we have been.

Gillybob says "No one helped me out financially in my life ever.", and yet she will have been - when she was born, educated, had her own children, and when they were educated and when she paid less tax because those earning more paid more. We have all been helped financial when we needed to be - we just didn't know the names of all those helping us. Not to recognise this means people don't feel they should do the same for others sadly.

Wasn't it Isabel Oakshott who said something similar last month, that nobody ever helped her out financially?

It's misleading to compare our healthcare system with Scandinavia - for example in Sweden, people pay to visit a GP, pay for x-rays, pay to see a hospital doctor etc - nearly a fifth of expenditure on healthcare comes from such fees from patients.

I didn't see that Jen but it wouldn't surprise me.

"When you take things for granted the things you are granted get taken."

politicalscrapbook.net/2017/08/privately-educated-tory-editor-in-housing-rant-i-had-no-financial-help-from-anyone-ever/

"Sweden is divided into 290 municipalities and 20 county councils. Three of the county councils: Halland, Skåne and Västra Götaland – as well as Gotland municipality – are called regional councils and have assumed responsibility for regional development from the state.

There is no hierarchical relation between municipalities, county councils and regions. Around 90 per cent of the work of Swedish county councils concerns health care, but they also deal with other areas such as culture and infrastructure.

Sweden’s municipalities are respons­ible for care for the elderly in the home or in special accommodation. Their duties also include care for people with physical dis­abilities or psychological disorders and providing support and services for people released from hospital care as well as for school health care. Chronic diseases that require monitoring and treatment, and often life-long medication, place significant demands on the system."

Sounds good to me.

"Responsibility for providing health care is devolved to the county councils and, in some cases, municipal governments. County councils are political bodies whose representatives are elected by county residents every four years on the same day as national general elections. Swedish policy states that every county council must provide residents with good-quality health and medical care, and work to promote good health for the entire population. County councils are also responsible for dental care for local residents up to the age of 21."

Yes it costs more, but most of us say we are willing to pay for a decent system.

dj - your long post endorses what I said - it's misleading to compare UK with Scandi and other countries as if it's comparing like with like, when it isn't.
Sweden is a vast country with a small population & their system may suit them. However, devolving powers in England is often criticised as a post-code lottery and there is regular political bickering about the performance of the NHS in Scotland & Wales compared with England.
Are you saying that you are willing to pay £10 to £20 to go and see a GP?

No, but I, like many others, would be willing to pay through a well thought out national insurance system which combines health and care in old age, which is what we thought we were paying for all our working lives.
Powers haven't been devolved in England.
I notice that 90% of the money that those county councils in Sweden have is spent on healthcare, and that care for the elderly either in their homes or in carehomes is their responsibility. A good system, however we pay for it, which does away with the postcode lottery.

M0nica said "The government (all parties) has always been insistent that the state will provide health care from cradle to grave without charge, but that social care should only be state funded if the recipient has insufficient resources to fund it themselves. If the state is to take on the responsibility of social care then there should be an explicit tax increase to fund it."

Given that to be where things are, I think a plan could work that has a tax increase to all and an amount that all could protect as an asset, say £20-30K for burial and expense.

Norah do you mean that there should be a tax increase and that only £20-30K could be protected?

Yes, that seems a reasonable approach to me. In that scheme, everybody pays taxes and everybody pays what they are able from assets. There is no unfair burden for the random draw of needing care. And peoples' taxes are not paying for something a person can pay with their ssets.

As Norah has said in another thread that they spend liberally and have given money to their D's to mitigate inheritance tax I do not think she is speaking personally when talking about just leaving enough protected for funeral and expense. This is said with the greatest respect , just pointing out the facts in her posts.

I'm still confused. Let's take the example of two widows with equal incomes and assets. Both pay the same in the various taxes and each has a house worth £150k. One of the two develops dementia and has to go into a home, the other remains well and can live at home. The one with dementia is allowed to keep £20-30k out of which will be paid funeral costs etc with balance going to DC. The one who is ill eventually dies and DC inherit £150k less funeral costs. That surely is unfair? If we change the example so that the one who was well developed cancer and was in and out of hospital for several months having expensive treatment and then returned home well, she would have had to pay nothing towards her cancer care (at the point of use). Many words could be used to describe this scenario like 'Tough luck" but 'Fair' wouldn't be one of them would it?

Well Norah if the change you recommend would not affect your family because you've already passed on your moneyto avoid inheritance tax, I think it's a bit cheeky to make the suggestion for other people.

They are each paying their way, for their needs, why would that be not fair? How could it be fair for everyone to pay for care when there are assets that can be used?

How right you are mary as I said in a post up thread, it is just such a scenario I am faced with as my H has Alzheimer's and while I can cope now I am 80 and if he gets worse I may not be able to. Yes it's tough luck.

But you are giving away and spending your assets Norah.

Eloethan, yes, my idea it would affect my family, we still have home to live in and assets to provide to us. Assuredly that would all go if one was only allowed a certain amount for funeral. I see no cheeky to that?

You are missing the point again Norah you intend to spend and give it away so you have no assets to pay for your care. I just hope you live a long and healthy life without ever needing it.

Just my take on this...I own my house outright. When I die it will go to my two children.

However only about 20% of us will need residential care I read somewhere. I have spoken to my children and the choice is theirs. If they want to inherit the house free of charges I'll expect them to do their best to help me maintain my independence in old age and stay in my house. We do, as a family, tend to look after our old folks anyway.

If however they don't want that responsibility and want to put me in a home then they will have to forfeit their inheritance.

I've talked to them about this and I was pleasantly surprised by their reactions, What they don't know is that if I ever get to the stage I can't look after myself I'll simply grind all my medication up and buy myself a good bottle of single malt. Same goes for DH.

annsixty, "my H has Alzheimer's and while I can cope now I am 80 and if he gets worse I may not be able to." This is precisely what I mean. If H has to go to care, your assets (after you pass, if necessary, because you, too, must have a place to live) and the taxes all would pay would provide for his care. I would be in the same position. How is that NOT fair?

annsixty, I am not missing the point. We are not giving away our home or the assets to live, though my H questions me often where that line crosses. We just gave away to lower estate tax.

I give up now as I don't understand any more.

Me too annsixty I note no reply to the unfairness of free cancer care but paid for dementia care. I guess that's because there really isn't one

Good care costs money - if that is what we want, then we have we pay for it one way or another: higher taxes, a specific state insurance for care (I don't trust that one - too tempting for the government to treat it as revenue!), using our assets (and thus decreasing our legacy) etc. A government one day needs to have the courage to bite the bullet and face up to the unpopularity of whatever they decide.