Paying for Social Care

To wish to redistribute finances totally as some apparently would like, and not wanting to allow anyone to inherit, would indicate that the writer supports communism, not socialism. agree.

I'm sure I have asked this before. Who and how will you determine those who could have but didn't?
And I've answered it. We don't need to if we have a fair and adequate tax system.

I must have missed the agenda
Well, obviously there isn’t one, but the OP is usually a clue.

The question is ‘. . . it has to be paid for somehow. But how?’

I (and others) have offered suggestions on how it could be paid for, but keep getting shot down with comments referencing the current way of doing things.

Not wanting some people to be born with a silver spoon in their mouth through inheritance isn't communism or even socialism. It's about ensuring that nobody has an unfair start before embarking on life. That's all. Communism is about something else.

Doodledog

*I must have missed the agenda*
Well, obviously there isn’t one, but the OP is usually a clue.

The question is ‘. . . it has to be paid for somehow. But how?’

I (and others) have offered suggestions on how it could be paid for, but keep getting shot down with comments referencing the current way of doing things.

Because that's the starting point for all change - unless you're a revolutionary.

And I've answered it. We don't need to if we have a fair and adequate tax system.
I fear we are wasting our time, nadateturbe. Those aggrieved by the very concept of inheritance can’t see beyond that, and are determined to stamp it out, using social care as a means of doing so. I don’t think they are even reading our posts beyond a cursory glance.

I can understand wanting to level up, but at the risk of boring anyone further, IMO, means testing always levels down. There are other ways of levelling the proverbial playing field, and progressive (and comprehensive) taxation is one, as may Maisie’s suggestion of printing more money.

As Maisie says, inheritance is a separate issue, and one that could bring about an interesting discussion, but conflating it with one about who should pay for care is just stopping this one from making progress.

Pippaz @ 19.42. The first three lines of your post makes no sense at all in reference to my post or indeed mindset? I was brought up to 'work' for a living' and wholeheartedly agree with this mindset. Just think what our country would be like if no one worked? paid tax, Ni?. There would be no money to pay for the sick or those who needed care at anytime during their life.

Those aggrieved by the very concept of inheritance can’t see beyond that, and are determined to stamp it out, using social care as a means of doing so. I don’t think they are even reading our posts beyond a cursory glance.

And now we seem to have wandered into the land of fairy tales! You're making things up and imagining agendas which don't exist and accuse people of motivations which don't exist.

Because that's the starting point for all change - unless you're a revolutionary

Sorry, I don’t understand this - what is the starting point for all change? How things are done now?

Well yes, but if the question is ‘who should pay?’ and the answer given is ‘I suggest we all should, out of a hike in taxation’, answering ‘oh, but it’s not fair that some people have nothing to pass on to their children’ does not engage with that suggestion at all, but mires the discussion in conversations about inheritance, which is a separate issue.

PS. I do read your posts Doodledog, but you don't "do" details or joined-up thinking, so it's difficult to follow through.

But we don't all pay enough - that's the problem!

Anyone who has had to pay vet's fees will know that if we really had to 'pay enough' as individuals we would never be able to afford it. We have the awful example of the US system before our eyes and the really oldies among us might recall the pre NHS system based on whether or not you could afford the doctor or on charities.

You may be well acquainted with MMT, growstuff but you don't seem to be applying its insights to your thinking.

I also know what Murphy says about taxation, I've followed him for a number of years. His prime point is that taxation doesn't fund spending. You seem to be ignoring that. We need to think creatively about the provision of health and social care, not run in the same old, same old tramlines.

Doodledog

*Because that's the starting point for all change - unless you're a revolutionary*

Sorry, I don’t understand this - what is the starting point for all change? How things are done now?

Well yes, but if the question is ‘who should pay?’ and the answer given is ‘I suggest we all should, out of a hike in taxation’, answering ‘oh, but it’s not fair that some people have nothing to pass on to their children’ does not engage with that suggestion at all, but mires the discussion in conversations about inheritance, which is a separate issue.

The present is the starting point for all change.

Please read carefully.

AsMaisiesays, inheritance is a separate issue, and one that could bring about an interesting discussion, but conflating it with one about who should pay for care is just stopping this one from making progress.

Yes, Doodledog.

As someone who has been in this in this enviable (not) position when young, and whose parents died within 7 years of gifting properties, I cannot see how unheritance has any great relevance to what posters are discussing here.
A separate thread maybe, but I'm not sure how many would be interested.

Maizie I disagree with you. I am applying insights to my thinking. MMT really isn't about writing blank cheques and forgetting about the consequences. Funding of end-of-life social care is much more complex than just getting the state to underwrite all expenses. It's also about transfer of wealth.

I think you're right Doodledog.

I think I'll sign off, or I might get annoyed.
(No point in changing my name if I don't remember why I did it! )

Josianne Inheritance is relevant because end-of-life social care is about who pays. The beneficiaries if the state pays are those who inherit the estates of the deceased.

Have a good day nadateturbe.

You are just being rude now growstuff, and there is really no need.

Anyone who has had to pay vet's fees will know that if we really had to 'pay enough' as individuals we would never be able to afford it.
Too right MaizieD. We paid £4000 in July alone.

I would willingly give far more money for social care than be the one needing it, but no one can choose what is going to befall them at anytime in life at any age.

Maizie I understand what Murphy says about taxation. I also understand that he realises that taxation is necessary and should be used to redirect wealth. The issue is whether wealth should be redirected to a handful of individuals, paid for by all.

may Maisie’s suggestion of printing more money.

Be careful with this. I'm not advocating an inflationary money printing free for all. The 'public money' used to finance care free at the point of use must eventually be cancelled by taxation. But before it ends up back in the Treasury it should have not only provided social care but also stimulated the economy. Taxation is very important but has a different role in this scenario.

growstuff

Josianne Inheritance is relevant because end-of-life social care is about who pays. The beneficiaries if the state pays are those who inherit the estates of the deceased.

If this is all you have to contribute, and you are determined to ignore any suggestions from others, it is hard to see your own joined up thinking, beyond inheritance resentment. You have said yourself that you would leave your children any money you had left over, so it’s clearly not the principle that bothers you. Your ‘insights’ don’t seem to extend to that. Making some people pay for care doesn’t stop the transfer of wealth anyway, as not everyone needs it - it is a lottery.

One more try. Why do you not approve of a system of fair and progressive taxation of all assets to pay for a ‘cradle to grave’ system of care for all?

MaizieD

^may Maisie’s suggestion of printing more money.^

Be careful with this. I'm not advocating an inflationary money printing free for all. The 'public money' used to finance care free at the point of use must eventually be cancelled by taxation. But before it ends up back in the Treasury it should have not only provided social care but also stimulated the economy. Taxation is very important but has a different role in this scenario.

Sorry. I do understand that, and was using a shorthand way of describing it, which tbh I knew was slipshod as I typed, but couldn’t think of a better one.

growstuff

Maizie I understand what Murphy says about taxation. I also understand that he realises that taxation is necessary and should be used to redirect wealth. The issue is whether wealth should be redirected to a handful of individuals, paid for by all.

I understand where you are coming from over inheritance, growstuff, but my contention is that if we take the question of individuals paying or not paying for social care (and, increasingly, for health care) out of the equation by totally financing it with 'public money' then inheritance doesn't come into it. It's then a separate debate on concentration of wealth and how to avoid it. (A debate, I find that dates back at least to Adam Smith, who disapproved of the concentration of wealth..)

For your reference, this is what Murphy wrote about paying for social care:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/07/20/of-all-the-options-available-to-pay-for-social-care-national-insurance-is-easily-the-worst/

He doesn't argue for no taxation. Although he mentions that it's not theoretically necessary, he doesn't go into details and his arguments suggest that he thinks taxation would have advantages.

MaizieD

growstuff

Maizie I understand what Murphy says about taxation. I also understand that he realises that taxation is necessary and should be used to redirect wealth. The issue is whether wealth should be redirected to a handful of individuals, paid for by all.

I understand where you are coming from over inheritance, growstuff, but my contention is that if we take the question of individuals paying or not paying for social care (and, increasingly, for health care) out of the equation by totally financing it with 'public money' then inheritance doesn't come into it. It's then a separate debate on concentration of wealth and how to avoid it. (A debate, I find that dates back at least to Adam Smith, who disapproved of the concentration of wealth..)

On the contrary. Inheritance does come into it, because a small group of people are being provided with a service for free, while their estates would remain intact.

PS. I'm not obsessed by inheritance, but I have always failed to understand why people are bothered by paying for something after they're dead.