Burnhams Tax on Cash ISAS and Death tax

Aveline

So does the state own all money? Thus those who have amassed more are either greedy or hard working and prudent?

Money is only a token replacing the barter system so that goods and services can be exchanged easily, bank notes still say" I promise to pay the Bearer" issued by the Bank of England, who is responsible for regulating its value. In recent years the value has fallen substantially.

We see in many other countries the national bank cannot maintain the unstable currency value and commercial transactions are done in another currency, often US dollars, a few have adopted or tied their own currency to the dollar as the national currency.

Governments including the UK and US have borrowed/created money heavily to win elections and interest paid are a drag on the economy because when loans mature they get replaced and the debt remains.

Im not sure if it is "unfair" if someone has been covering the care costs and then also 10% on what is left after they die. The point is that society has to fund care somehow and 10%post death seems the fairest to me regardless of expenditure prior to death.

I can see there could be a need for a transition process to the 10%tax if it ever happens incorporating those who would be in the "old" system

I would imagine a transition process to make fair arrangements for individuals who are currently paying for care home fees will be part of the cross party discussion. If not there would be an outcry.

The devil is really going to be in the detail isn’t it Buf yes transition arrangements will be essential. The other big issue will be how the limit is set that the state would pay for different types of cars and maybe regionally. I wonder also if the distinction between health based needs and other will be maintained?

Care even

Yes I agree the devil will be in the detail.

Healthcare is already free at the point of need and delivery. I don't think that will change if a National Social Care service comes into being.
Care delivery for the elderly should always ideally be holistic , treat them as an individual and join up health and social care needs- the only distinction is funding differentiation at the moment- health free- social care means tested.

All residents in care homes or in receipt of care packages at home- have a mix of social and health care needs to a larger or lesser degree. To meet the NHS Continuing healthcare eligibility for care funding currently the needs predominantly needs to be for health and be of a nature that is either complex, intense or complex ( or all 4 Key Characteristics).

The NHS CHC legislation and assessment framework designed to separate health from social care needs. The legislation would necessarily change if State funded social care is implemented. It's not a quick fix.

I just wondered if the changes came in it would remove the need to try and argue for CHC as the criteria could just be needing the care not whether it was health or social care. It’s a false dichotomy in many cases anyway and uses up staff resources making the decision and is stressful for relatives. The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels.

I would imagine such changes if implemented would remove the need to appeal decisions where eligibility for NHS CHC funding is denied- that is if both social and healthcare needs are both state funded all care needs will be eligible?

Private care homes I would imagine will make a decision to provide state funded care- at state funded block funding £ contract rates if they so wish. Or remain completely delivering care to self funders ( market volume down) or a mixture of the 2 as is currently the case for most homes.

The state may decide to provide its own care home/ care package services within its available £purse also?

The state, under a Labour government managed the transition from private health care to implementing the NHS over 70 years ago following reform. This major reform shares some similarities though in a different era.

"The state, under a Labour government managed the transition from private health care to implementing the NHS over 70 years ago following reform. This major reform shares some similarities though in a different era."

Im not expecting, any major changes in the structure of the welfares state on the scale of post WW2 changes, the cost was massive and Income Tax reached 98% to pay for it, Only a small proportion of the population owned their own property and renting was affordable. Since then personal investment has mushroomed much of it untaxed, Im sure that will be targeted

Im not sure that more care home places will be created, improving care at home will cost much less. Probably the greatest need is for respite care to free up hospital beds for recovering patients that cannot return home.

Tuliptree

I just wondered if the changes came in it would remove the need to try and argue for CHC as the criteria could just be needing the care not whether it was health or social care. It’s a false dichotomy in many cases anyway and uses up staff resources making the decision and is stressful for relatives. The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels.

I wonder also if the distinction between health based needs and other will be maintained?

Any new system must abolish this false distinction. This has to be fundamental to any reform.

If someone needs care, they need care and the precise reason for this should not dictate whether they get it or how it is paid for. That is nonsensical.

Millions of pounds are expended on assessing whether someone's needs are primarily medical or social and dealing with appeals about this; countless people are misinformed about their entitlement; whole legal firms have been set up to advise on this and conduct appeals - more money wasted; families are put through the mill at a time when they just want to concentrate on making their loved one comfortable.

A unified system is the way forward and anything less will render the whole process pointless.

I am currently helping a friend whose mother did not get CHC funding because the district nurse would not even fill in the initial short assessment because "she is living at home and she does not have cancer." Such ignorance passed off as fact from someone whom one should be able to trust to relatives who are worn down.

98% tax!!!

Who is proposing 98% tax?

The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels

I agree TulipTree.

That’s my main concern with any proposed plan. It’s not right that the tax payer makes rich care home owners even richer.

LizzieDrip

^The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels^

I agree TulipTree.

That’s my main concern with any proposed plan. It’s not right that the tax payer makes rich care home owners even richer.

It’s just like housing benefit paying off landlords mortgages

Aveline

98% tax!!!

To pay for the post war recovery and NHS the top rate if income tax reached 98% during the 1970s

I think that profiteering has been mentioned during the initial talks by the government.

They appear to recognise that this goes on.

David49

Aveline

98% tax!!!

To pay for the post war recovery and NHS the top rate if income tax reached 98% during the 1970s

In 1978-79, the average income was £3269. The basic rate (of 33%) was paid on incomes up to twice that amount, before rising in several increments to the top rate of 83% on incomes over £24k - significantly over average (in fact, about eight times average) and of course the whole income wasn't taxed at that rate.

The 98% rate only applied to those with over £24k in earnings and over £2250 in investments (about 9 months average wage), and applied only to the figures over those amounts, as before hitting that band tax was applied at lower rates. It wasn't a 98% tax across the board - very few people will have paid anything like that.

Whitewavemark2

I think that profiteering has been mentioned during the initial talks by the government.

They appear to recognise that this goes on.

It is widespread the companies are much cleverer than the government when negotiating contracts. Polititians that know very little about commercial contracts are the very last ones that should be involved.

The currrnt situation in care homes, certainly in my county, is that the amount the council will pay is lower by quite a bit than the self funding residents are paying. In effect self funders are subsidising the council and contributing twice over to the profits of the private equity companies. Sorting all this out is going to be massive headache. Btw I know one of the people employed by the council who negotiates the contracts for the places the council fund. She was previously a contracts manager in a certain industry and certainly knows her stuff. The politicians in the council are not doing the negotiating

The difference between what the council will pay and what self funder pays was about £200 a week when my Mum was in a care home a few years ago.

My council atm will pay £890 a week for residential care for residents with dementia. The self funding rates vary obvs between homes but the cheapest is £1400 ( for residential dementia care) This gives an idea of the battles ahead I think.

Surely there is a strong case for saying that we should all work towards looking after ourselves, and the vast majority of people do. The idea that we save simply to pass money on to our children is a curious one.

This country has long recognised that some people are unable to look after themselves for a variety of reasons and at different stages of their lives. We have largely addressed this through National Insurance, so why should social care be any different?

A national social care insurance scheme could begin with younger generations contributing through a levy added to, or structured similarly to, National Insurance, giving them entitlement to free social care if they need it. Those already over State Pension Age would, inevitably, face different arrangements, such as paying a lump sum from their estate or contributing higher premiums to reflect the fact that they have not paid into the scheme over their working lives.

I really don't understand the problem.

DAR I would say this is the problem:

“Critics, trade unions, and investigative reports accuse private equity firms of profiteering from adult and children's care homes by extracting high dividends, loading companies with debt, and prioritizing investor returns over resident care.

Financial Practices and Criticisms:

1) Extracting Millions:
A substantial portion of public care spending and local council fees flows out as shareholder dividends and debt interest, with many parent companies based in offshore tax havens.

2) Debt Loading:
Firms often use leveraged buyouts, burdening individual care homes with debt while transferring financial risk away from the investors.

3) Cost Cutting:
Critics and unions state that profit optimization leads to minimum staffing levels, lower wages for frontline workers, and compromised quality of care.

For further context, read The Guardian's investigation on private equity and elderly care homes.”

LizzieDrip - yes and yes and yes. And that’s why the whole issue is so fraught and complex. The power of the private equity sector is embedded in our society and they will do everything possible to prevent their cash cows being affected. I honestly don’t think many people realise how far their tentacles reach and just how different an animal they are from a standard public limited company .

LizzieDrip

DAR I would say this is the problem:

“Critics, trade unions, and investigative reports accuse private equity firms of profiteering from adult and children's care homes by extracting high dividends, loading companies with debt, and prioritizing investor returns over resident care.

Financial Practices and Criticisms:

1) Extracting Millions:
A substantial portion of public care spending and local council fees flows out as shareholder dividends and debt interest, with many parent companies based in offshore tax havens.

2) Debt Loading:
Firms often use leveraged buyouts, burdening individual care homes with debt while transferring financial risk away from the investors.

3) Cost Cutting:
Critics and unions state that profit optimization leads to minimum staffing levels, lower wages for frontline workers, and compromised quality of care.

For further context, read The Guardian's investigation on private equity and elderly care homes.”

I don't think that is "the" problem LizzieDrip. I think there are two problems. The framing of the OP suggested payment for a Universal Care System was the one they were exploring, but both are valid discussion points.