So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

You're focusing entirely on older people - which is often the case - but the social care crisis goes far wider and deeper than that; you're missing out the very high cost packages of specialist care that are required for people with LD, mental illness, physical disabilities and acquired conditions - and that's not even considering the terminally knackered children's sector - which is a whole subject in itself.

Very wealthy older people already self-fund in 'boutique' care homes and retirement facilities; often they are mixed with LA funded residents, which will prop up the EBITDA of the home, because LA fees alone are nowhere near enough to sustain them - and this has precipitated the steady rise in bed numbers. Older people's homes are now 70+ beds - economies of scale and all that bloodless stuff.

The specialist packages I'm referring to are the real kicker - we're looking at £2.5k per week plus - and there are increasing numbers of them, as the Transforming Care agenda sees people discharged from long term hospital placements - which in turn, are easily £5k per week and above.

Both aspects of the sector are screwed - they rely almost entirely on private providers - and as LA's have lost billions to austerity measures, their ability to fund them appropriately has reduced year on year; such that LA's are now compelling providers to do more for less - sometimes to a dangerous degree - and many of the smaller providers are exiting the market, leaving the massive, hedge-funded operators to dominate; and if one them goes pop - as with Southern Cross a few years ago - that creates a huge problem for the LA, and for the people who relied on their services.

Social Care is always the last consideration - because it doesn't have the public sympathy or affection that the NHS has - but it is an urgent crisis that is getting worse every year; if something doesn't change, the sector will collapse, and society will find itself with hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people needing specialist care - with no one to deliver it.

come on Sal, wrencat has asked that question 20 times now and still no answer....?

This is like Michael Howard with Jeremy Paxman going "did you threaten to overrule him"

Ha ha - I would have thought my model would explain who has funded the vast majority of the care costs due to their financial contributions over the years in both income tax and VAT. I am struggling to understand how Wrencat still thinks the lower paid are supporting the higher paid?

I dont know quite what happened with the multiple posts, I think that the RLFans gods must have wanted to help me make the point.



However, in the scenario that I mentioned, the person on 100k, who didn't buy their home, for whatever reason, would pay more tax than the homeowner and would not have the housing asset when they retired or needed social care.
To use a gambling term ,they would be "all in", whereas the home owner would still have their asset tucked away, to pass on to their family and yes, every other tax payer would be subsidising the home owners social care.

It's not too difficult to understand, although, I do accept that the vast majority of people earning 100k will have bought their own home.

However, to test the theory, simply reduce the income and the chances of home ownership and decide if it is still wholly reasonable for those without property to keep on paying for those with property.

I know that a certain poster thinks that these are the ideas of envy etc, etc but, it's an interesting debate and in every other aspect of life, we are encouraged to "pay our own way", yet, on this issue, selling our main asset to help ourselves in old age is seen as taboo.

The cost of care will be the same whether you earned 100k or 25k - so I am struggling to understand why you think its the rental are funding the homeowner? Surely the homeowner will have already paid in significantly more over their lifetime which will be used to fund the social care of those who have contributed significantly less? Am I missing something? As their mortgage drops as a % of income they will have more disposable income to spend? So why is it OK to take even more off them? So would you also take their savings too?

Fundamentally, if you can afford your own social care, either by using savings or other assets, why should you expect the taxpayer to fund your care ?

and if you havent saved and invested prudently and pi55ed it up against the wall, why should the diligent investor pay for your social care?

IR80 I know it is unlikely but do you have children, have you used the NHS because if you have my taxes have been used towards these. If I had a choice for you I would happily say no but I don’t so you benefit from my taxes.

Should we have a discussion about tax avoidance as well.
You do seem utterly incapable of reasoned discussion, which although not a surprise, is still a shame.

So my understanding is that if I pay in during my working life I will be looked after when I retire and have the same access to services as everyone else - if I paid in more will I get any better care than those who have paid in less?

Given I have already paid in significantly more to support those currently availing themselves of social care why when I need it should I have to pay more again for exactly the same service as everyone else?

So if we take your logic - if I have provided a private pension for myself then I should not be entitled to the state pension because if I can fund myself when should the state fund me?

On that premise then you would allow those of us who pay for private education - exemption from the contributions we make towards the state education system.

You are mixing up the argument.

On all other issues, benefits, social care being just one example are generally given for those with no money or significant assets.
Therefore, why is social care offered universally and to those who could afford to pay ?

Are we treating it as part of the health service "free at the point of service" or, should "basic" social care be "free" for everyone.

You may be surprised that I own my own reasonable home, paid for both kids to go to school, have a private and company pension etc.
Despite the shouts of "jealousy" etc, at some point, I will probably be one of the people that are affected by these costs / benefits.

However, I dont understand the theory of the taxpayer "subsidising" someone who clearly can afford to cover the cost but, is instead allowed to protect their primary asset for the benefit of their children etc.

There will come a time in the not distant future where this wont continue or that we may have to insure against such need.
Boris, has so far ducked the issue and is hoping for a cross party policy or similar but, the crunch will have to happen some time. Unless of course the coronavirus wipes out half of the pensioners.

Sal Paradise's arguments here sum up exactly what I meant in my post before about the difficulty for the Conservative party in finding a solution.

If you assume Sal is a "target Tory voter" then how do you find a solution to the declining standard of social care that doesn't involve higher taxes for working age people. Which is probably where Labour will go with it.

The shortfall has to either come from taxes or the government would have to remove the protection on personal property or more likely a mixture of both.
Mind you, with their triple lock on vat, income tax and national insurance, they have left themselves short on wiggle room, hence the other thread on "mansion tax and pensions raid".
Any new funding would likely have to come from one or both of these or, they could of course borrow more. Something they and the media slaughtered Labour for during the election campaign but, something that they now seem more than happy to do themselves.

With their myriad of spending pledges, they wont be too far off the Labour promises (apart from the re nationalisation campaign and broadband).

As I said - the only way is through higher taxation - which is OK providing the monies are used for that. If Labour does what it did last time the NI rate was increased to fund the NHS it will bow down to union pressure and increase the salaries of those in the NHS so where do the improvements come to the service if all you do is use the money to increase the costs of the existing services?

Labour were going to spend £250bn just on their bonkers "green initiative" - I don't want to digress but could someone explain a couple of things: once we all go to electric cars how will the fuel duty be replaced? Does anyone seriously believe we can generate sufficient electricity from solar and wind? Finally gas is an incredibly clean abundant energy source why are we abandoning it?

Social care for the aged should be offered by the government - it has been more than paid for via everyone's NI contributions.

So if we take you argument that the taxpayer subsidising those that can afford are you suggesting limited access to the NHS for those who can clearly afford the treatment? So those that work hard and provide for a rainy day or to pass on something to their children shouldn't be allowed and the state should have access to all additional monies on their death?