Paying for Social Care

Doodledog your assertion that people only work hard at school, work overtime and take stressful jobs etc so they can leave money to their children is IMHO complete rubbish. On that basis, single people and childless couples wouldn't bother either. I know lots of hard working ambitious childless people and I have no doubt they will end up paying for their care should they need it and they don't even have children they can turn to for help with even the most basic things like shopping!

Life is a lottery Doodle

Some folk are born into wealth, some onto poverty. and some poor souls are born into a war zone.

Fairness of any sort is an illusion - but that does not mean that it is not something we should strive for and vote accordingly.

I think many people with surplus money will just give the majority of it to their children earlier in their lives, won’t they? Provided you don’t die within 7 years of the gift it’s quite legal to do that, and it is one way of reducing your assets if you are determined to give money to your children. I can’t imagine a proposal to stop people gifting, or to claw it back from their children when they die as you suggest Doodledog would have any chance at all of being passed, the electorate wouldn’t stand for it.

The trouble with that argument is that it increases the lottery. If someone needs care, their children lose out, but if they don't, they inherit.

I'm not saying I would support this, but if you are determined to stop the unfairness of inheritance then it should apply across the board. Nobody can inherit more than £X, and anyone who has done so already should pay a higher rate of tax on a sliding scale until they have paid it back, as should those who had gifts of money towards deposits.

Then to even things up again, anyone who sells a house that has increased in value should be taxed on the profits, and anyone who has had a private education (or should that be any post-compulsory education?) should pay more tax, and what about people who didn't have to share a bedroom, so they could do their homework in peace?

You could go on forever, but in the end, people would decide that working hard at school, working overtime and taking stressful but responsible jobs just isn't worth it.

nadateturbe

Doodledog

I would replace 'care' with 'choose', if we are nit-picking. We should be able to choose how we spend (or save) our money.

I used choose in the previous post but I think both words apply to those who have the means to save but don't . Yes you should have the right to choose but not to expect free care while those who saved pay.
The whole system needs reformed asap.

But people needing end-of-life care aren't losing out. They're receiving accommodation and care appropriate to their needs (hopefully).The people who are "paying" (because they'll inherit less) are the next generation.

You misunderstand Monica. People should pay towards it, yes absolutely. However, if the people who are more thrifty throughout their lives it is not fair if they then are expected to pay more. I have also stated before there is no easy answer. This government have not found it yet and I doubt any one would.

loveOc, No why should they if the capital invested in it can pay for their when they need it. It is no different from someone having lots of money in the bank and renting a flat. You would expect them to pay for their own care wouldn't you?

As on another post I asked 'who is the fool? The one who spends their money and then turns to the state to pay for their care or the one who saves towards it it? Clearly the one who saves towards it by your reasoning then.

love0c

So someone who has a mortgage for a nice house and only manages to keep it by not having expensive holidays, fancy cars, does not get into debt etc etc. They should not be able to then give it to their children???

No. Not if them giving it to their children means I have to pay for their living expenses.

Inheritance is not a human right.

So someone who has a mortgage for a nice house and only manages to keep it by not having expensive holidays, fancy cars, does not get into debt etc etc. They should not be able to then give it to their children???

I agree, nadateturbe. I was just being explicit in case I was picked up on for suggesting that some people didn't care .

Doodledog

I would replace 'care' with 'choose', if we are nit-picking. We should be able to choose how we spend (or save) our money.

I used choose in the previous post but I think both words apply to those who have the means to save but don't . Yes you should have the right to choose but not to expect free care while those who saved pay.
The whole system needs reformed asap.

The poor only get state help for themselves. They don't get excess, so they can pass it on to the next generation.

Doodledog

Well there we disagree, as IMO, that takes us back to removing incentive to take responsible jobs, work harder at school and/or work overtime.

Many people do those things expressly so that they can give their children an easier start than they had, and making that pointless only impacts on the 'not-rich-and-not-poor', as the rich have enough for none of this to matter, and the poor get state help anyway.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not advocating taking money away from people when they're alive.

I expect most people would like to be able to give their children a head start. That's why they pay for private education and give their children deposits for property, etc., but I don't agree with perpetuating a system which means that some people are born into families which can pass wealth on from one generation to the next, so that hereditary privilege becomes the default.

Well there we disagree, as IMO, that takes us back to removing incentive to take responsible jobs, work harder at school and/or work overtime.

Many people do those things expressly so that they can give their children an easier start than they had, and making that pointless only impacts on the 'not-rich-and-not-poor', as the rich have enough for none of this to matter, and the poor get state help anyway.

If they save them, or if they use them to buy a house, and then are unlucky enough to need nursing care in old age, you would take them away.

No, I wouldn't take their money/homes away. However, I would stop that money being passed on to the next generation, who have done nothing to earn it.

As a society, I don't think anybody wants to see those without any assets dying on the streets, which is what would happen if the state didn't support those without family to look after them (which is what happens, incidentally, in many other societies and historically in the UK). That's why there does need to be some government intervention, but not so that intergenerational wealth can be perpetuated.

Doodledog People who earn more do generally get taxed more because we have a society which accepts that those with the broadest shoulders can contribute more. It's a balancing act, which the government doesn't always get right, but the principle is the same.

I don't care how people spend earned income. One way or the other, the money circulates round the economy, including going back to the Treasury many times. The Treasury's role is to direct the money to where it's most needed - of course, people have different opinions about where the greatest need is, so different governments will use the money to suit their agenda. Some people have more access to money during their lifetimes and will generally have a better life.

If people earn more than they need and save it for the future, I assume that's a rational decision.

There's a big difference with wealth (unearned income), which doesn't circulate in the same way. Property has become part of that equation. For many people, houses aren't homes - they're statistics on a balance sheet and people are "earning" money from playing real-life Monopoly with very few benefits to society as a whole. We have become what Piketty calls a "rentier" society.

In the case of end-of-life social care, people aren't being taxed on their wealth. The people who are paying are those inheriting the money. People argue that a half a million pound house is a home and people deserve their home. However, when the occupier dies and the money is passed to the next generation, it becomes unearned wealth. Inequality in house prices means that inequality for the next generation is increased - some people inherit without having done anything at all to earn the money.

I accept that there will always be inequality. However, I will never support any government which increases the gap. That's the result of giving free social care to those who can afford it. It means that a handful of the next generation will have an advantage which they have never earned - and moreover - paid for by those will not have that advantage.

I understand you there Growstuff. Yes, if people thought the more you earn then the more you will pay. May as well bum around all your life. We need to find a way for people to pay/contribute towards their care while at the same time not penalising the people who do think about having money to pay/contribute towards care in later life. We have thought about the cost of caring for ourselves in later life and intend to do our utmost to pay for it. That is just the way we have always lived. Always looked at how to pay our own way. Saved up till we could afford things. Went without it if we could not afford it. 'Old school' comes to mind. I guess we could just spend it on holidays etc? Is a fool the one who spends their money or the one who saves it? There's a million dollar question

I wish we had a better system of highlighting text - I keep forgetting that the formatting doesn't work on paragraphs ?

*How would that incentivise people to take on more responsible jobs for more money, work harder at school to gain higher qualifications or do overtime?

I don't have a problem with people earning more money. So long as it's being applied efficiently, taxation does mean that high earners pay for more.

I have a much bigger problem with unearned income/wealth. The underlying problem in the British economy is that wealth (assets) earn people more money than anybody who goes out ever day to earn money ever can. Post-war property prices have been a major cause of that. This is creating an increasing unequal/unbalanced society.*

But what you're suggesting is that people who do the things in your first paragraph can only see the benefit of them if they spend the proceeds as fast as they get them. If they save them, or if they use them to buy a house, and then are unlucky enough to need nursing care in old age, you would take them away. Their hypothetical neighbour who is lucky enough not to need care can pass on the benefits to the next generation (or the cats' home, or the Sausage and Gin society, or use them to live it up in old age. Again, one has choices, and the other doesn't.

It's alright saying 'life's not fair' - we all know that, or nobody would need care in the first place - but a discussion like this is about ways to make it fairer, not to make it unfair to everyone, surely?

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.

How would that incentivise people to take on more responsible jobs for more money, work harder at school to gain higher qualifications or do overtime?

I don't have a problem with people earning more money. So long as it's being applied efficiently, taxation does mean that high earners pay for more.

I have a much bigger problem with unearned income/wealth. The underlying problem in the British economy is that wealth (assets) earn people more money than anybody who goes out ever day to earn money ever can. Post-war property prices have been a major cause of that. This is creating an increasing unequal/unbalanced society.

Doodledog

*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.

But the issue is that the NHS isn't properly funded for what people want/expect.

Ideally, we would have a health system which treated people to live pain-free, long lives, but where would the line be drawn? I can't remember the exact percentages, but most people cost the NHS more in their last few years than they do during the previous years. The NHS already uses a system called QALYs (quality-adjusted life years). Does proper funding mean doing everything possible until a person dies? The NHS could never fund everything possible for every single person forever. The NHS has to draw a line somewhere.

My personal feeling is that the NHS is not funding what I would like, but extra resources are needed. We're heading for a system where public funding will provide emergency care, public health care and basic maternity provision, but everything else is being left to the individual to fund privately.

The burden of the cost does need to fall on those who can pay, but the question is whether they want it to be shared amongst everybody or concentrate on themselves. It's not difficult to work out that most people would prefer to spend the money on themselves.

Those who can afford to pay for it are never going to want a "properly funded" healthcare system.

love0c

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'm a bit baffled by this.

So somebody thinks ahead and puts some money aside to pay for care when older. They're not being penalised if that money is then used to pay for care or to get people to help at home, etc. The money is being used for exactly the purpose it was intended.

I would replace 'care' with 'choose', if we are nit-picking. We should be able to choose how we spend (or save) our money.

nadateturbe

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.

Yes.