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?

So you don't think salaries in social care are too low?

Surely thats the whole point of the points-based system for immigration, to stop cheap labour from overseas coming over and allow our hard working British care workers to get a proper wage.

I dont think it's that simple
Sadly if wages are to rise, so will the cost of EVERYTHING that we consume, stoking further increases and further wage demands, just like the 70's.
Inflation - wage increases - inflation - wage increases and so it goes on
The key is to increase productivity in as many areas as possible, which in theory at least would allow us all to earn more (or line the pockets of those in charge).
High productivity and low inflation would make the stronger ecconomy but, it's an extremely difficult balancing act.

You do make me laugh with attempted insults, you keep posting your piffle if it gives you some solace in your self righteous tiny mind.

I am perfectly capable and happy to have reasoned, intelligent, discussion. unfortunately your left wing politics of envy preclude such possibilities.

Tax avoidance you say, who is avoiding tax, breaking the law, and not being prosecuted.....?

You call it envy, I call it looking after "the many".
I'm happy to be up here on the moral high ground, while you look after yourself and stuff the rest

If by increasing pay you encourage additional interest in the sector - great thing, if you simply increase the cost with no other benefit where does that leave you - a service in crisis would you not agree?

I ask you how does simply increasing pay improve the ability of the system to deal with increased volumes?

I think those of us "higher earners" contribute significantly more to the many - especially company owners with significant workforces. I don't mind it called doing my bit - so why having done that all my working life should I be further penalised when I need the very system that I have contributed to well above the norm for c45 years?

Ultimately, because you can afford to, when others cannot or, are less able to do so.
This is what would happen in a fully functioning family. However, in a fully functioning society, we prefer to have a few with plenty and the majority with a whole lot less and a system that propagates that situation.
It's designed to keep the masses "where they belong".

I've explained this to you before - the H&S Care sector is currently running at 100,000 vacancies, and recruiting to those vacancies is a nightmare; every single provider is grappling with it on a day to day basis. So whilst we might have 600 beds for example, I can only occupy 450 of them, because I don't have the staff to provide care for the other 150; so before you even consider increasing volume - we need to be able to use our existing capacity. And the main issue with recruitment is pay - because LA's don't pay us enough (because the H&S Care settlement from central govt has been cut by £3 billion since austerity was imposed) for the work we do, the sector is stuck on NLW, or thereabouts.

It does seem obvious that if you increase pay in a certain sector and not in others, more people will chose to work in the higher paid sector.
I think Sal is worried about having to break open his piggy bank

Its is designed to reward those with aptitude and ability and those who are tasked with managing risk. In business the more risk you manage the more you get paid. I have yet find a family where the money gets put in a pot and everyone gets the same share - it simply doesn't happen.

In your world the MD should earn what the cleaner earns i.e. he sacrifices so others can prosper - what is the incentive to progress? Why should anyone risk everything to start a business to simply end up with the same as those that haven't? It is the reason that socialism doesn't function outside of the text book. Capitalism has many challenges but we have yet to find a system that generates wealth in anything like the same multiple. The world has moved on massively since the industrial revolution and the Genesis of Capitalism.

You - as usual - are not reading what I put - if we increase pay and it encourages greater interest in people wanting to access the service fantastic - if it doesn't all that has happened is we have simply increased the cost of delivering exactly the same. Why do you find that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Another one who struggles with reading and comprehension



I pay what the industry dictates - shortage of HGV drivers - if I want to retain them then I need to give them an incentive to want to work for me - money is one element but its not the most important.

This is the issue for providers; NLW keeps going up - along with all the associated costs of operating in the sector - but year on year, because they're skint, LA's award a trifling inflationary uplift to their weekly fees, which in no way matches the costs. I have had 4 LA's already notify that they are awarding an inflationary uplift of less than 1%, and 1 has written to advise they are awarding 0% - which is real terms decrease. With that in mind, increasing wages to address the recruitment crisis is next to impossible.

As I have said many times - the sector is a looming crisis - and if it goes bang, the societal fallout will be impossible to manage; culturally, we don't look after our sick and disabled relatives at home, so if there was a sudden and urgent need to do that, we wouldn't cope.

I completely agree with your post - we need more investment/resource into a growing sector = the only way is increased taxation but the additional revenues need investing correctly to deliver the returns in improved capacity and quality of care.

I often wrestle with the morality of a for-profit care sector - despite the fact that it's where I derive the majority of my income; in some ways, one could argue that with the profit motive removed, the sector could do more with what it has. Unfortunately, that ship sailed many years ago, and I see no LA with the appetite to bring those services back in-house - and the Conservative Govt, despite its new socialist leanings, would probably rather die in a ditch before it even considered renationalising care services.

Once the people in the NHS decide to work efficiently then may e we could look at renationalising care, I am not holding my breath.