Paying for Social Care

Absolutely right Doodledog. My thoughts exactly.

Germanshepherdsmum

Why do you ask that growstuff? I haven’t described anyone as feckless. I was a working, divorced single parent, a solicitor as it happens but not earning the sort of money I did later on as it was necessary for me to work near home for obvious reasons and opportunities were limited. I struggled, and kept that fact to myself. I went without in order to pay the bills and feed and clothe my son, but I have always paid my way. That really was a gratuitously nasty post.

Because other people would have thought of you as "feckless". Does that bother you?

My personal circumstances have changed dramatically over the last few months, but until recently I was one of those who would have been labelled "feckless" by some on GN (and elsewhere). I had almost no savings, live in a rented property and my income is barely over the absolute minimum. If I had qualified for and needed social care, I would have been eligible for full state funding.

I worked full-time for 48 years, paid tax, NICs and pension contributions and hardly ever had any holidays or bought anything new. I was so stressed with work and being a single parent without support that I became ill and my life crashed. BUT I would have been labelled as feckless, to which I object very strongly.

PS. For me, it looks as though there might be an unexpected "happy ending", but that's not the case for many people.

Doodledog: From each according to ability: to each according to need.

So how does that fit in with your dislike of means testing?

Germanshepherdsmum

Why do you ask that growstuff? I haven’t described anyone as feckless. I was a working, divorced single parent, a solicitor as it happens but not earning the sort of money I did later on as it was necessary for me to work near home for obvious reasons and opportunities were limited. I struggled, and kept that fact to myself. I went without in order to pay the bills and feed and clothe my son, but I have always paid my way. That really was a gratuitously nasty post.

No, it wasn't a "gratuitously nasty post". It was a question. You would have fitted the "feckless" criteria, according to some, as would I.

Interesting word, sneer. My dictionary defines it as to smile or laugh with facial contortions that express scorn or contempt. So probably no, nobody is sneering, because nobody is laughing. Shall we move on from sneering then?

How about “looking down their noses”? I’d say the following count as looking down their noses as people: suggesting that the “feckless” poor shouldn’t have several children; saying that people fritter their money away on drink, smoking and gambling instead of putting it away in a pension; thinking that people who need help from the government are in some way being used to punish Mr Miser.

Mr Miser can sit on his/her funds as much as s/he likes, I don’t blame him/her for it. I’ve never said that what they do is bad and what the non-saver does is good. But I wonder what s/he is saving for? Just to have a big pot of money when they check out? Because personally, I can’t think if a better thing to spend my money on than making sure I’m looked after in my old age. Otherwise what is the point of saving?

I am vehemently opposed to private healthcare. However, I cannot see any justification for the taxpayer having to stump up for my living expenses just so I can die rich.

Ineffective, incompetent and futile is the dictionary definition of Feckless

I have know feckless folk in a variety of different socioeconomic spectrums.

I can understand you, or anyone, being offended at being thought feckless - I would feel the same - but seeing accusations of fecklessness where none are intended does nothing to help a discussion about means tests.

Nor, for that matter, does assuming that because someone thinks one thing they automatically think another, and jumping on them for what you think they really mean.

Not that it matters to this thread, but I for one have come very close to leaving GN recently as it has felt that everything I post is taken the wrong way (not just by you) no matter how hard I try to word it with no ambiguity, and even when I spell out my motives, or deny the ones ascribed to me I am not believed. There is just no point in posting in those circumstances.

I hope your happy ending works out, btw. ?

growstuff

*Doodledog: From each according to ability: to each according to need.*

So how does that fit in with your dislike of means testing?

People who need care should get it. If the tax system works so that everyone pays enough that there is enough to pay for it, there is just no need to means test.

Doodledog

growstuff

Doodledog: From each according to ability: to each according to need.

So how does that fit in with your dislike of means testing?

People who need care should get it. If the tax system works so that everyone pays enough that there is enough to pay for it, there is just no need to means test.

Actually I could go with that, if everybody has access to the same system.

So the gambler with 10 children gets the same treatment as the Queen.

Ain't going to happen, is it?

Because personally, I can’t think if a better thing to spend my money on than making sure I’m looked after in my old age. Otherwise what is the point of saving?

That is your personal view, and in mine you would be entitled to be looked after in your old age in the way you want.

Why should you have to spend £1000 a week on top of the tax, NI and council tax (which also contributes to social care) that you have already paid? 'The taxpayer' has already stumped up for your care, but if you didn't feel that you wanted to benefit from a system into which you have already paid what was asked of you there is nothing stopping you from donating your money to a cause of your choice. Alternatively, you could treat the others in the care home to fish and chips or silk sheets, or spend your savings on gin.

Alegrias1

Doodledog

growstuff

Doodledog: From each according to ability: to each according to need.

So how does that fit in with your dislike of means testing?

People who need care should get it. If the tax system works so that everyone pays enough that there is enough to pay for it, there is just no need to means test.

Actually I could go with that, if everybody has access to the same system.

So the gambler with 10 children gets the same treatment as the Queen.

Ain't going to happen, is it?

That is exactly what I have been arguing for all along.

No, the Queen doesn't pay tax, so she's not getting into the care home - she can shift for herself ?

I like the gin idea.

The Queen does pay tax, BTW. Just not as much as us plebs. So off to the Eventide home for her.

So here's a scenario; I've saved a million pounds (I wish). I have ten feckless children and I want them to have £100,000 each after I'm gone. I absolutely refuse to pay towards my living expenses and expect the tax payer to pay it for me instead. Is that OK?

PS - I don't think it is, Just me, maybe.

I’ve just come back to this thread and have to say that Doodledog, your post at 15.56 is indeed exceptional. People who have worked and paid tax and NI should have their care paid for by the rest of us, just as those who have no assets have their care paid for by the rest of us. I don’t understand why some people find this such an unacceptable idea. We all pay for care and treatment in the NHS and we all pay for the education service. Why do we not all pay for social/nursing care? No one suggests that because someone owns a house or has some money that they have to pay for their medical treatment or the education of their children. It is provided by the state, that is, by the rest of us, quite rightly. So why with care of the elderly is it different? It shouldn’t be.

If the children were feckless I would blow the million pounds on a round the world cruise, the bu**ers wouldn’t see a penny…

maddyone

I’ve just come back to this thread and have to say that Doodledog, your post at 15.56 is indeed exceptional. People who have worked and paid tax and NI should have their care paid for by the rest of us, just as those who have no assets have their care paid for by the rest of us. I don’t understand why some people find this such an unacceptable idea. We all pay for care and treatment in the NHS and we all pay for the education service. Why do we not all pay for social/nursing care? No one suggests that because someone owns a house or has some money that they have to pay for their medical treatment or the education of their children. It is provided by the state, that is, by the rest of us, quite rightly. So why with care of the elderly is it different? It shouldn’t be.

Free from cradle to grave was the ideology at the inception of the NHS, I must have missed the caveat unless you own your hone or have ssvings

Me too GrannyGravy.

*spellings hone - home ssvings- savings

I've missed it too!

I don't think you should have to sell your house if you need medical treatment.

I think you should sell your house if you're never going to live in it again. And use the proceeds to pay your way.

Seems the government paying to house you becomes acceptable when you're old, but not before. If you were young you'd be a feckless scrounger.

The government can only administer the money that has been paid in in taxes and NI. Whether or not any one of us will need long term care is a gamble. My mother died within 6 weeks of admission to a care home, MiL lived for 2 long years in hospital, Dad died suddenly in a matter of days. All had paid taxes etc but all made very different demands on 'care' budgets.
Is this an actuarial matter and we should pay individualised amounts in long term care insurance? Obviously, very difficult to administer but a point to ponder.

I don't think so. We can't choose the manner of our passing, and as some will need years of care and others will be lucky enough to go out quickly and painlessly, if everyone contributes enough to aim for the middle somewhere we will all be covered and those who need long-term care can be kept comfortably for as long as is needed.

I suppose that's the best any government could possibly aim for.

Growstuff, kindly explain how, whilst working full time, claiming no benefits other than child allowance and spending on nothing other than keeping a roof over our heads, putting food on the table, clothing my child, paying usual household bills and paying off the debts my ex left me with, for a good many years, I could be considered feckless by any stretch of the imagination, unless by that you mean begging an abusive man to return so that I didn’t have single parent status? To suggest that I might fit the feckless criteria, whatever they might be, is insulting. I have no idea of your circumstances so can’t comment on whether anyone would make a similar comment about you. These insults do nothing to further the debate, they merely detract from it.

I really think it's time we tried a different way of thinking about the state's money and how it is allocated.

The first step would be to stop thinking about 'taxpayers' money' and start looking at it as state money, public money, which we, as citizens of the state, authorise the government to spend on our behalf.

Put very simply, originally, 'money' was issued by a monarch or a tribal leader from their wealth. It could only be 'earned' by service to them, or, trickling down, by service to the person who'd earned it from the issuer. (it was more complex than that, but basically, the monarch/leader issued it) The money was originally minted from a precious metal, gold or silver, but eventually replaced by notes which promised to pay the holder the note's value in gold or silver from the state's resources if requested.

That's several centuries in a sentence or two but the essential point to recognise is that our money is still issued by the state. Either directly via state spending or by banks under licence from the state.

Until the early 1970s the amount of currency the state could issue had to be backed by the amount of gold and silver that it held. But when we came off the gold standard that no longer applied. The state is now able to issue as much as it wants to '*limited by* the need to avoid excessive inflation and the resources available for purchase.

Money is returned to the state by taxation. This ensures that there is not too much money in circulation to cause inflation. If the state didn't issue any money there would be no money for people to pay their taxes with. So state spending into the economy comes before taxation.

This means that we don't have to worry about raising enough through taxation to provide state services. The money will always be there.

Given that fact, we can then think of what the state spends as 'public money'. And we, the public, can chose how we want it to be spent by way of our political choices. We can chose the political party of government on its plans to spend the money it issues for the good of the state's citizens.

We need not be swayed by the 'how is it going to be paid for' question because we know that 'it' can be paid for. The state doesn't have to take it back off us because it isn't a household, it has no limit to the money it can issue. BUT, it must keep it under control and not just use it to reward its friends and relations!

If we, as citizens, decide that some of the public money is best spent in supporting the health and welfare of all its citizens 'from the cradle to the grave' then it takes away the feeling that some citizens don't deserve it because they haven't made a financial contribution to the state by way of taxation. It doesn't matter if the state spends a great deal on this care because all the money it spends goes into the economy and most of it eventually returns via taxation. In the meantime it subsidises private enterprise (because just about everything the state purchases is supplied by private enterprise) by direct spending or indirectly by state employees spending their wages.

This is not printing money ad lib. It is not going to produce runaway inflation. If the resources are there to buy, then it will make no difference, except that the economy will thrive.

You've said this before MaizieD and I wasn't convinced then. I just remember the ghastly runaway inflation that renders currency virtually worthless. I've seen it in Italy, Post war Germany and Zimbabwe. Theory is one thing, practice is another.