Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

I think you could be right, Boris dodged Beth Rigby’s question regarding any further tax raises during the life time of Parliament

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

They do, actually, because the election pledge on taxes was made before the pandemic struck. I think fair-minded people would accept that.

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

The NHS, of course. That’s already in the bag. Ka-ching!

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

Well, how is he funding the pandemic? I suspect he was going to borrow the money, taking advantage of low interest rates, and let growth over the years reduce the debt.

But he’s had to use that strategy to fund the pandemic.

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

Thank you for this - very much appreciated.

On page 20

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

I actually didn't mind May's idea that the money for care, up to a lifetime limit, comes out of your estate if you die. I guess the big problem there was it was a lottery if you fell ill or not but raising inheritance tax before you rise NI on lower earners seems more equitable to me?

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

So they save £48,000, so what? They're not able to spend it on anything. eg World Cruise, Ferrari, etc.:rolleyes: They "saved" for their retirement, and on existing rules, it would be spent on their retirement. What's the issue?
Just look at all the media articles. The complaints are about houses having to be sold. This new solution doesn't change that. For the majority, the majority of their wealth is tied up in their house. They don't have £86,000 under the mattress.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------

As soon as somebody had to go into care, their estate would be quickly transferred, and therefore out of reach to pay for care.

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

That's not how it works - that would be regarded as "Deprivation of Capital", and the DWP would prosecute.

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

Yeah poor boris, he's doing his best why can't people just leave him alone :rolleyes:


Yeah suspect but don't know because he never said anything other than he had a clear plan on how to fix it, wasn't it donny trump that said politicians shouldn't use the word fix because it makes them sound like crooks

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

As it was in reference to the notion that any costs are levied against post-death assets, would that still apply? The bill for the costs has yet to be determined and issued.

My central point remains, why on earth can't the empty houses be sold. Little point in waiting until after death for that to go ahead anyway. There is no justification for hanging onto a house that is going to sold at some point. If it's not going to be sold, and not lived in by the owner(s), what does it achieve?

Link
So who is expected to pay the £560/week gap? If she had opted for a even more expensive care home, would that count as "deprivation of capital" as assessed by the local councils.

Right on cue, BBC News(BBC1) report about somebody complaining about potentially having to sell their parents home.

Don't see how any more money for the NHS is going to achieve anything. There aren't more staff available to employ. Same wage bill.

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

Why would they be going into care if they had just died?

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

:rolleyes:It's about the (imo nonsense) idea of deferring payment of any care charges until after the person has died. The primary aim of that idea is to not have to sell the empty house until after their death. My point is, what is the real difference of selling the house when then move into care, before they die?
Who covers the bill in the intervening time? There is a wide range of prices, so how do you determine what they will truly to be able to pay from their estate, after they have died? Eg Somebody could have very little of value in their estate, so are they allowed to pick a Platinum service with the taxpayer picking up the final bill, or are they to be assessed annually as to what level of service they will be able to afford from their estate after death?
As from my included quote from the BBC, June is currently paying £1,200 a week, but her funds are running out. Whatever proposals are adopted(current system, new proposals, after-death payments), which option should she have been allowed to pick in the first place? Should she have to be now moved to the cheapest available option? None of the proposals attempts to answer that. The question doesn't seems to be asked by anyone, other than by myself.

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

People have an emotional connection to their homes and hold out hope they can return to them. However, the cost of care could still be secured against the home?

Although then you a situation where people lose their homes or not based on their luck on if they need social care not. It's not really how our health care system works in principle and you might have people avoid care they need so their children can keep their homes.

That's why I think having a social care tax on inherited estates would be better.

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

Apparently, the "cap" is only on the care part of life (washing, dressing and feeding).

It will not cover any accommodation charges (typically £1,000 to £3,000 per month).

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

To be honest it looks like it's a way of injecting more money into the NHS than social care.

Re: This NI increase for Social/Health Care
 

How would the cost be secured against the "home"(see dictionary definition above). IT IS AN ASSET. It no longer serves the function of being their home. Just as if somebody lives in a rented home, but also owns a property. Try getting that past the DWP as not being an asset. How does a person with dementia have an emotional attachment to a home they no longer live in, when they can't even recognise their own family.

I repeat(as usual) the question, of how are the appropriate levels of costs to be determined at point of incurring those costs? Are people going to be allowed to book into a very expensive care home, and because they are actually penniless, never have to pay anything. because it's supposedly all sorted out after their death?
Problem is that too many people want an expensive service, but don't want to pay for it.:mad:
The only solution would be to provide a base level service for everybody, unless they pay upfront themselves. Even then, with a £86,000 lifetime cap, what happens when then reach it?
Just as in the 1980s, when the costs of care were allowed to be passed off onto the Benefits system(Supplementary Benefit), rather than the Council budget. Because the Benefits system refunded any and all costs, the council didn't have to be too bothered about what the level of costs were, because they weren't paying.
If they have assets, they should be expected to pay. Especially as I keep pointing out, they are unable to benefit in any other manner from that wealth.