Social care kicked into touch

Something that has puzzled me about the National Debt.

Who is it owed to?

ElderlyPerson

Something that has puzzled me about the National Debt.

Who is it owed to?

? The Bank of England?

On
@BBCr4today
Ken Clarke says the idea of spending £200m on a new Royal Yacht is “a complete waste of time, simply populist nonsense . We’ve no money for that kind of thing. We do need money for social care…That’s why we need more taxes and some restraint on public spending.

ElderlyPerson

Something that has puzzled me about the National Debt.

Who is it owed to?

some of it is owed to foreign countries, some of it is owed to finacial institutions who buy government bonds and so on

www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Whitewavemark2

On
@BBCr4today
Ken Clarke says the idea of spending £200m on a new Royal Yacht is “a complete waste of time, simply populist nonsense . We’ve no money for that kind of thing. We do need money for social care…That’s why we need more taxes and some restraint on public spending.

its difficult of course because that money goes into jobs...and we need those as much as social care.

There is talk of the Dillon reforms to social care being implemented in some form…..meaning a cap of (various figures now being whispered) between £50000-£100000 would be the maximum a person would pay for care. This is so that the value of the family home is not wiped out in care costs.
I say, no, no, no.
Similar family homes, worked for and paid for, by similar people in different parts of the country, would have very different outcomes. A modest home, say in the north, with a nominal value of £120000, would have an equivalent value in the south of many times that figure. Leaving southern families in a far better position, once the ‘cap’ is reached than those in the north.
Levelling up….this lot…don’t make me laugh.

Agreed, suttonJ. Housing somehow needs to be taken out of the equation, but it is so enmeshed in the economy that it's difficult to know how it can be.

It is ridiculous that someone in the SE should get the same treatment as someone in the NE (as examples of where housing is very different in price) but the SE person be left with hundreds of thousands in their estate and the NE one wiped out.

Maybe a percentage of the value of the total estate would be fairer, but even then it doesn't take account of those who have spent every penny. And yes, I know that some people can't save, but I am talking about people on good incomes who spend on holidays, cars and so on and have nothing left in retirement when a colleague on the same salary has made provision and then gets penalised for doing so.

Arguably, any approach that takes account of housing will encourage a boom in prices too, as it will be an advantage to put as much as possible into property where money will be safe after the initial slice is taken. Again, benefiting the better off and those in the South.

Or maybe after the recent defeat at the polls, winning back Southern voters is the motive?

None of this will be resolved if Johnson won't meet people to talk about it.
#typical

As to the yacht, I think they are going to make the Navy pay for it!

suttonJ

There is talk of the Dillon reforms to social care being implemented in some form…..meaning a cap of (various figures now being whispered) between £50000-£100000 would be the maximum a person would pay for care. This is so that the value of the family home is not wiped out in care costs.
I say, no, no, no.
Similar family homes, worked for and paid for, by similar people in different parts of the country, would have very different outcomes. A modest home, say in the north, with a nominal value of £120000, would have an equivalent value in the south of many times that figure. Leaving southern families in a far better position, once the ‘cap’ is reached than those in the north.
Levelling up….this lot…don’t make me laugh.

there is an argument that the care costs less so the money goes further but I don't know if this is true. As someone who owns my house and is reasonably circumstanced, I absolutely do not agree with the argument about "leaving an inheritance because I worked hard for my money" Medical care absolutely because that is already covered by money paid to support the NHS; but I don't see why public money should pay for someone to help me get dressed any more than it should pay for my gardener while I have money or assets to pay for it myself.

I think it is important that we don't fall for this engineered North South divide stuff, setting people against each other. There are pluses and minuses to both areas. My house may be worth more on paper than the equivalent in some areas of the North for example, but on the other hand, my adult children are unlikely to be able to afford their own home until we both pop our clogs and leave them a substantial deposit. What a nurse or police officer or teacher for example can afford in areas of the North East is vastly different tp what they can afford in the South East, and as for London, well that is another country.

Whitewavemark2

ElderlyPerson

Something that has puzzled me about the National Debt.

Who is it owed to?

? The Bank of England?

Me.

I have Premium Bonds.

I think one of the big issues is which conditions qualify for NHS funding. Dementia sufferers have a medical condition but generally don't get funding for care.

And me Callestemon. National Savings, such as premium bonds, pension funds and the like are repositories for some of the so called National Debt. Richard Murphy has a good article on this explaining The National Debt Paranoia.

The government makes idealistic choices about where it spends money, and sadly much of this is short term and geared towards the next election.

This is a vitally important topic and needs to be high on their agenda.

Although caring for the vulnerable is high on the list of many of us we have to realise it is not high on the government's list.

What happened to the "clear plan "that Johnson had. in 2019 ?
Another of his broken vows ?

Greeneyedgirl

And me Callestemon. National Savings, such as premium bonds, pension funds and the like are repositories for some of the so called National Debt. Richard Murphy has a good article on this explaining The National Debt Paranoia.

Richard Murphy is running lots of articles about the 'National Debt' at the moment as it is vital that people understand how it is made up, who it is 'owed' to and why what the tories are saying about it isn't true.

There's this one:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/21/why-we-do-not-have-a-covid-debt-crisis/

this one:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/22/repaying-the-national-debt-would-be-the-closest-thing-to-economic-insanity-any-politician-could-recommend/

this one:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/22/more-questions-on-the-national-debt/

All worth reading.

westendgirl

What happened to the "clear plan "that Johnson had. in 2019 ?
Another of his broken vows ?

To me, this is the most important issue.

There will never be a solution to social care which satisfies everybody. Some people think the state should pay, so that children's inheritance isn't affected. Others will argue that it isn't fair that children should benefit from state subsidies. There isn't an easy answer and any solution is bound to be a compromise.

The issue for me is that Johnson wasn't bothered by details and made a promise to win votes. He knew that it was a "hot issues", but, as ever, just shrugged his shoulders and said something to appease people. As we're seeing so often, when he actually has to act, he doesn't care about any promises he's made.

He did not have a "clear plan"

He did not have any plan.

Just another of his lies.

If the Conservative Party ever produces a social care plan, it will be about ensuring that no-one ever has to sell their house when they go into long term care because they want to pass it on to their children.

I could be wrong, but think I saw a headline in one of yesterday's papers about the so-called the 'triple link' on OAPs being at risk.
ie cuts or no annual increase in OAPs to pay for social care.
I hope I'm wrong.

The question is what the Tories are willing to do to consolidate their hold on the northern seats they won in 2019.

Life expectancy is considerably lower in the (former) red wall seats rather than the blue wall seats. Rates of home ownership are also lower. A scheme to protect the incomes and assets of older people is unquestionably a vote winner in the affluent south, but is unlikely to be given the same priority in the more deprived areas of the north.

As ever, the decision will be a matter of electoral calculation over principle.

GillT57

I think it is important that we don't fall for this engineered North South divide stuff, setting people against each other. There are pluses and minuses to both areas. My house may be worth more on paper than the equivalent in some areas of the North for example, but on the other hand, my adult children are unlikely to be able to afford their own home until we both pop our clogs and leave them a substantial deposit. What a nurse or police officer or teacher for example can afford in areas of the North East is vastly different tp what they can afford in the South East, and as for London, well that is another country.

Exactly.

varian

He did not have a "clear plan"

He did not have any plan.

Just another of his lies.

If the Conservative Party ever produces a social care plan, it will be about ensuring that no-one ever has to sell their house when they go into long term care because they want to pass it on to their children.

Of course he didn't have a plan! He said what he did to win votes - that's all there was to it. It's dawning on people that there's a pattern here - just think of Northern Ireland! Of course there's no need for a border (oh no?).