Paying for Social Care

PippaZ and Doodledog - I think we have converged!

I don't mind if people want to spend their money on designer clothes, we don't all have to wear Mao suits. A nice frock isn't the same as lifesaving healthcare.

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.

Yes, I'd vote for that.

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

The current factual and honest truth is that taxation doesn't fund spending. It hasn't funded spending for decades. The current discussion, yes, it is within the parameters of the belief that it does, but it is a myth that politicians either fail to understand the implications of or deliberately perpetrate to justify their ideology.

I would hope that the more people understood political economy and disbelieved the myth the better they would be able to judge the value of proposed party policies and make informed choices.

Interesting though these discussions are I can't join them. All I can do is ride my hobby horse

But why do they all do it? Why doesn't someone come along and say 'Right. This is a mess, and we can sort it out by doing things this way.'

If they made the message simple, surely people would vote for them?

It seems to me madness that that hasn't happened. I mean, I can see that tories want an underclass and a reserve army of labour who are terrified of falling into it, as that protects their sponsors, but the Labour Party don't want that, and if they did, there must be someone out there who could lead a group of people to advocate doing things differently.

(sorry of that's a stupid question - as I've said, Economics is by no means my strong point.)

If I ever work in a care home and find Branson in there, being funded, he'll be getting up first!

Doodledog this thread alone illustrates why nobody has come along to sort the situation out! At the very least the Tories have had a go. Not perfect but then nobody will ever agree on the ideal solution.

How about your lifetime income is calculated? Then you pay on a sliding scale regardless. This would then take away the unfairness of people who have been feckless with their money throughout their lives and made no provision for their later life. This takes into account the people who have had the exact same lifetime earnings and been careful and then have to pay in later life out of their savings.

How about we accept that life isn't fair and some people are better off than others (let's try not to label people feckless, lazy etc). On top of that some people, through no fault of their own will develop conditions that mean they need help to live on a day to day basis. Then we all pay taxes of one sort or another based on what we earn and that funds the people who have little in the way of resources, the rest of us pay for the care we need out of the resources that we have been able to amass over the years, because we recognise that our care is important, care workers need to be properly paid and as far as I know, no-one can take their haul of gold with them when they die. If we use up our resources then we get funded from the public purse and we stay in the place we are in unless it becomes unsuitable for other reasons than finance. And everyone regardless of who is funding pays the same rate It all seems perfectly fair to me, those of us who have had the luck to live pretty comfortable lives use our money to ensure we have quality care and the public purse is used to ensure that those who have had less comfortable lives at least have decent care when they need it. This would work perfectly if we weren't obsessed with leaving money to our children and ensuring that they get their "fair share" out of the system. There are so many things in this world that are unfair but paying for good quality care in your old age is not one of them.

Doodledog

But why do they all do it? Why doesn't someone come along and say 'Right. This is a mess, and we can sort it out by doing things this way.'

If they made the message simple, surely people would vote for them?

It seems to me madness that that hasn't happened. I mean, I can see that tories want an underclass and a reserve army of labour who are terrified of falling into it, as that protects their sponsors, but the Labour Party don't want that, and if they did, there must be someone out there who could lead a group of people to advocate doing things differently.

(sorry of that's a stupid question - as I've said, Economics is by no means my strong point.)

I don't think it's stupid Doddledog. All this manipulation of the countries economy by giving tax allowances if you plant trees, etc., is madness in my mind. You could say there were no tax allowances for a year and that everyone would pay the same - 10% (?) - on all income and actual or assumed income from investment above the personal allowance.

You would get enough in to please all those the Tories have convinced that we need housekeeping economics. Then tell the public that taxes will be adjusted down the following year if everyone pays up. Then set a properly progressive tax system, with no personal allowance but the equivalent in basic income. This should enable simplification of the benefits as well.

I'd vote for that.

(I wrote this very late last night - but I still like the simplification idea)

I was speaking in a more ;'general' frame. I am sure we all know someone who constantly moans that they are short of money. We have to bite our tongue when we see what they perceive as ' necessary'. My point being I think it is wrong to penalise people who have thought about how they will be looked after in their old age and made a lifelong commitment to saving themselves to pay for it, against those who show know commitment at all. Indeed, thinking the government can pay, ie someone else!

I like what you write foxie48. Just to simplify (as I am in that mode), why not put a high tax on inheritance? Inheritance increased the gap between rich and poor. You could be able to park some in fund for your care and if you don't use it it goes into a general care pot for those who life did not treat so well or who were less well equiped to deal with it?

love0c

How about your lifetime income is calculated? Then you pay on a sliding scale regardless. This would then take away the unfairness of people who have been feckless with their money throughout their lives and made no provision for their later life. This takes into account the people who have had the exact same lifetime earnings and been careful and then have to pay in later life out of their savings.

That is still removing choice from people about how to spend their own money after it has been taxed, which is one of my basic objections.

That system would basically be saying that if someone works overtime to pay for a hobby or interest (so earns more), and spends all her spare money on that hobby, she will be charged more for her old age care than someone who didn't.

If we earn more, we pay more tax. If that is still not enough to fund nursing homes for people in their old age then we need to pay more, and not just from earned income, but from all sources.

I don't care how people spend their own money. If they have been 'feckless', so what? But I don't think it is fair to penalise people whose choice it is to save either. In a 'free country' we should be able to use our own money as we wish, after we have paid our dues to a collective fund that provides care for all. A retrospective tax on earnings would have the same impact as a means-test - it would keep the 'not rich and not poor' in their 'place'.

That wouldn't be a fair system Foxie. Because those who don't care enough to save for their needs would get help first. And I'm not talking about those who don't have enough to save but those who choose not to.

Yes, we have to allow people to make choices, or it will be like North Korea.

nadateturbe Exactly!

I would go with your system foxie48. I understand that not everyone is in a position to save.

Ilovecheese

I would go with your system foxie48. I understand that not everyone is in a position to save.

Are you suggesting that those wanting taxation to pay for care don’t understand that?

nadateturbe

That wouldn't be a fair system Foxie. Because those who don't care enough to save for their needs would get help first. And I'm not talking about those who don't have enough to save but those who choose not to.

And how do you decide that the "don't care enough". Do tell.

I didn't say I could. I just said Foxie's system was unfair.
Its probably impossible. The tax system needs reformed so that everyone's care is paid for.

No, Doodledog I am suggesting that people who talk about "saving instead of spending on luxury goods and holidays, " who think that because they have had enough spare money to be able to save some, that anyone else could have done the same. They are the ones that I think don't understand.

E.g. the people who say that other people "don't care enough to save" they are the ones who don't understand Doodledog that is what I am suggesting.

Some folk care but don't have the means to save. We all accept that.
Some folk have enough to save but don't care to do so.
A tax system is fair to everyone.

nadateturbe

I didn't say I could. I just said Foxie's system was unfair.
Its probably impossible. The tax system needs reformed so that everyone's care is paid for.

Indeed.

Ilovecheese

E.g. the people who say that other people "don't care enough to save" they are the ones who don't understand Doodledog that is what I am suggesting.

"They" may say that but you actually have no idea what "they" are doing. They may just be winding you up or saying it for the sake of hearing their own voices, or even because they think you have no right to know what they are doing with their money.

"They" probably believe "they" understand enough to run their own lives to the best of their ability, just as you think you do.

nadateturbe

That wouldn't be a fair system Foxie. Because those who don't care enough to save for their needs would get help first. And I'm not talking about those who don't have enough to save but those who choose not to.

People who spend pay VAT, they help to employ people, they add to the economy. People who save (used to) see their money increase but anyone who has put their money into shares over the last year or so, has done very well and are supporting the economy in a different way. I am totally for people having choice in how they spend their money, it's the people who have nothing left over at the end of the week who have no choice. I don't care about fair it's a totally misguided concept.