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?

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?