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

I've quickly read through the earlier posts and have the following thoughts:
In rural areas, residential homes are often not accessible by public transport so it's difficult for younger people (and others) who don't have a car to access. We have one quite close to us and I know they struggle to get staff.
I have no problem in paying into a system and not having to use it ie pay insurance and not have to make a claim. In fact I'd happily continue to pay NI contributions, it seems ridiculous to me that I stopped paying aged 60 and continued to work until I was 65, I had an immediate hike in my take home pay. Goodness knows why!
I also won't mind paying for my own care if I need to, if I die leaving surplus money for my children to inherit, that's a bonus but they shouldn't be counting on it.
I honestly don't get why there is such a focus on leaving money to children, it is what fuels disadvantage in this country, raise the threshold a bit and if you can pay, then pay up and I don't care if they raise income tax, if you end up paying a lot more tax that means you're reasonably well off. The argument about children supporting the old and vice versa, is total rubbish too. In a civilised society we should pay what we can afford to support those in need of help.
The north/south divide argument seems a bit spurious to me too. If you live in the south you may have a house which is worth quite a bit but you will have had to find the money to buy it in the first place. I know wages are higher in the SE but so are expenses. I couldn't afford my home if I lived in Surrey for eg but here in the Midlands I can and tbh if I moved to a rural area of Scotland I could live like a laird. We all make choices, don't we?

Dinahmo

Doodledog With regard to peoples' estates I am very much in favour of reducing the inheritance tax allowances so that more tax is paid on peoples' estates, rather than increasing income tax. Better the dead pay, rather than the living.

MaizieD My comment was very simplistic I know but there has to be a reform of the tax system and if the country is going to get back on its feet again people need employment. Reducing cheap imports is one way.

Reducing inheritance tax allowances would be a good thing in itself, IMO; but I don't think it should be linked to social care.

Everyone pays tax and NI (whichever one I mention, someone will come along and say that care is funded by the other, and that I don't understand the system, which isn't really the point), so IMO everyone should get care free at the point of need. It should not be rationed, and the cost should not be dependent on whether or not you have money in the bank (or in a house).

That is not to say that the inheritance system is fair, though. So often the two things are muddled together and people assume that not supporting a two-tier care system means supporting the current inheritance system. I'm not saying that you are doing that BTW, but an awful lot of conflating of issues goes on on here.

I'm not sure what would be fair regarding inheritance, as I think it is an instinctive thing to want to leave something behind for one's children and I don't like the idea of the state telling people how they should spend their own money, but it would be a good place to start the 'levelling up' we have been promised. If there could be some sort of formula that worked out the profit made on property and taxed that on death, maybe that would work? It would have to be quite a complex one, though, as circumstances are so variable that it would be all but impossible to apply a formula that suited all circumstances, and (as with all formulae) there would soon be people making money from advising others how to get around it.

Doodledog With regard to peoples' estates I am very much in favour of reducing the inheritance tax allowances so that more tax is paid on peoples' estates, rather than increasing income tax. Better the dead pay, rather than the living.

MaizieD My comment was very simplistic I know but there has to be a reform of the tax system and if the country is going to get back on its feet again people need employment. Reducing cheap imports is one way.

PippaZ

One woman who rang in to Any Answers was a carer. She commented on the way they were paid for travel between those they care for. I think that has been discussed before but it is a scandal.

She was also saying that it was often difficult to give care for those who stayed in their homes as they were just not set up for the person who needed the care. She suggested if people did not think they would lose all they had in their house, they might be more prepared to move into more suitable accommodation.

I also just thought I would mention that you can, if you are eligible, get your care paid through the NHS under NHS Continuing Health Care Funding. You do have to show that your primary need for care is a healthcare one.

My BIL had a carer who came in twice a day - to get him up and then to get him back to bed. The carer had a list of clients - same ones - that he dealt with each week. He had to submit a weekly mileage claim, which was then reduced "because of errors) and he was charged VAT. The end result was his mileage payment being substantially reduced. Given that he was seeing the same people each week it would not have been impossible for the agency that employed him to verify his mileage one time. Also they should not have charged him VAT. I did offer to report the agency (a private company) to HMRC (obviously without naming names) but he was reluctant and so I did not.

JaneJudge

Surely also, I am benefitting from the fact my Mother in law is receiving care at home even if she is having to pay for it, than it would be expected of me, as a woman, to share the care with my sister in law? I don't really want to go backwards in time.

There is that, too. I think that care of the old is like care of the young - everyone benefits from it being available, whether that benefit is felt directly or indirectly.

Also, I’m just watching Andrew Marr, who has said that two thirds of people in receipt of social care are over the age of 65.

Did he show figures, Doodledog? "Two thirds^ and the "just over half" that the piece I quoted (with stats) mentioned are a very different view and seem to be pushing the idea that this is only or mainly the old. I don't believe this to be true. Mind you I find Marr quite frequently biased.

JaneJudge

PippaZ, it is almost impossible to get continuing health care. There are actually quite a few threads on here about it. One poster was successful (Luckygirl, I think?) but only after her husband had sadly died.

I know Jane but I like people to be made aware of these things.

I didn't know about Severe Mental Impairment Council Tax Exemption until several years after I could have claimed it for my mother. Because of that, I'm a bit obsessed with letting people know about these things.

lemongrove

Why is breaking a manifesto promise a lie, when we have just had a pandemic here which has affected the economy in so many ways ? It’s not a lie it’s what needs to happen.
I just hope Downing St is brave about it all and makes it much more than 1% 1.5 at the very least, this money is to sort out social care and also to give money to the NHS.
There can hardly be anyone who can’t see that it’s necessary.
Manifesto promises are all very well in normal circumstances, but we are far from normal circs just now.
Younger people will be old too one day, this is for society as a whole.I don’t begrudge money spent on education after all.

????????????

Surely also, I am benefitting from the fact my Mother in law is receiving care at home even if she is having to pay for it, than it would be expected of me, as a woman, to share the care with my sister in law? I don't really want to go backwards in time.

Also, I’m just watching Andrew Marr, who has said that two thirds of people in receipt of social care are over the age of 65.

And whilst I have no objection to paying via tax rather than NI (I pay both), I am less convinced that this is a tax on the young, as it’s being presented, and which I knew would happen.

The young will benefit from it too - both when they get old, and if their children need care. They will also benefit if they inherit from their parents.

Yes, it seems to me that one of the reasons for a high percentage of people in care being younger people is not that younger people need more care, but that older people can’t get it.

PippaZ, it is almost impossible to get continuing health care. There are actually quite a few threads on here about it. One poster was successful (Luckygirl, I think?) but only after her husband had sadly died.

He said in 2019 hd had a plan for social care and he said he wouldn't increase income tax, NatIns etc. Aren't they mutually exclusive?
Income tax is a much fairer way of raising revenue that increasing NatIns. Levelling up, anyone?

The above has really struck home to me. Why does the government tend only to talk about the older generations with physical issues?

I wouldn't want "voluntary" euthanasia brought in under this government.

In 2019/20 total expenditure on adult social care was only £99m more than in 2010/11, despite increasing demand for services.

Just under half of this expenditure is on working-age adults, with the remainder on people aged 65 years or over. For older people, the majority of spending (65 per cent) is for those who need physical support, while for working-age adults the majority (70 per cent) is for those with learning disabilities.

www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-adult-social-care

growstuff

*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?*

It's nonsense to claim (as somebody did) that paying for social care is impoverishing many people. FWIW I think there's a bigger problem with younger people needing social care, but as far as I can tell Johnson's "announcement" won't address that. It's going to be about the amount older people will be expected to pay towards their social care (or, to be more accurate, their estates) and that's quite simply not about poor people not being able to pay.

Not all people requiring social care are poor - and that's part of the problem.
I still don't understand what this means, though.

There may be a bigger problem with young people needing care (although I'd like to see figures for that, as it doesn't seem very likely to me), but why is it a problem that people at all levels of wealth need care?

As things stand, the rich are likely to get nursing staff to come to them, so they can stay where they are, the poor get care paid for, and those in the middle pay for all or a lot of the care that they get. That's a problem for those who have to sell everything to pay for it, but for the government it would be more of a problem if more people in care were poor, as they wouldn't be able to claw back the costs.

I may have been the one who said that paying for care impoverishes many people - I can't remember, but I wouldn't argue with it, and certainly don't think it is nonsense to say so, so if I didn't say it, I agree with whoever it was who did?.

It impoverishes those who have to sell up and pay for their care until there is very little left, and it disproportionately does so to people in areas where house prices have not brought them wealth - the areas where 'levelling up has been promised.

Those with houses that have risen a lot in value can pay the same amount of money, but it will represent a much smaller percentage of their estate, so their savings are not reduced to the level 'allowed' by the government for the 'just about managing'. The current system is divisive on a lot of levels, and I'm sceptical about how far this lot will go to make it less so.

One woman who rang in to Any Answers was a carer. She commented on the way they were paid for travel between those they care for. I think that has been discussed before but it is a scandal.

She was also saying that it was often difficult to give care for those who stayed in their homes as they were just not set up for the person who needed the care. She suggested if people did not think they would lose all they had in their house, they might be more prepared to move into more suitable accommodation.

I also just thought I would mention that you can, if you are eligible, get your care paid through the NHS under NHS Continuing Health Care Funding. You do have to show that your primary need for care is a healthcare one.

MaizieD

^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.^

That is a political decision then, isn't it growstuff? There is no reason why taxes should rise to fund anything. The government, as I pointed out, have manged to spend £billions on their mates during the covid crisis. It is not money that has been 'borrowed' from anyone nor does it have to be 'paid back'.

What is worrying me is that people discussing the topic of this thread seem to believe the government narrative that it does have to be paid back and that we have to accept more poverty for the sake of the tory 'small state' ideology.

This is a far wider issue than just the provision of social care.

I don't have a problem with the fact that money has to be circulated in the economy. I have a problem with how it is circulated and with the false narrative of state spending being dependent on tax revenues being used to justify austerity and higher taxation.

Yes.

Going back to the thread about the different parties.

Tories = small state, so they need a narrative to justify this. Thatcher was the first to hit on what sounds sensible economics, maintaining that a governments economy is the same as a household budget. It isn’t of course but many people unfortunately still accept this as common sense, because most people are not taught economics.

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.

That is a political decision then, isn't it growstuff? There is no reason why taxes should rise to fund anything. The government, as I pointed out, have manged to spend £billions on their mates during the covid crisis. It is not money that has been 'borrowed' from anyone nor does it have to be 'paid back'.

What is worrying me is that people discussing the topic of this thread seem to believe the government narrative that it does have to be paid back and that we have to accept more poverty for the sake of the tory 'small state' ideology.

This is a far wider issue than just the provision of social care.

I don't have a problem with the fact that money has to be circulated in the economy. I have a problem with how it is circulated and with the false narrative of state spending being dependent on tax revenues being used to justify austerity and higher taxation.

I agree completely doodledog, caring is a skill, we dpnt want people who dont really want to do it, to be shuttled down that route. I think that also applies to 'we should look after our own' idea, I have seen care by family members that wasnt great. I would rather stick pins in my eyes than be cared for by DH for example, he just hasnt got those sort of skills.

Dinahmo

I should have added that tax rates should increase and we should all get used to paying more and not to buy cheap stuff from China or elsewhere.

Those two statements are contradictory, Dinahmo. Increasing tax rates takes money away from people. So how could they afford more expensive 'stuff' on less money?

Just based on my own personal experience of care in SE. I think some youngsters are put off because they cannot drive and the hours often mean arriving somewhere very early or leaving very late and if you are a young or female or young and female, safety will come into play too.

This was covered in that film wasn't it? the gig economy and care...sorry we missed you.

Dinahmo I have wondered if it should be the company claiming for those they "can't" pay enough to live on - and show why than cannot pay a sufficient amount without help.

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?

It's nonsense to claim (as somebody did) that paying for social care is impoverishing many people. FWIW I think there's a bigger problem with younger people needing social care, but as far as I can tell Johnson's "announcement" won't address that. It's going to be about the amount older people will be expected to pay towards their social care (or, to be more accurate, their estates) and that's quite simply not about poor people not being able to pay.

I am not a young person, but I was once, and I have young people as family members, and neither I nor they would have chosen a care role over one at the same rate of pay that offered regular, sociable hours and was less physically demanding.

I think it takes a special sort of person to do a care job well. It takes patience, tolerance, the ability to do undignified things for people whilst preserving their dignity and so on. It's not something that I could do well, and I think that those who do it should get rewards and status commensurate with the demands of the role, which they patently don't.

I don't think it's something that people should be pushed into because they can't find anything else and their benefits are at risk if they turn down a job. It is vitally important that those who do the job are doing it because they want to.

I think it was alluded to upthread, but if carers got a better rate of pay, there would have to be a knock-on increase for nursing staff, and the government have resisted this for a long time now, despite it (increasing nurses' pay) having public support.