Social care - who should pay?

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.

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

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.

Depends on ones definition of right and left. I am to the right of you, DJ, but left of the Conservatives.

However, like the rest of the population, not all GN members are active. When a poll was taken, the majority were to the right.

The Conservative government keeps getting re-elected because it promises low tax rates and that means an awful lot of people choosing to vote for them and then wanting high class services.

I do not think I am saying anything surprising when I say that if a poll was taken of active GN members, it would find that, politically, they are broadly centre to left leaning and not entirely representative of the electorate as a whole.

Some people not many M0nica. Quite a few on this thread had suggested an additional insurance from commencing work to death and an estate tax for some years to make up for the fact that older generations haven't paid this all their lives.

I think people are prepared to look at this but there is no reality coming from the government.

It depends on whether the taxes we pay are intended to cover social care as well as medical care. That is the nub of the discussion.

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. The big problem is that so many people want Scandinavian levels of state support on US tax rates and cannot see that these two aims are incompatible.

We pay our taxes and so if we are in need of social care we should have access to it.

I actually believe that if you pay your tax 's it is only fair that if you need social care you should receive it as you have paid in regardless of your bank balance.

So WHO should pay for social care, well we all should put into a kitty that we can all use.

I agree with Norah

I'm quite happy for my flat to be sold to pay for my care, should I need it.

Health and Social Care Act came in on 1st April 2013. Why has it not been joined up yet?

There are always plenty threads on GN asking how best to squirrel assets away from the tax man .

I couldn't see the problem with Teresa Mays idea where everyone could keep 100k of "worth" to pass down to their children (assuming they needed care of course) I would be overjoyed to be able to leave a legacy if this size to my children. No one helped me out financially in my life ever.

I think health and social care should be merged and paid for all, by all.

Did anything ever come of this?

I really think it can only be state run - like the NHS.

I'm not entirely sure how one "plans" to provide for ones potential care ...apart from extortionality bad insurance deals where all money is lost if care is not needed or one dies before it runs out so family lose any potential inheritance!) I'm not aware of alternative options ...other than saving like mad , hoping there is enough to cover ones care costs (unlikely if one lives any length of time!) and Ofcourse hoping that care isn't needed!!!!

Far from spending or giving money away to avoid paying for my own care. I am so relieved that the value of my house and my savings are sufficient to give me absolute control over how I am cared for in old age, should I need it.

While I undoubtedly want my estate to be shared between my children, if that is not possible, to spend the money on ensuring that DH and/or I have the best care possible when our need is greatest and that we are not dependent on what the state may or may not be willing to supply. seems to be a very satisfactory way of spending it.

"But there is now a huge disincentive to save for old age and a very large one to spend spend spend, or to give money to children very early on. The more people who do that, the more the government will have to get their act together." That is the point I was making earlier on, as more and more of us have to pay for care the message to those following will be to not save.

I can't agree that all of our children are struggling more than we did, mine are not. They have good jobs and have bought their own homes. They appear to be better off than their colleagues but maintain that is because they cook and take their own lunch to work, take their own coffee and other drinks and don't often eat out. Their prudence means they can afford lovely homes which their colleagues cannot. They don't buy prepared food but cook healthy meals from scratch and even grow some of it themselves.

Of course I can only speak for my own family who are happy to live within their means.

It is wise to start such a scheme now but too late for thousands of us. We have acted wisely all our lives and have savings and a decent pension income ,paid for over many years. The goalposts have moved for us as they have for many and the result is that our prudence means that everything we saved for will go.
If my H's pension has to provide his care, I will not have enough income to maintain the house we live in. Therefore I sell this for something smaller to cut down outgoings, BUT the money raised from the sale, after buying me a flat will go towards his fees. I would have to spend my savings, down to a level below £10,000 before I could claim any benefits.
If I also need care I think I would have to resort to a camp bed in his room. There certainly wouldn't be enough money for 2 of us,and I like to think we made what we thought was adequate provision for our old age.

I cannot imagine that any of our sons and daughters are planning how they might pay for their social care later in life - they are struggling to pay their rents or mortgages.

Those of our generation were under the impression that care was from cradle to grave and did not expect to find themselves in this situation. But there is now a huge disincentive to save for old age and a very large one to spend spend spend, or to give money to children very early on. The more people who do that, the more the government will have to get their act together.

The issue of inheritance is an interesting one. I can appreciate the argument that whatever assets we have should legitimately be available for paying for care - that makes logical sense. But the desire of folk like us to be able to pass something on to help our children is a very entrenched and a very powerful one - so much so that any government who wishes to stay in power is likely to duck the issue or fudge it - as indeed May did during the election.

What we need to do is to go back to square one, take a long hard look at those countries (viz. Scandinavian) who have proper social care systems throughout life, and bite the bullet on increasing taxes to achieve this. We do not need any of this "insurance" nonsense, where the "contributions" have simply been used as tax revenue and spent on other things. We need a true honest upfront higher taxation system to fund proper social and health care; and a system of hitting tax avoiders that really works.

Yes state backed insurance scheme.

But I wouldn't hold your breath with this government. As it would be anathema to them, regardless of sense.

The problem with insurance schemes is that, unless it is state backed, it is very difficult to organise. Few/no insurance companies want to offer these policies because they would either be so expensive no-one would take them out, or, if they reduced prices they might well end up with making an enormous loss on them.

The insurance companies did introduce some products, I think about 15 - 20 years ago, but there was very low take -up because of the cost and, with lengths of time in care lengthening with the increase life expectancy, some got their fingers burnt when they ended up having to pay out far more than they have expected..

No one has addressed the reason for the different treatment of, say, cancer v dementia. Why should one type of illness be paid for by the state but not another?