Paying for Social Care

Doodledog

*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.

Yes! This.

Really folks, don't be so b***** dismissive.

Wanting a fair society isn't communist, socialist, jealousy or any of the rest of it.

Obsessions with means testing, paying your fair share for years, and the undeserving poor are clouding your views. In my opinion.

Doodledog

I'm not sure what point you are making, Pippa. I don't think anyone has said that people who aren't able to pay shouldn't get care. Some people are saying that those who can afford to pay should have to do so, and others that care should be free for everyone.

It's a long thread, so I may have forgotten, but I think I would have remembered if anyone had said that those with no money should be denied care.

Oh, I do think there are people on this thread saying that those who can't pay shouldn't get care. I doubt they would be brave enough to insult anyone to their face. However, they have their amorphous "feckless" group who would not be allowed to have "care" if the posters who use that word judge them to be undeserving.

I agree this muddies the waters. Can we then agree that everyone should get, free at the point of need, physical, social and psychological care? This care should not have any limitations relating to age or income. We should all pay for this through a progressive tax system.

The idea is simple until people complicate it by taking a bit out here and there, charging for some bits and not for others. It must all be free, at the point of need, to everyone. All private services - a choice people should still be allowed to make - should then be completely separate from the NHS.

I couldn't agree more.

maddyone

growstuff

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.

It’s communism.

I don't see how it can be. The person who doesn't get an inheritance altering their condition at birth can still go on to work and earn, save and spend whatever they are able and want to - as long as they pay their taxes on it. People do that every day. If we say that there can be no inheritance - it will be taxed at 100% - we would not be taking all the persons money, only that which they didn't dispose of during their lifetime.

You could even add a sweetner - that the person giving the money can give as much as they want during their lifetime without paying tax on it. Obviously the person recieving it would have it treated as income and taxed but you could give tax relief to charities.

None of this would make us communist.

PippaZ, exactly! I do still worry about those 'I'm alright Jack' folk who think they can pay their own way. Maybe it's nice in cloud cuckoo land. Nobody knows how long they'll live - and living far longer, but in poor health, is becoming common.

At one BUPA home, a long term resident had exhausted his private funds but was allowed to stay on (at the much lower LA rate) - in a smaller room. They were proud to tell us about their generosity - seemingly unbothered about naming him too.

Other homes have been known to just ask people to leave and/or the LA can move them to a cheaper place!

London rates of maybe 75 grand a year can run out pretty quick!

It was suggested one of my relatives who lived in council housing, should have a shared room in a nursing home for the last 6 month of their lives...shared with a complete stranger

It was suggested one of my relatives who lived in council housing, should have a shared room in a nursing home for the last 6 month of their lives...shared with a complete stranger

That's horrible. We all deserve to spend our last years in dignity. But I dare say it's what would happen if we all ended up paying for our own care - those who have an expensive house in the SE will be able to get a nice room and cucumber sandwiches on trays with doilies, whereas those with less will end up in a dormitory and gruel.

Obviously that is an exaggeration, but it's just an extension of what would happen if we follow the logic of the argument that we should be ashamed if we don't fund our own care.

Pippa I'm glad somebody understands what communism isn't.

I think somebody should tell Bill Gates he's heading towards being a communist.

Obviously, there's a big difference between nil and $10 million, but that's what he's decided to leave his children each - a tiny fraction of his reported $130 billion wealth.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-gates-children-inherit-money-b1841790.html

PS. What happened to meritocracy?

PPS. I'm sure even I could beat Usain Bolt in a 100 metre sprint, if I were given a 99 metre advantage.

If you think that this country has ever been run as a meritocracy, you have a very different perspective from mine.

Absolutely this Pippa. This describes what I believe should be the case.

Ooops, the quote from Pippa didn’t show up. Essentially she said all care, whatever is needed should be provided when the need arises, with no exceptions.

Pippa I take your point made at 13.01 about communism.

Hetty58

PippaZ, exactly! I do still worry about those 'I'm alright Jack' folk who think they can pay their own way. Maybe it's nice in cloud cuckoo land. Nobody knows how long they'll live - and living far longer, but in poor health, is becoming common.

At one BUPA home, a long term resident had exhausted his private funds but was allowed to stay on (at the much lower LA rate) - in a smaller room. They were proud to tell us about their generosity - seemingly unbothered about naming him too.

Other homes have been known to just ask people to leave and/or the LA can move them to a cheaper place!

London rates of maybe 75 grand a year can run out pretty quick!

You’re right Hetty. My mother is in a nursing home and is still funded by the NHS as she requires nursing. However that may well end soon, if she is assessed as not requiring nursing any longer. Her money from the sale of her small flat will pay for her care for a little over a year, that’s all. Then the LA will pick up her costs (along with her pension) and she may be moved to a slightly smaller room, but will in all likelihood still fund her in the home she is in now. If she has to move it may well be very unsettling for her in her middle nineties, so I’m hoping they will leave her where she is.

JaneJudge your poor relative, having to spend the last six months of her life sharing a room with a complete stranger. That really shouldn’t happen to anyone.

This country has never been run as a meritocracy and probably never will be. The really rich will always protect their assets and those with far less will continue to be means tested for their care.

This is such an interesting thread but I do wish people would read the posts properly, has anyone really said that no-one should be able to leave something to their children?
Have a look at how Sweden funds it's health and social care. I'd go for that but unfortunately I doubt that British voters would. IMO it's how a proper progressive taxation system should be but we are culturally opposed to it. Too many would see themselves being financially disadvantaged. However, Sweden is, I think, different to the UK in that they have not had the huge increases in house prices which, for many people, have greatly increased their wealth and I still think this UNTAXED source of wealth should not be ignored. I have lived in my present house for 20 years, we have made improvements but it has given us a lovely quality of life and increased in value by £1m. I'm sure many people have made much more than this and I am not intending to boast but even if I had been taxed more heavily, this would not have made any difference to how this house has increased in value. How can this be right? I am not in a unique situation and this is why IMHO inheritance is an important issue. It fuels the difference between those how have and those who don't and that is why I feel so strongly that the resources that people have should be taken into account when it comes to paying for social care. By all means, have a threshold but if you don't take into account that most peoples wealth comes from property than you are missing an important piece of the jigsaw

Houses are taxed, when stamp duty is paid.

I don’t think most people’s wealth does come from property. My house isn’t worth anything approaching one million.

Maddyone a buyer is taxed on the value of the house but the owner is not taxed on the increase in value and I am sorry to disagree but most people's wealth is in their home. Your house might not be worth a £1m but plenty of people have homes well in excess of this.

I agree that most people’s wealth is in their home, but as has been said the extent this wealth is not universal - houses in some areas are ‘worth’ massively more than in others.

This means that what is a drop in the ocean, representing a year of just living in their house to some, can be a massive amount, representing years of hard work to others.

Suggesting that there should be a universal system to solve a problem that is based on a different, but relatively geographically stable, metric - that of care home fees - is never going to be ‘fair’.

maddyone

Houses are taxed, when stamp duty is paid.

That is essentially a form of VAT or Purchase Tax. It is not a Capital Gains Tax. That is what we need on all Capital Gains and it needs to vary from person to person so it reflects an additional income.

I have just had a "moment" realising what a stupid name Value Added Tax is for what is essentially a Sales or Purchase Tax.

PippaZ

I have just had a "moment" realising what a stupid name Value Added Tax is for what is essentially a Sales or Purchase Tax.

But it's a bit more complicated than that because if you are a business person buying something for use in the running of that business and are VAT registered, then you can claim the VAT back so it's not levied equally across the board. I have to employ contractors to keep my paddocks in order and pay 20% more than my neighbours for the same work because they run a business. I'm not complaining btw just pointing out a difference.

As we all have differing amounts of assets including none at all, and none of us knows how much care we might or might not need, then surely this is an insurance matter? A different form of national insurance with premiums based on taxable income could iron out some of the complexity?