Paying for Social Care

not wanting someone to be born with a silver spoon in their mouth

Why? Jealous?

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.

maddyone

I don’t know what others would do, but I would keep my house and if necessary it will pay for my care. I will certainly use my money, what I have, to treat my children and grandchildren. I already do this. We paid for weddings, IVF, and give/gave generous gifts. There are certainly people who are wealthy. We are not wealthy but we own our own home and have saved some money. I assume most of you will be doing the same as far as each of us is able.

That is my plan as well! But I am not sure how long I need to make my savings last, who knows that? My pension income does not quite cover my expenses and certainly not the extras like holidays, cars, home improvements etc so I depend on savings and a draw down plan for those. However, I am sure I have enough to be able to help out my children when necessary and be generous with gifts to other family members. I plan to keep on reducing my money until it’s all gone, then when I’m around 75 (hopefully I live that long) I will sell my house and buy a smaller apartment which will then release another lump sum for me to spend yet still leave a property to sell should I need care.

Unfortunately no one can predict the future and things might work out like that but at least I think I am safeguarding my needs.

growstuff

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.

But the first thing he says in that piece is this:

So, the first thing to note about tackling the social care crisis is that the decision to spend is not dependent on the ability to raise tax to pay for the cost. To pretend that’s the case is false: like more than £300bn of spend in the last year it could be paid for with QE.

Having said his piece about the MMT 'angle' he then goes on to outline pragmatic solutions to the funding of social care in the light of 'conventional' thinking on taxation. As Doodledog pointed out, for the present we have to comment within existing parameters and beliefs.

But I see no reason why I shouldn't use discussions such as this to draw attention to the MMT approach to public spending. People would never know that alternatives exist to conventional thought if no-one tells them about them. After all, christianity didn't spread by the disciples getting together in private huddles to talk about it among themselves. I did try a separate thread but it didn't exactly generate much interest...

I regret that you feel irritated by what I say. But I've spent most of my adult life championing some minority views against conventional thinking (or 'ruling theory') and I can't stop now...

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.

During one of the assessments, they asked mum how her ankle was. She had broken it in the third fall she had had in six months - at home. She totally ignored the bright pink "pot" on her right leg and waggled her left foot saying "it's fine now". My darling mother would have gone home if she could. She was two weeks off 98 when she moved to her lovely and loving new "home" and she lived there for 15 months until she was ninety-nine and a quarter. She could not go home much as she wanted to and much as I would have tried to make it possible. What do people really think will happen to those like her if they are in a position where they cannot pay?

We are back to knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Doodledog

Alegrias1

You are entitled to disagree that well off people are responsible for their own care. You are not entitled to refer to me as an extreme socialist who doesn't believe in inheritance and wants communist style equality for all

So, now we've got the parameters straight, carry on.

Excuse me?

Go back and check, and you'll find the post where someone else said that - not me. Then you may apologise. Carry on.

I apologise.

There was a home like the one you mention near me, Pippa. It closed, as the (Tory) council said that the patients were better off in hospital. In fact what happened was that when they were due to be discharged they were asked whether they owned their home. If the answer was yes they were given a list of private nursing homes, and if no, they were assessed for council care.

The heartbreak all of that caused was horrible - they weren't terminally ill, most had had falls and needed nursing until their injuries healed, - and IMO it was far more divisive than letting a relatively small number of families inherit a few quid.

Most of the patients were in their 80s and 90s and less than half had their own homes anyway. If one in seven go into care, and of those one in three* has a house to sell, then you aren't looking at clawing back a huge amount anyway, particularly in areas where houses aren't worth a lot to start with.

*a guess, but probably reasonably accurate when you are talking about that age group in a county-wide geographical area as opposed to a localised more homogeneous one.

But it is not acceptable that anybody with significant assets gets to live for free. Alegrias1 Wed 15-Sep-21 09:12:41

It is if, in your scenario, they pay an appropriate tax on the wealth they leave.

Doodledog

No, but the thread is about what we think should be done to make things better, not how to cope within the system we've got.

When talking to a right-winger they will never see that as the problem, any more than this government does.

But you are right.

Alegrias1

You are entitled to disagree that well off people are responsible for their own care. You are not entitled to refer to me as an extreme socialist who doesn't believe in inheritance and wants communist style equality for all

So, now we've got the parameters straight, carry on.

Excuse me?

Go back and check, and you'll find the post where someone else said that - not me. Then you may apologise. Carry on.

maddyone

It’s my belief that everyone who requires nursing and care when they are old, or indeed if they are not old, then it should be provided and we, the tax payers, should pay. I paid all my life, except during the ten years that I cared for my young children. My husband paid all his life. The vast majority paid all their lives. The NHS is supposed to be cradle to grave. Not cradle till you get dementia, or are too disabled to go to the toilet alone, and then start paying yourself. The food and accommodation costs are covered by the person’s pension. Any further costs should be met by the state. The NHS is cradle to grave, including dementia or other disability caused by heart failure or other illnesses.

Well put. I couldn't agree more.

I do think that to do this you will need NHS Care Homes though.

After Hospital, then another hospital in another town for rehab, my mother moved to a Local Authority Home. This home is used for assessment (why she was there) and respite stays. It was excellent. The soft furnishings were not of the quality of her final home (better than mine!). The care was good and, I think, would have been even more personal if anyone stayed for more than six weeks. My daughter suggested that it was similar to modern student accommodation; I would agree. Care should be available for all with tax from those who can afford it (at whatever bit of life they can) to cover the costs. If people then still chose to "go private", then so be it.

You are entitled to disagree that well off people are responsible for their own care. You are not entitled to refer to me as an extreme socialist who doesn't believe in inheritance and wants communist style equality for all

So, now we've got the parameters straight, carry on.

No, I think we all know what you think?

What i don't agree with is that just because you have explained something it is true, or that only obtuse people don't fall into line.

OK, you don't agree that I know what I think.

That's unusual.

Not agreeing?

It is interesting that those who don't agree with Alegrias or growstuff are 'obtuse'

I have explained on several occasions why I do not think that inheritance is a bad thing, but that everybody who is well off should contribute to their upkeep. Owning a house, de facto, means that you are well off compared to vast swathes of the population. But you keep saying we don't approve of inheritance.

Not obtuse? What would you call it?

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..)

This is exactly what I am getting at.

It is interesting that those who don't agree with Alegrias or growstuff are 'obtuse', or 'not using joined top thinking', whereas they are 'insightful' and feel the need to Spell Things Out For The Slow Of Understanding? ?

Back to the point - I can also see the inherent unfairness of a lot of other things in life, and yes - inheritance is one of them. I am not an advocate of inheritance per se. To use myself as an example, I haven't inherited anything of value, and who knows what I'll have left to pass on when my time comes.

I don't have a valuable house by London standards - in fact I don't have a studio flat by those standards, and my savings are being eroded by the fact that my pension was delayed by six years. If there is anything left I will be pleased to pass it to my children, but it may well turn out to be enough for them to pay for my funeral and have a decent holiday. In any case, I hope to live a while longer, in which case they will be past the age where inheritance has helped them to get a foot on the housing ladder, which is far more of an advantage than getting a few quid in their fifties.

I wasn't able to help them with that, much as I would have liked to, and have seen London friends, whose houses have made significantly more that I will have to leave in profit, be able to do for their own children.

Am I resentful? Not really, although I can see the inherent unfairness of a system in which some make money by just living in their house, and pass on that so that the next generation can do the same. Maybe thinking that is resentful, I don't know.

What I can also see, however, is that it has nothing to do with the question of paying for social care, and that squeezing those who have benefited in this way no chance of levelling things up, because not everyone needs care. All it would do is penalise the ones who have, whilst leaving business as usual for the rest. It would seem like the politics of envy, or just spite.

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.

But if everyone got it free this debate wouldn't arise in this context.

I can't agree with Alegrias over inheritance because the effect of unchecked inheritance is to concentrate wealth, or assets, into the hands of fewer and fewer people. I know that we have inheritance tax, but it is very easily evaded by the setting up of trusts. That's how the present Duke of Westminster managed to avoid paying a massive amount of inheritance tax (£billions) when he inherited the vast Westminster wealth.

Mao suit??? No far too restricting and not pretty at all

love0c I've been referred to as an extreme socialist who wants everybody to wear Mao suits. Not by you.

Alegrias1 I have not 'picked up' from you that you hate inherited wealth. Some others maybe? I do wonder if like a txt message, the message can get misinterpreted? Everybody pays in some way for their care if needed. Your pension is taken in part payment and then if you choose a more expensive home than the council allows, you top it up yourself. We did that with my husband's mum. I really think many posts have been misinterpreted. I can't really believe that some people think care should be free? Just to clarify the first sentence is to you Alegrias, The rest is a general post. .

Well that was an unfortunate choice! Let's go with Leven

www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/59217566/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=network&campaign=rich_results

I’ve no idea why I chose Bromley, I’ve never been there. Also, not very clued up on economics of taxation. Fairness now, I'm quite good on that.

Love it Alegrias! We all make assumptions!
I found this property on the Rightmove Android app and wanted you to see it: www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/71571399

I honestly think there are people here being intentionally obtuse.

As probably one of those who is being accused of hating inherited wealth, let me try to explain this in words of one syllable, or thereabouts. Its perfectly right and proper that people leave their assets to their children after they are gone. If you are fabulously wealthy and leave the kids a beachfront apartment in Antibes, good on you. If you are not very wealthy but can leave them a 2-bedroom flat in Bromley, that’s good too. But in either of these circumstances, if you need to live anywhere for a few years at the end of your life, then you have to pay for it if you can. If you can’t, the state needs to support you.

If the Antibes person ends up leaving a few million, and the Bromley person ends up leaving a few thousand, that’s life.

But it is not acceptable that anybody with significant assets gets to live for free.

I’ve no idea why I chose Bromley, I’ve never been there. Also, not very clued up on economics of taxation. Fairness now, I'm quite good on that.