Will Boris Johnson will break his manifesto pledge not to increase National Insurance in order to pay for social care in England?

So was Johnson lying when he stood on the steps of Downing St and said he had a social care package ready to go? Wasn’t the plan “in his back pocket”?

Yeah he was.

He, like the majority working in health (Norman Lamb was the welcome exception) also forgets that social care is not just for the elderly people. Many people rely on social care. My son in his twenties requires 24 hours 2:1/3:1 care. Javid won’t have a clue about any of this. I didn’t think a health secretary worse than Hancock was possible, but I think they have managed it.

Johnson also needs to act quickly to start paying carers & support workers more as the sector is close to collapse. ITV did an excellent report earlier this week which gave the figures for the number of care companies handing back contracts due to lack of staff & the pressure on staff teams. Commissioners need to provide additional money for wages that is ringfenced. This would make it possible for smaller companies (who often provide better care) to pay staff more & prevent the large corporates from profiteering with public money.

If he doesn’t act soon then this winter is going to be difficult because people will not be able to be discharged from hospital. So not only will you have people unable to access the care they need in the community you will also have the NHS under significant pressure.

The crisis in recruitment is every bit as bad as the lorry drivers but as pointed out on ITV the end result of that staff shortage is more significant than no milkshakes at McDonald’s.

I must say if the horror show that is Brexit leads to higher wages for sectors that have been underpaid for years that will be a good thing. I doubt it was what the Brexiteers had in mind though.

I agree with you Nezumi65, except that I don’t think paying carers more will solve the shortage unfortunately. It will help of course, but for various reasons it’s not a role that’s attractive to people regardless of pay - filling registered nursing roles is difficult these days too.

Lincslass

All should pay this tax, for a decent Social Service. all may need it one day. Nothing is free, we all pay for the NHS one way or another. As soon as you start working, a specific tax should be for this Social Services.. Problem started when NI contributions went into general taxation, and not kept separate for health, social services. I have worked since age 15, left school then, never claimed a thing, apart from family allowance, and I’m still paying tax. 60 years on. That money should go into providing care if it’s needed.

Lincslass is entirely correct. When I started going to work in 1957 you believed that NI was to pay for medical care and pensions etc. This should be separated as suggested and then increased when necessary. If we pay an increased tax we should be aware exactly what it is for. Not many believe that just raising taxes is going to solve the problem. As for believing Boris Johnson!!!

The numbers of adults receiving "social care" in 2019-2020 was 839,000. The local authority contribution towards that is £16.5bn. The estimated number of regulated adult social care locations as at March 2020 was 25,800.

The projected forecast increase in adults aged 18 to 64 requiring care by 2038 compared with 2018 was 29% and the projected forecast increase in costs of care for adults aged 18
to 64 by 2038 compared with 2018 was 90%.

The projected forecast increase in adults aged 65 and over
requiring care by 2038 compared with 2018 was 57% and the
projected forecast increase in total costs of care for adults aged 65 and over by 2038 compared with 2018 was 106%

These are the most up to date figures I could find. The one thing that hits you is they are big.

Adult social care (care) covers social work, personal care and practical support for adults with a physical disability, a learning disability, or physical or mental illness, as well as support for their carers. Family or friends provide most care unpaid.

The amount of unpaid care provided affects the extent of formal care required, funded through local authorities, or adults buying their care privately (self-funders).

Eligibility criteria for accessing publicly funded care are set out in the Care Act 2014.

Having had to organise both home care and care in a home for my mother you can tell there is not enough money in the system to pay for it. This means that some who should have help, go without and the NHS also suffers.

I cannot see why this is not made part of the NHS. I appreciate those who have not paid over the years towards a wider National Health/Care Service will have to pay from capital where they can. But this "always unprepared" government should be looking at starting a tax for those still working which would mean you phase out the use of people's capital.

Sorry. www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-adult-social-care-market-in-England.pdf

I agree casdon but I think at least £10 an hour is essential immediately to prevent losing people to supermarkets etc. For the skills involved in working with people who require more complex support (such as my son) I believe £15-£20 would be a fairer wage. That is never going to happen though.

Sorry, I haven't read every post on this thread, although it is very interesting.

There was a thread yesterday where a care worker was asking for advice about her hours and pay and the first advice she got was to leave the profession and go and work in a supermarket. I'm not criticising anybody but that's what people think, nowadays.

I don’t think making the care system part of the NHS will solve many of the issues PippaZ. There just isn’t a raft of people who want to do the caring role now. Better pay and incentives will help, but people don’t want to work unsocial hours, don’t want the responsibilities that go with the job, and will be able to find jobs that maybe pay slightly less but suit them better.

I think the lockdowns have changed the perspective of many younger people too, they’ve seen how dedicated you have to be to be a nurse or cared, and they don’t want that, they want to spend more time with their families. I think there will be a big push to force increased family/friend carers, sadly the alternative for many will be institutional care as it’s less labour intensive. Having worked in health and social care models myself for many years it really grieves me to say that but I can’t see an alternative.

Times are always exceptional one way or another. I agree it's right that pledges can't always hold when circumstances change and I wish the same view had been held about tuition fees and that that old chestnut can now be laid to rest.

More worrying is the thought of new funding for social care not being ring-fenced and home care eligibility not being broadened and properly funded. The Prime Minister seems interested only in care home costs

In the slightly longer term I'd like to see levelling up achieved by reform of the council tax.

winterwhite

Times are always exceptional one way or another. I agree it's right that pledges can't always hold when circumstances change and I wish the same view had been held about tuition fees and that that old chestnut can now be laid to rest.

More worrying is the thought of new funding for social care not being ring-fenced and home care eligibility not being broadened and properly funded. The Prime Minister seems interested only in care home costs

In the slightly longer term I'd like to see levelling up achieved by reform of the council tax.

Winterwhite, what are you thoughts on leveling up on Council Tax?

Nezumi, I was going to post similar to you. My daughter is in supported living with another resident and me and the other residents Mum are having to supplement care and have been since the pandemic began. Which is some instances is fine but we don't get paid and have our own lives to finance too. Neither of us rely on benefits and both of us have been made financial vulnerable for decades because of having to care. This is why it really pisses me off when people lazily proclaim 'we should look after our own' whilst never having to care for someone with complex disability or illness in their life

We both try and make their home as comfortable as possible so it is a nice working environment for their support workers but I was a bit that they keep wearing my sliders that I left there for my own indoor shoes there

Btw I vote for things that support other people that I don't directly benefit from, it's part of being a society isn't it?

Taxation does not fund spending.

It's a shame that none of you seem to have got that message because believing that it does allows for all sorts of divisiveness, for governments to evade paying for social 'goods' and for the population to be tolerant of taxation which penalises the poor but not the wealthy.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishis-proposed-national-insurance-increase-24905280

The immense sums of money that the government has showered on its friends and donors for useless PPE and TTT over the course of this pandemic was not borrowed from anyone and has not left the country poor. Nor will it need to be 'repaid'. But the government will claim that it is and will hammer public spending and the poor.

Casdon

I don’t think making the care system part of the NHS will solve many of the issues PippaZ. There just isn’t a raft of people who want to do the caring role now. Better pay and incentives will help, but people don’t want to work unsocial hours, don’t want the responsibilities that go with the job, and will be able to find jobs that maybe pay slightly less but suit them better.

I think the lockdowns have changed the perspective of many younger people too, they’ve seen how dedicated you have to be to be a nurse or cared, and they don’t want that, they want to spend more time with their families. I think there will be a big push to force increased family/friend carers, sadly the alternative for many will be institutional care as it’s less labour intensive. Having worked in health and social care models myself for many years it really grieves me to say that but I can’t see an alternative.

I wasn't really talking about getting people in to do the caring role. The answer is easy to that one. Train (they do), recognise their qualifications, pay them well, give them a good career progression and professional recognition and, again, pay them well.

I was talking about the OP which was about the Care System, Boris Johnson and Tax. Or that was what I though I put when I wrote it.

It's one thing complaining about people going off the topic of the thread set by the OP but its a bit much to repremand me for not sticking to the off-topic subject.

So, what was saying was that the government need a plan that encompasses those who are not yet old - often called the young. However, this Never Ready government is unlikely to do that.

It was you who mentioned care could be part of the NHS, but I wasn’t reprimanding you PippaZ, just saying that in my opinion one system managed through Health wouldn’t solve the ills of the care sector. Funding is vital of course, but I believe that whether or not taxation, national insurance or any other means is paying for the system, there will still be a recruitment problem - it’s not only a government funding issue.

Perhaps they could use the £350million a week saved by Brexit?

So you do or don't think a market economy works Casdon? I can't quite make it out.

My reason for saying the two should be combined is because I do think it would work better for both and for the funding.

MaizieD

*Taxation does not fund spending*.

It's a shame that none of you seem to have got that message because believing that it does allows for all sorts of divisiveness, for governments to evade paying for social 'goods' and for the population to be tolerant of taxation which penalises the poor but not the wealthy.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishis-proposed-national-insurance-increase-24905280

The immense sums of money that the government has showered on its friends and donors for useless PPE and TTT over the course of this pandemic was not borrowed from anyone and has not left the country poor. Nor will it need to be 'repaid'. But the government will claim that it is and will hammer public spending and the poor.

Ahem! I'm very much aware that taxation doesn't fund spending. Nevertheless, decisions have to be made about how money circulates and who gets to have their hands on it. Although finance is important, the whole issue of social care for the elderly (not for younger people) includes whether inheritances should be kept intact and passed on to the next generation as unearned income.

PS. Not all people requiring social care are poor - and that's part of the problem.

PippaZ It’s not that I don’t believe in a market economy, it’s that I think that the UK is trying to run a model of care which is is not ultimately achievable. As I said earlier, it grieves me to say that. I don’t think that raising pay and introducing a career structure will make what most younger people see as an unattractive role attractive enough to become fully sustainable, because people don’t want that type of job these days. The career structure for carers would presumably lead to becoming a qualified nurse or occupational therapist, and sadly that isn’t what people want either. It’s not just me who is a pessimist, many professionals in both health and social care can’t see a way through this, although huge effort is put into attracting people in.

Just listening to the answers people are giving to this problem on Any Answers.

I have looked back Casdon but although I can see you saying we would not increase the number of care workers whatever we do, I see no suggestion from you about how we pay for the Care Service or how we do attract Care workers. It all seems a little negative.

growstuff

PS. Not all people requiring social care are poor - and that's part of the problem.

How is that part of the problem? Care doesn't cost more or less depending on how rich or poor the cared-for are. You can pay for a bigger room or fancier meals, but the actual care costs the same, surely?

Although finance is important, the whole issue of social care for the elderly (not for younger people) includes whether inheritances should be kept intact and passed on to the next generation as unearned income.
I don't see how there can be a fair system that doesn't have an impact on inheritance, which is, in itself, riddled with unfairness. As you know, I would prefer to deal with inequality through taxation rather than means-testing, as that penalises those who are neither rich nor poor and removes choices and chances for those 'in the middle', whilst those at the other ends of the wealth scale are relatively unaffected.

For most people 'in the middle', their house is a major part of their estate, so if they are expected to pay for care it is the house that has to be sold, yet the value of the house is almost entirely dependent on where in the country it is. Despite that, any attempts to deal with the question of fees seems to revolve around caps or ceilings, so those who have already benefited from high house prices continue to do so - whichever method is employed they are likely to have significantly more to leave behind than those who have not seen huge price rises. Cap or ceiling, those people will have to spend until there is hardly anything left, so 'levelling up' is even more of an unrealistic aim (if it was ever a genuine aim, which I doubt).

There are ways of dealing with the differentials in gains made on the sale of housing. They won't happen, as no government would alienate swathes of the SE of the country, but in any case, there is no logical reason why housing should be singled out as a way to pay for social care. It is because a house is the biggest asset for most people, and because it is an asset that is bound up with emotion, security, providing for the family and so on that people feel so strongly that it should be protected.

The fairest way to pay for health, education, care - anything really - is to tax people fairly at the start, so that is taken care of, and then let them spend what is left of their income after tax without let or hindrance. Different parties and governments will have different ideas about how heavily people should be taxed, but the principle should stand.

I've just been looking on line to try and find figures about young peoples' attitudes towards social care. A survey carried out (admittedly nearly 2 years ago) by the DHSC showed that 67% of people in the age range 18 - 34 would consider working in care homes.

In order for that to happen pay needs to increase, as it should for other occupations. Most supermarket delivery drivers are paid around £10 - £11 per hour although some are paid less. The living wage hourly rate is now £8.91 for workers over 23. It isn't enough and so the shortfall, by way of benefits, is picked up by the tax payer, who are indirectly subsidising the large corporations that pay these wages. And, if course, the shareholders who benefit from increased profits.

Casdon I'd like to know what careers young people actually want (aside from becoming influencers or shows like Love Island)