Paying for Social Care

The above was a reply to Alegrais.

You are entitled to that opinion. But, please don't take offence, it is surely on the line that we should all wear the Mao blue suit so that we are all equal.

If the NHS is properly funded, and that was my basic condition, no one will be buying better or faster healthcare, although they may be buying a more plush and private room. That idea of queue jumping, etc or the reality of it - I don't know which - has grown as the NHS has been starved of cash, hasn't it?

The above comments about Mr Branson assume that he has paid a rate of tax that is commensurate with his income from all sources, in case that wasn't clear.

I agree with that. Whereas I do believe that Branson has a right to a free place in a nursing home, and also that he has a right to pay for one with caviar instead of cheese in his sandwiches, and silk sheets instead of cotton if that's what he'd prefer, I don't think that he should be able to jump the queue for an operation or to see a specialist.

Maybe if that specialist's training, and the hospital equipment they are using had been financed entirely separately from the start I might make an exception, but that's not the way it works and I agree that no-one has a right to push others aside to get treatment.

Unfortunately, I think that many people who agree with me are now being forced into situations where it is either pay or (as has happened to people I know personally) lose their sight or the use of their legs, and in those cases I can understand why they don't put principle first. If there were no such option, however, there would be shorter queues and people wouldn't be asked to make those impossible decisions. I honestly don't know what I would do if I had to choose between paying to have an operation privately or risk my eyesight. I think it's one of those things that nobody knows unless they've been in that situation.

I would get rid of private medicine, and don't see that as particularly radical.

Sorry if this is way off topic, but you asked.. ?

It doesn't matter how much money someone has, that doesn't make their health or life worth more than anybody else's. Being able to buy better or faster healthcare isn't choosing to spend your money how you like, it's using it to jump queue or get better healthcare than someone less fortunate than yourself.

Maybe I am an extreme socialist ?

I'm happy to be corrected Alegrias but isn't it pretty far to the left to deny people the right to spend their money how they choose once they have paid their contribution to society? Mind you we are not far apart, I think, on the fact that many of the wealthy are not yet paying that contribution.

I started a thread about "no private health" a while ago, I felt quite isolated. But never called an extreme socialist, that's a new one. ?. But agreed Pippa, were all free to aim for the society we want.

I think the majority agreed with a mixed economy for the first 50 years after the war Alegrais. Then the watchword became "Market Led" - one of the most extreme versions of capitalism in my view.

I would be very happy to return to a mixed economy rather than this utmost form of capitalism and ownership that we seem to have fallen into and rather than an extreme form of socialism - which is where I would place your "no private health".

But you have the right to want what you want too

OK then.

We'll assume that Branson has paid all the tax he is supposed to. He rocks up and says he wants to live in the local care home, but he doesn't see why he should sell Necker Island to pay for it. He wants the taxman to pay for it (i.e., you and me). Acceptable?

No private health, ever, is my motto. But very few agree with that either...

I don't think I agree with all that you are saying Alegrais1. If Branson is still a UK citizen, paying his taxes, he can use the NHS.

If proper taxes had been paid, and we had a "Health and Care" system then I see no reason why he shouldn't use the Care system when/if it became necessary. He and others may choose to pay for private health and private care. That option is open to all currently should they want to use private health.

I feel you are coming at it in a reverse way to how I look at it. Mine would be "First pay your proper proportion of tax that would look after all".

There would be a second thought - build and run Care Homes under a local NHCS Trust and run at-home care through the same sort of Trust. That should mean that everyone gets it free unless, having paid their dues to society, they choose not to.

No, not you, Monica. Algerias quoted ‘despise’ from my post (which I was using against means-testing in general) and basically used it to say that she despised my beliefs, and that she would be ashamed if she held them.

I "despise" the idea that people worth hundreds of thousands of pounds think they can sit on their nest egg and get the tax payer to pay for their bed and board for years on end when there is nothing medically wrong with them. If Branson was asking us to pay for him to go into a care home what would you think? Where do we draw the line, in terms of how well off a person is? Old age isn't a medical condition and a person might need help with day to day activities but they are not ill. I'd be ashamed to keep my million pound house standing empty (if I had one, which I don't) while the state paid for my expenses when I wasn't ill, just old. I've said it several times and I won't change my mind.

Other people may differ. I don't despise anybody, but I deplore the concept that the state should pay for your nice life when you yourself are well off and don't need medical care.

MaizieD

It doesn't account for the value of their assets, though. Or the £s in tax havens that HMRC don't see.

No, and if all of that were taken into account and taxed fairly (not punitively, but fairly), one of two things would happen. Either the poor would pay much less, as we could raise the bar at which we start paying tax to the median average wage, or there would be a lot more money in the coffers* to pay for basics at point of need, and either way, there would be no argument that suggests that it is fairer that some people should pay for their care twice because they are neither rich nor poor.

*I understand that there is a different way of looking at taxation, but we are working with the current one for now.

It doesn't account for the value of their assets, though. Or the £s in tax havens that HMRC don't see.

Oh - I think that's what you said Maizie. I was trying to think it through. Sorry!

It does answer the question in a way. If each was paying according to their actual wealth (in which I include all earnings or assumed income from assets - as they do for benefits and Council Tax) they would pay an equal percentage wouldn't they?

So, for instance, if, in this country, the top 10% have 40% of the wealth then why be surprised that they are paying 40% of taxes.

I have no idea what percentage of the country's wealth they represent, but according to the ONS the 'top' 20% pay 35% of their gross income in taxes (so that's not counting their assets) while the bottom 20% pay 42% of their gross income in taxes. This doesn't answer your query, but it does tell you that distribution of payments to the state is inequitable.

Alegrias1

Something else I "despise" is means testing. Free healthcare for all at point of use is a basic requirement that this country should be aiming for. I just don't think free accommodation and meals for life for someone who has significant assets they'd rather not use up, is in any way realistic or fair. I don't think the point of being aspirational should be to leave your kids a small fortune while society pays for your housing costs.

Other people may disagree.

Those with "significant assets" do pay for accommodation and meals like everyone else through their tax. When the NHS started we included as a part of health, a clean and warm bed and nutritional food, where necessary.

It is not whether they should or shouldn't pay; we have decided that long ago. It is a) we are told we need to pay more overall to cover the costs and b) we need to decide what "health" is.

I have no problem with those with a significant overall income, including, an income or assumed income from assets, paying more. We are often told something along the lines that "the top 1% or 10% or whatever, are paying 40% (or whatever) of the taxes.

I have found it incredibly hard to discover how much of our countries wealth the top 1% or 10% have. In 2018 Oxfam reported that ‘world’s richest 1% get 82% of the wealth. To my mind, if that is the case here then the top 1% should be paying 82% of taxes. So, for instance, if, in this country, the top 10% have 40% of the wealth then why be surprised that they are paying 40% of taxes. I would only think it wrong if they were paying greatly less or greatly more than their percentage overall wealth. But this comparison of a "top" percentage of the population to tax is always given to us without telling us what percentage of wealth that "top" percentage has.

M0nica

I am sorry you took exception to something I said Doodledog, but I have read and reread my last 6 posts and can see nothing in any of of them aimed at you in any way.

No, not you, Monica. Algerias quoted ‘despise’ from my post (which I was using against means-testing in general) and basically used it to say that she despised my beliefs, and that she would be ashamed if she held them.

I am all for robust debate, (and fully accept that others may disagree) but I do try to keep personal digs out of my posts, and see no need for aggression or personal digs. There have been a lot of those lately, and it is tiresome.

Alegrias, amazingly, I agree with you. I get your point and it's spot on.

Something else I "despise" is means testing. Free healthcare for all at point of use is a basic requirement that this country should be aiming for. I just don't think free accommodation and meals for life for someone who has significant assets they'd rather not use up, is in any way realistic or fair. I don't think the point of being aspirational should be to leave your kids a small fortune while society pays for your housing costs.

Other people may disagree.

I am sorry you took exception to something I said Doodledog, but I have read and reread my last 6 posts and can see nothing in any of of them aimed at you in any way.

M0nica

There are not enough rich people to provide all the extra income needed for this equal paradise you refer to Doodledog, about 2 million against 37 million other tax payers, and the majority of the 2 million have annual incomes closer to £100,000 than £500,000.

Those with huge incomes, millions are usually highly tax mobile and can move their domicile to other countries if they wish. Russian Oligarchs, Middle Eastern Sheikhs and the likes of Dyson, Branson etc. It doesn't really matter where they live. They will just move on, which will, of course reduce inequality, but not in the way you have in mind.

Taxes don't fund spending, MOnica. Taxation takes exces money out of the ecoomy.

The government that can produce £37billion out of thin air* to benefit its friends and donors could do the same for social care. And it would benefit far more people...

*Borrowed from and owed to no-one..

You may well be right, M0nica. I don't pretend to be a political strategist, or an economist.

I am simply taking part in a discussion about what would be fair, and see no need for insinuations (however indirect) that my views are shameful.

As I have said, I feel that means-testing is inherently unfair, or would be if taxation were applied progressively. I have given my reasons, and have yet to see anyone explain why they are wrong, other than to cast unfounded aspersions on my motives for feeling as I do.

I don't want you to be Doodledog*, I just said I would be. And my house isn't worth anything like a million. A tenth of that, maybe.

There are not enough rich people to provide all the extra income needed for this equal paradise you refer to Doodledog, about 2 million against 37 million other tax payers, and the majority of the 2 million have annual incomes closer to £100,000 than £500,000.

Those with huge incomes, millions are usually highly tax mobile and can move their domicile to other countries if they wish. Russian Oligarchs, Middle Eastern Sheikhs and the likes of Dyson, Branson etc. It doesn't really matter where they live. They will just move on, which will, of course reduce inequality, but not in the way you have in mind.