Social Care overhall

Good to hear and hope it happens and works !

I also hope our age group will see some benefit from it.

Story from the Guardian
www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/26/uk-ministers-looking-at-plans-to-raise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I think 40 is maybe a bit young to start paying, actually. Many 40-somethings will still be struggling with mortgages, possibly paying off student loans and thinking about how they’re going to help their own children go to university.

Perhaps it should be started as soon as you are employed, to spread the load as it were.

The point is is should free up so much of the burden now put into the NHS

We have a wonky and rackety social care programme in the U.K. it does indeed need an overhaul. I hope best practice from other countries will be looked at and considered for implementation here on way or another.

It's a dreadful idea.

Hypothecated (i.e assigned to one specific purpose) taxes at a fixed single rate are 'regressive'; in other words the people with the lowest incomes pay out the largest percentage of their income.

It suggests that people who take out private insurance to cover care costs would be exempt. I can see this creating a two tier care home system straight away!

What happens to people who are unemployed? Are they credited with contributions? Do they get a lower tier of care because they missed contributions?

And what happens if the government of the day decides that there's not enough in the 'pot' and so lowers standards to save money?

The idea that our 'national insurance' contributions actually pay for our future needs is a myth, which I'm sure most people recognise. I suspect that a 'hypothecated tax' would be used in much the same way, for current needs, not the future needs of the person paying it.

We discussed this a bit on one of the recent NHS threads, but I think we really need to completely lose the idea that government spending is from 'taxpayers' money'; an idea which creates resentment about non-taxpayers because of perceptions that they are not contributing anything, but start thinking of money coming from the government as 'everybodies' money' to be used for the benefit of everybody, by consensual agreement.

As was said on the NHS thread, we, the nation, can afford to pay for anything we want to, our money creation powers are limited only by the danger of scarce resources causing inflation. Why not just create and finance a decent social care system. The money will return to the treasury eventually and it will grow the economy in the meantime.

Before you reject the idea in its entirety give it time to see how the idea develops.

Your argument that the poor pay more %wise, is also true of the health service, and I think it is essential that everyone should be Confident that they will receive quality care if they become infirm. Many of us won’t, or die before that, but I think that is how some sort if insurance works.

Other countries are running just such a successful scheme.

The point is that something has to be done. Look at the inequality in this country and how the poor are so ill provided for with regard to social care.

It's not the idea of an overhaul I object to, it's the bad method of financing it.

There shouldn't be a tier system in social care. Everyone is entitled to be looked after in the same way. Get rid of the them and us system. All care homes should be of the same category. It shouldn't be down to how much or how little a person has.

This is interesting if only because I can see it triggering a revolution in those approaching 40 or only just 40. The generation who have been saddled with huge university debts, have probably only just got themselves on the housing ladder, and are paying through the nose for it, are now going to be taxed for the care they may, or may not, need at some point in the future. In the words of the Kaiser Chiefs "I Predict a Riot".

trisher

This is interesting if only because I can see it triggering a revolution in those approaching 40 or only just 40. The generation who have been saddled with huge university debts, have probably only just got themselves on the housing ladder, and are paying through the nose for it, are now going to be taxed for the care they may, or may not, need at some point in the future. In the words of the Kaiser Chiefs "I Predict a Riot".

Yes I can absolutely see that.

But I think we can all agree that social care needs looking at urgently and which is why I am in the surprising position of agreeing with the government that a radical re-think is necessary.

This government won’t do it of course, but for such an important issue a cross party overview and decision should be the way it is dealt with.

One reason I think this should be cross party is because undoubtedly this government is keen to protect it’s natural Constituency if home owners, who find themselves spending every asset they have on care as they age etc.

This must not be seen to be for those with the most being looked after, but it should be seen as a benefit for all U.K. citizens. So not just care in a home, but quality care at all levels of need at the persons home.

Wealth tax looks very attractive as I’ve started to argue on the rentier thread.

I know, why can't the plan have some of that £350 million that was going to go to the NHS when we leave the EU?

There you go; financing sorted...

Maizie Hypothecated (i.e assigned to one specific purpose) taxes at a fixed single rate are 'regressive'; in other words the people with the lowest incomes pay out the largest percentage of their income

That only applies if the tax is fixed, like VAT.
If a poor person buys a new washing machine, they pay the same VAT as a rich person buying the same machine, so it’s a higher proportion of the poor person’s income.

I don’t think it’s been suggested that the social care contributions should be a fixed sum per person.

But if it’s a percentage, then they pay less.

Unemployed people on benefits could be credited with contributions in the same way as NI contributions are credited.

I would like to see a radical re-think but I doubt if this government will do it. It might for example be interesting to look at all those who are stuck in NHS hospitals when they could be accommodated somewhere else and compare the costs.

Why not just increase tax across the board?

The people who benefit most from their parents having "free" social care are the ones who inherit their assets. The ones with most assets would benefit most.

PS. I agree a flat rate would be regressive, as taxation is increasingly becoming. Both National Insurance and Council Tax are capped. The government only receives 25% of its income from "progressive" income tax.

I also agree that hypothecated taxes aren't all they seem. It gives a government an excuse to say there's nothing left in the hypothecation "pot".

Once again the tories are raiding the Labour party policy from their manifesto. But they never do it properly

I don't think I would have objected to paying more tax at 40 if I knew it would cover me and mine for social care in the future. Better to spread the load than to whack on a tax in later life, when a lot of people's earnings are declining because of going to part-time hours, or being less able to get work.

My concern is that there will be a generation of older people (probably including most of us on here) who are no longer earning a regular salary and won't be able to contribute a lot. Will we be excluded from the scheme and expected to fund our own care? We are the generation who missed out on childcare grants, mortgage tax relief, pensions at 60 (often without contributing NI) bus passes and many other things for which we were either too young or too old, and who are simultaneously blamed (as 'Boomers') for everything from global warming to economic decline.

The system certainly does need a cross-party overhaul.

For a start the going rate that SSD will pay buys very poor care in some instances, and there should be good care across the board, however you are funded. The "top-up" I had to pay for my OH's nursing home care was about 80% of the real cost - so "top-up" was a bit of a joke. I looked at some of the homes that fell within SSD funding limits and there was no way - just no way - that he would have gone there.

Good care for all should be the aim.

Social care shouldn't be in the private sector ,should come under the umbrella of the NHS

Agree social care always used to be under the NHS and instead of privatising the NHS should just be properly funded as it used to be. And the Health and Social act abolished

NHS renationalised some day.