Social care kicked into touch

Fennel

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.

There has been talk about it Fennel. They were talking about it on Politics Live (Tuesday) and the Labour representative agreed it must be looked at. She gave a very much "older rich v younger poor" arguement.

I was stunned to hear her suggest such divide existed. The Labour party, surely, should be standing up for the poor whatever their age and encouraging taxation of wealth at an equal level to the taxation of income for work.

Exactly Whitewave. Why should care near the end of our lives be in the hands of profit making businesses? It’s a lottery at the moment as to whether you are “lucky” and die suddenly without needing any paid for care, or say get dementia and need years of care?

I noticed that several M P's of different parties pointed out that Johnson had talked about his plan for Social Care. This was in July 2019, covid started in March 2020 as was noted . So much for Johnson's claims yet again . It concerns me that we have a Prime Minister who stretches the truth time and time again.
I do wonder what is the point .

The MPs referred to were taking part in an Urgent Questions today after P.M.s questions .

Greeneyedgirl

Exactly Whitewave. Why should care near the end of our lives be in the hands of profit making businesses? It’s a lottery at the moment as to whether you are “lucky” and die suddenly without needing any paid for care, or say get dementia and need years of care?

Actually, the "lucky" ones are those who inherit without having had to pay for social care.

PippaZ

Fennel

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.

There has been talk about it Fennel. They were talking about it on Politics Live (Tuesday) and the Labour representative agreed it must be looked at. She gave a very much "older rich v younger poor" arguement.

I was stunned to hear her suggest such divide existed. The Labour party, surely, should be standing up for the poor whatever their age and encouraging taxation of wealth at an equal level to the taxation of income for work.

The point is that if social care is free for all, it is the younger people who will be paying it for it through taxes, even if they don't ever stand to inherit anything. Therefore, the Labour rep has a point.

There's approximately 500.000 of us living in care or nursing home. I was more than happy to find a decent home for my Mother. She had very severe dementia. She had started wandering and was becoming violent to all and sundry. Terribly sad. My sister however was having a fit at the thought of all the money NOT going to her. So we had more than a few chats about it. Transpired she and her husband had lived their lives expecting this large inheritance. So I basically pointed out that it is what it is and Mum went to a lovely home where she lived happily. Of course we'd like to get some inheritance when our parents leave us but I've always told mine to live their lives as if they'll get nothing. Much better way to live. And if there is something left, well that's great.

Talullah

There's approximately 500.000 of us living in care or nursing home. I was more than happy to find a decent home for my Mother. She had very severe dementia. She had started wandering and was becoming violent to all and sundry. Terribly sad. My sister however was having a fit at the thought of all the money NOT going to her. So we had more than a few chats about it. Transpired she and her husband had lived their lives expecting this large inheritance. So I basically pointed out that it is what it is and Mum went to a lovely home where she lived happily. Of course we'd like to get some inheritance when our parents leave us but I've always told mine to live their lives as if they'll get nothing. Much better way to live. And if there is something left, well that's great.

this absolutely

Young ones will get old and frail eventually and the whole unfair cycle of paying for care will continue if there is no intervention. The only winners at present are those whose parents have money/property and conveniently die without needing paid for care. I am sure many people have paid tax for services in their lifetime which they have not or will never use. It’s part of being a responsible member of community.

Greeneyedgirl

Young ones will get old and frail eventually and the whole unfair cycle of paying for care will continue if there is no intervention. The only winners at present are those whose parents have money/property and conveniently die without needing paid for care. I am sure many people have paid tax for services in their lifetime which they have not or will never use. It’s part of being a responsible member of community.

Exactly.

growstuff

How about a fixed minimum on the amount which could be left in the inheritance "pot", which is what George Osborne proposed?

It's not an inheritance pot until the old person dies, and even then, only if they want to leave their money to someone, but I can't see too much wrong with that idea on the face of it.

It still leaves the inequity of some people paying for what others get free, but at the same time it would stop the North/South inequity (and I know that there are areas in both directions that completely defy that simplification).

Much better, IMO, to have a more sensible tax system, so that we all pay up front according to ability to pay, then care is allocated according to need. If we had such a system, based on individuals rather than households, we could pay for education, health, pensions, benefits for those unable to work, and all the other things that give everyone a chance at a decent life. And yes, from cradle to grave.

We would all have a bit less in our pockets, but would have less to pay out for, a more secure life, and the freedom to spend or save (or give our money to donkeys) without having it clawed back pound for pound by a means test.

I really think that the care system needs to be completely detached from means tests and discussion of assets - just as the NHS is. We do not ask a millionaire what assets he has before he gets his heart bypass; and the person on benefits gets theirs free too.

I know it will cost a load - but it really is the only way. And taxes will have to go up a lot.

It is very hard to see how we will ever get a care system that is fit for purpose without the tax take - from individuals and businesses - getting notably higher.

But I think we all know how that proposal tends to play at the ballot box.

AGAA4

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.

It hasn’t been high on any governments list unfortunately, and successive governments of all political stripes have thought of it as a hot potato.
It has to be tackled at some point, and although it isn’t ideal right now, I would hope that in a years time when the economy is recovering, it will be something that becomes a priority.

I hope so too.

As I've written before, there will never be a solution which satisfies everybody. The point is that Johnson said he had a solution in 2019. People jumped on it and assumed that it would favour them (as people do whenever a reform is announced), but it's obvious now it was a load of hot air, which is his "modus operandi".

Luckygirl

I really think that the care system needs to be completely detached from means tests and discussion of assets - just as the NHS is. We do not ask a millionaire what assets he has before he gets his heart bypass; and the person on benefits gets theirs free too.

I know it will cost a load - but it really is the only way. And taxes will have to go up a lot.

The patient's family doesn't benefit from a heart bypass. There's a big difference and much at stake.

Doodledog What's wrong with leaving money is that we live in an economy where assets are more important than income. Inheritance hardwires a system where some families become rich generation after generation. For most people it is now impossible to earn as income what some people inherit, so inequality is built in the moment people are born.

I have strong opinions about intergenerational wealth, but that's irrelevant to my main issue, which is that Johnson promised something which he he had no intention of delivering.

I know of several people who voted for "good old Boris" on the basis of his promises about sorting out social care. It is, I think, an issue beyond party politics and the short termism of parliaments. It must be dealt with on a non political basis and paid for through taxation. Everyone contributes according to their means and uses according to their needs. Like the initial principles behind the founding of the NHS.

growstuff

Doodledog What's wrong with leaving money is that we live in an economy where assets are more important than income. Inheritance hardwires a system where some families become rich generation after generation. For most people it is now impossible to earn as income what some people inherit, so inequality is built in the moment people are born.

I couldn't agree more. And the current means testing system keeps that in place. As I said upthread, if you are wealthy you are ok whether you need social care or not, just as life goes on if you are sacked from your well-pad job for being an inveterate liar. If you are poor, it's rubbish, but it doesn't get much more or less rubbish if the same fates befall you. You get social care and benefits whether you have paid for them or not.

If you are muddling through, and trying to make the best of things, however, you know that whatever you do you are not going to be able to give your family the same start as if you were rich, but you want to do the best you can. You save for a pension, buy a house or squirrel away any spare money for your old age or in case your children fall on hard times.

If you then find that you have to go into a home you are means tested and lose the lot, and if you lose your job because your employer's business fails, or for any reason other than being unable to work because of Covid, you go onto Universal Credit and are means tested. If you don't find work PDQ, you lose the lot.

If you've already spent the lot, though, you have the best of both worlds - you've had the benefit of holidays, cars, whatever else you've spent your money on (and again, I'm not saying you shouldn't do that), but you also get free social care, pension credit, rent paid and so on.

I am not suggesting that people who need help shouldn't get it, nor am I wanting a return to 'deserving and undeserving poor' judgements. I absolutely believe that benefits should be increased, and that means tests should be removed from those, as well as from social care assessments.

As I keep saying, I genuinely want a fairer society. I think where we differ is that I don't think that it is fair to take back taxed money from those who have saved it, particularly when they have saved it out of earned income and were not rich to begin with. When that happens, inequality is, indeed, built into the system, as only the rich can afford to make their children's lives any better than theirs was, and the cycle continues. Whichever way you cut it, means testing keeps people in their place.

Doodledog what I would say if I could express myself as well as you.

Thank you nadateturbe☺️