Paying for social care - good news or bad news?

Should people who do not have children have to pay for the education system?
Should people who do not drive and never go further than their local town have to pay for the building and upkeep of motorways?

We all pay towards those. Why not towards care of everyone who needs it? Through the tax system, not individually.

niggly it's precisely because we are left of centre that we think the cost of social care should be a pooled risk - just like health care is. What is wrong with everyone contributing to the cost regardless of whether they will need it or not and then drawing out of the system if they do need care? It's precisely what we do for health care - why is social care different? Specially as the need for social care is so often rooted in health problems anyway - dementia, Parkinson's to name but two. Sharing out equally the costs of meeting unequal needs is at the root of a civilised society - compare that with the US. And its utter rubbish to say that the disapproval of inheritance is flying out of the window - I think as has been said above that we left wing posters are suggesting raising funds for social care from higher inheritance tax in some form or other. If we applied the concept of the Rawlsian veil of ignorance to the question of how to organise the funding of social care, I can't believe any thinking person would decide that how we do it now or TM suggests we should do it in the future is acceptable. If you were being looked after in your own home niggly by a daughter who had given up her job to care for you, but you then needed to pay for extra care, wouldn't you care that she might end up having to sell the house and lose her security? Or if you had a disabled adult child that you'd hoped your estate would fund their care after you'd died, wouldn't you care that the money was going instead to some business that was making mega bucks out of providing private care? If JC had suggested this, you and roses would be sitting venom but as it's TM, then it's absolutely fine isn't it? You can't see one flaw in the idea at all can you?

It doesn't make that much difference to me. If I could keep £100,000 of the value of my house, I would only be paying for a year's care.
It's the unfairness of it for everyone we are concerned with. There are better ways of paying for care, but it would mean putting up taxes for those better off, and the Tories won't do that.
I am not surprised that Dilnot is annoyed.
What IMay missed is that this week is Dementia Awareness Week.
Not very aware of the unfairness on someone with dementia. My mother in law has sold her home. She has dementia and has been in a home for a couple of years, and has nothing left to pass on to her children.
Lots of homes up here are not worth much more than £100,000.

However, the main difference between those who are socialist and those who are not is that we don't only think of ourselves and our families. We look at it as a general principle, something unknown to Tories.

So you're happy to pay twice for your care as you've already paid National Insurance and now you're ready to pay the value of your house.

It's nothing to do with principles flying out the window but more about the fact that you paid into a scheme that said if you needed care you would get it and now you're being asked to pay again.

Well, I'm perfectly happy to use my home to pay for my care, as I certainly don't expect the tax payer to finance my old age when I have the means to pay for it myself. The same goes for winter fuel allowance, which certainly shouldn't be going to wealthy pensioners. As you say roses, when it comes to inheritance socialist principles, disapproval of inheritance, seem to fly out of the window amongst some left wing posters! Very strange!!!!

Thanks for the link Mostly. I heard Dilnot talking yesterday and he seemed very, not upset but close to it. I don't blame him as he had been tasked to work on this and produced his report and then someone then writes an idea on the back of an envelope and think they must know better.

From great assumptions little fools are made.

It is interesting, whitewave, that everyone who has said this is the wrong way has agreed that there should be a tax on property, just that is should not be used for Care. I do think it is important that everyone pays in to the Care system so they all feel they can use it when they need to, just as we do for Health. There is something about how universality works that makes it fairer to me.

The logic of Mays argument could then hold true if it suddenly is deemed not possible to offer certain medical procedures without payment because of what she describes as "pressure" but what we would recognise as mismanagement or austerity.

Now there's a thought. Buy private health-care or loose your house. The logic is there certainly whitewave.

I think my last post makes my social democratic values crystal clear rose

Is that a Socialist value I didn't know about?

A pity that some other posters don't want to do their bit as well ww when it comes to coughing up eh? You seem to be more concerned with the passing on of wealth.

This is Dilnot's reaction to May's proposals.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Don't feel too bad rose because in a progressive society inheritance tax will take care of your estate. You will be doing your bit, but we will at the same time retain the principle of the welfare state.

The logic of Mays argument could then hold true if it suddenly is deemed not possible to offer certain medical procedures without payment because of what she describes as "pressure" but what we would recognise as mismanagement or austerity.

I live in an area where house prices are sky high but refuse to be an 'I'm alright Jack' about this.When and if the time comes we will pay up, and if it leaves £100,000 to divide between the children then so be it.

I'm not saying snap again!!! We could go on all night.?

Snap!!!?

I agree with you dd but those who suddenly fear they can't leave masses of assets to their children are suddenly not so left wing as before.

Ooh look - snap Whitewave!

No Daphne, everyone should pay into the scheme in exactly the same way as we do for health care. When have you felt that was a wrong thing to do for people who had assets?

You then, separately tax wealth properly.

One is about taxing wealth/capital gains in a proper way, the other is about providing proper care for all who need it. There is no reason why the two should be tied together; logically whether you end up with Alzheimer's of similar has nothing to do with whether you own a house but equally capital should not earn more than work.

I think that to conflate the two things is the problem here.

Two issues

1 Unearned wealth - which I feel in a progressive society needs to be looked at carefully.

2. The principle of the Welfare State - from cradle to grave. It is possible that we may need a form of social care insurance, although we must not forget that we are where we are because of the appalling Tory mismanagement of the economy since 2010.

It is a mistake to accept the way May has put the two together.

thing

But lots of people have suggested other more fair ways of achieving the same thin, dd. Do you not think any of their suggestions are a better solution?

So a working person on average salary should pay for the children of people with assets to inherit? 25% of 65+ year olds have no assets. Should their children pay too?

Sorry , but I don't think it's the role of the welfare state to preserve inheritances.