Social care - who should pay?

Those sorting the financial crisis seem to think differently to you, gillybob.

I have read many times that the family home being sold is a sticking point, and would be for me as well, thus the Governments deferred scheme. I do not think anyone has a well thought approach that will work to avert financial failure.

Norah it may not be an unheard of thought to you but I have not heard it in respect to anything other than care which, as it has been called, is rapidly becoming the Alzheimer's tax. If you get it you pay - if not you don't. This is not the same for strokes, cancer, etc., so please tell me why it is fair.

I believe the theory is that a life of paying for health related concerns did not include potential care fees? So who shall pay? Those needing care, by the money they saved (partially) by never paying for a care fee scheme? Or the younger and working generation should pay for everyone? How is that fair?

Which, Norah, is why some are suggesting that when people start working now they start to pay into a Care scheme so there is cover for THEIR needs should/when they arise and that this should be paid by everyone working and the retired on the usual sliding scale basis so they are paying according to their income - just as we do all other national tax or insurance.

Because the retired have not paid in during their working life and have been able to use the money they did not pay over those years to invest an increase in estate duty would be used to top up that missing amount.

Why is that unfair? Everyone pays something to create a better care service. People will still be passing on a great deal but the cost of care will be shared by those who need it as well as those who are lucky enough not to and those who have more to pass on will, pro rata, still be doing so.

No one has explained why this isn't reasonable.

I think your statement "Because the retired have not paid in during their working life and have been able to use the money they did not pay over those years to invest an increase in estate duty would be used to top up that missing amount" is the same to what I said with one minor difference.

Estate tax, as it is now, would not capture from everyone (as it begins above a threshold), so why not just pay assets down to a threshold?

And, yes, retired should pay into a new scheme but those payments will not provide the pool needed, will they?

I'm not that quick Norah. I was answering your question in the one before.

Estate tax, as it is now, would not capture from everyone (as it begins above a threshold), so why not just pay assets down to a threshold?

Because, to me, that is grossly unfair. We run all our taxes on the basis that those with the very least do not pay (the threshold) and that although those with more pay a higher percentage we do not try and leave everyone with the same amount but each pays according to their means. I think it is quite strange to suggest we leave everyone with the same amount. Perhaps you could explain why you think that would be reasonable.

And, yes, retired should pay into a new scheme but those payments will not provide the pool needed, will they?

Norah, I have to admit I am beginning to wonder if this is a wind-up now but, this last time, I will assume it is not.

1) There is some money which we are currently drawing on - it is an insufficient 'pool' but it is there (it has been created from general taxation).

2) No, the retired have not created a 'pool' over the years but the young have an opportunity to do that. That is why we (the retired and possibly those going into retirement for the next couple of decades) will need to additionally contribute to the 'pool' by means of an increased Estate Duty.

The question was to ones opinion, mine is different to yours.

You say "No, the retired have not created a 'pool' over the years but the young have an opportunity to do that. That is why we (the retired and possibly those going into retirement for the next couple of decades) will need to additionally contribute to the 'pool' by means of an increased Estate Duty." AND I agree as long as everyone pays, not just those who fall in the estate tax bracket (or what it is called). Everyone, for everyone. I said earlier it will take 25-30 years to have enough money, that is the generations of people who have not paid into the scheme.

I am not at all sure what we disagree to, other than the £20-30k saved back from care costs? Is that the sum of this disagreement or difference to opinions? Just that? If it is, we will never agree. Opinions, we all have them.

1. How can those without an estate pay Estate Duty Norah?

2. Why would it take 25 to 30 year to build a big enough fund?

3. Everyone - except for the very poor will be paying into the Care Insurance and everyone with an estate will be paying into it via the Estate Duty. The whole point of this is to reasonable quickly make up for the amounts not paid over earlier years.

4. I don't understand what you mean by the £20K to £30K 'saved back' from care costs. I have understood you wanted to take all but a specific amount from estates so everyone ends up with the same amount left. Is this what you mean? Estate Duty doesn't work like that.

1. How can those without an estate pay Estate Duty Norah?

The idea that an estate begins at 325-350k (or the correct number) is wrong to me. Almost everyone would pay that duty if it began at say 20-30k, thus paying ones own costs to that amount.

2. Why would it take 25 to 30 year to build a big enough fund?

No idea, I read it somewhere.

3. Everyone - except for the very poor will be paying into the Care Insurance and everyone with an estate will be paying into it via the Estate Duty. The whole point of this is to reasonable quickly make up for the amounts not paid over earlier years.

I agree, if everyone pays in on their estate, I never disputed that and find it fair. All pay.

4. I don't understand what you mean by the £20K to £30K 'saved back' from care costs. I have understood you wanted to take all but a specific amount from estates so everyone ends up with the same amount left. Is this what you mean? Estate Duty doesn't work like that.

No that is not what I mean. I mean the current way of exempt in that sum, is like exempting that same sum from an estate duty. I think this is like an opinion on if I person like socialism or not.

exempting --- not exempt in

I'll take this a bit at a time Norah as I am rather tired and that means I could well right more gobbledygook than normal.

1. If the percentage started pretty low I would agree that everyone should be paying from a lower point. I think if everyone knew this was for a proper Care programme they would not resent it either but many would be happy to think they were doing this.

OK ... write not right!

I think Continuing Care should be abolished. Care should be means tested then an allowance given for health problems. Care homes should be given charity status. It is quite wrong that prestigious private schools like Eton have this and not places looking after the elderly.
Also think that local authorities should run care homes so they are very community based and encourage voluntary help.

Norah
2. I wonder if 25 to 30 years was just an insurance scheme? Although it would take some time to build it up we do already have care which is paid for by the local authority via money from the government which come from the tax take so it isn't all to do.

Norah.
Norah
4. Ah, my mistake although I can't see what is has to do with socialism. Am I right now in thinking you would want to see the basic point at which Estate duty starts lowered or is it more than that. I think I said I couldn't see any problem with that as long as the percentage was progressive - low at the bottom and increasing as it does with income tax.

How can people whose only estate is their house pay into an insurance system? If the only money they have to live on is a state pension, it would be impossible.

That's separate Jen. What we have been discussing is two schemes initially running side by side. The insurance, similar in some ways to NI but for life instead of stopping at retirement, and progressive so there would be some at the lowest end of the income scale who would not be pay.

In addition to this, a re-organised estate duty - again progressive but starting lower than it does now, which would be used until the Care Insurance is up and fully funded.

This means the many pay for the, hopefully, few.

Of course, if there was a basic income, which is also a separate issue, more people might be able to contribute.

We've had two self funders in this family (both with dementia and eventually needing care homes). Both had enough assets to pay for their care homes, and personally I don't see why the taxpayer should have been expected to fund them.
What is often overlooked is that it is something of a 'luxury' to be able to self fund, and not be at the mercy of social services - at least you can choose the time and place.

Because of the huge cost of care homes, social services will often wait past the point where family doing their best to care are on their knees with stress and exhaustion, before they will consider a care home. This is often even more the case if the person is living with you, because obviously they know you are not going to move out and leave a vulnerable person who is at risk, alone.

Witzend, exactly that, sell your assets and pay, paying should not fall to the taxpayers first.

The ideas that are being suggested are not that 'the taxpayer' funds people Witzend just that we all insure against the necessity for care. This is what we do with the NHS but it doesn't stop people paying for private health-care if they are able and want to. What it would do is spread the load. If we choose a system partly paid by raised inheritance tax those who need it will appreciate the fact it was available and those who don't will thank there lucky stars.

The problem in your argument is summed up in the phrase "I don't see why the taxpayer should have been expected to fund them". That is not the problem. The problem is that there will always be some who cannot fund themselves and the tax payer will have to fund them. Much more equal if the funding is available for all, paid for (progressively) by the 'tax payer' or, as I like to think of them our friends and family and the wider circle of society.

Too many people are being kept alive too long, that's the brutal truth of it. I was visiting care homes for more years than I care to remember - my mother alone was in hers from the age of 89 to 97 - and I've seen so many poor old things with bad dementia and frankly a very poor quality of life, so often so confused or distressed about something they could not even name - being stuffed with medication to keep them 'healthy', in and out of hospital, on drips, badgered and pestered to eat and drink when they no longer want to...
All with the best of intentions, but so much 'striving to keep alive' when frankly letting Nature take its course would IMO often be a good deal kinder.
I am not talking about anyone who is still getting enjoyment out of life. Sadly, so many with dementia are not.

I am still haunted by the poor lady well into her 80s at my mother's care home, who was crying and so distressed for ages during their Christmas party - she wouldn't go and I was sitting upstairs with my mother who was no longer capable of enjoying it - crying and so distressed because she had to get home to her mother who didn't know where she was and would be so worried...
The staff were brilliant and so kind, but absolutely nothing could comfort her.
And that's just one case.

Sometimes dying in not the worst thing that can happen to us sadly Witzend.