This NI increase for Social/Health Care

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

OB i do like the way you selectively quote.

Didn't Boris say yesterday in his statement to the HoC that this action was being taken partially due to the fact that proceeding governments had kicked this particular can down the road?

Let us not say that this is entirely down to the Covid pandemic, because as your illustrious leader himself admitted yesterday. it isn't

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.
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.

I think you're hitting yet missing a key issue. people expect that they have a right (rightly or wrongly) to be able to leave an inheritance to their children, dog, charities etc.

So, whilst the person needing residential care cannot benefit from their assets, others can.

Tie that to the common ignorance that is the payments I make via NI are for my state pension (which of course is twaddle) and you get resistance from individuals.

[TheDaddy]

This is going to raise £36 billion over three years, give or take a thousand million the cost of the world class test and trace whatever that thing was, pretty much every single worker is going to be paying more to fund this corrupt chumocracy, I'd say we deserve better but I'm not sure we do anymore

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

<SNIP>

I think you're hitting yet missing a key issue. people expect that they have a right (rightly or wrongly) to be able to leave an inheritance to their children, dog, charities etc.

So, whilst the person needing residential care cannot benefit from their assets, others can.

Tie that to the common ignorance that is the payments I make via NI are for my state pension (which of course is twaddle) and you get resistance from individuals.

That's one of the things that needed fixing. Under any normal insurance scheme, you'd choose your plan and pay in accordingly. The insurer would invest the funds that would then grow as a bonus to the subscription.

It's perfectly reasonable for people to insist that they've been paying NI as much for themselves as for others. The scam has been that NI was not a hypothecated fund.

[nomadking]

"expect they have a right" is not the same as "have a right", especially if the taxpayer is expected to pick up the bill instead.


When it comes down to it, people will still have to sell their "homes", and people will still gripe about that.
From official government document on these proposals.

Case Study:
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential
care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the
residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week.
Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his
assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months.
He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his
income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now
left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current
system.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

This is going to raise £36 billion over three years, give or take a thousand million the cost of the world class test and trace whatever that thing was, pretty much every single worker is going to be paying more to fund this corrupt chumocracy, I'd say we deserve better but I'm not sure we do anymore

The Brexit dividend over three years would raise £48 billion.
What's happened to that?

I hate the dishonesty of this government. Of course I dislike the Labour Party even more!

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

"expect they have a right" is not the same as "have a right", especially if the taxpayer is expected to pick up the bill instead.


When it comes down to it, people will still have to sell their "homes", and people will still gripe about that.
From official government document on these proposals.

I don't need that explaining, I'm actually kind of agreeing with you

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's one of the things that needed fixing. Under any normal insurance scheme, you'd choose your plan and pay in accordingly. The insurer would invest the funds that would then grow as a bonus to the subscription.

It's perfectly reasonable for people to insist that they've been paying NI as much for themselves as for others. The scam has been that NI was not a hypothecated fund.

Hardly. There\s plenty of resources explaining how it works. it's not reasonable it's willful ignorance.

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.
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.

Because nursing care in a residential home is not always permanent. It can be short or medium term after a prolonged hospital stay. It is not unheard of for an individual to be able to return home.

Furthermore living arrangements can be complex, as can house ownership. Elderly siblings sometimes live together, and sometimes elderly parents and children do. The individual who does not require nursing care may have part-ownership of the house or may simply not have anywhere else to go.

Putting a charge on the property against its eventual sale avoids a lot of potential complications, including unpleasant local newspaper stories about councils turning often quite vulnerable people out of their homes in order to pay for its owner’s care.

(Edit) it’s also the case that the capital tied up in the house will most likely increase its value in real terms, whereas if it were liquidated and then banked its value would at best keep pace with inflation but most likely would depreciate in real terms. Keeping the money that will eventually be used to pay off the bill in property rather than in the bank is financially astute.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

Because nursing care in a residential home is not always permanent. It can be short or medium term after a prolonged hospital stay. It is not unheard of for an individual to be able to return home.

Furthermore living arrangements can be complex, as can house ownership. Elderly siblings sometimes live together, and sometimes elderly parents and children do. The individual who does not require nursing care may have part-ownership of the house or may simply not have anywhere else to go.

Putting a charge on the property against its eventual sale avoids a lot of potential complications, including unpleasant local newspaper stories about councils turning often quite vulnerable people out of their homes in order to pay for its owner’s care.

(Edit) it’s also the case that the capital tied up in the house will most likely increase its value in real terms, whereas if it were liquidated and then banked its value would at best keep pace with inflation but most likely would depreciate in real terms. Keeping the money that will eventually be used to pay off the bill in property rather than in the bank is financially astute.

When are people requiring only short or medium term care ever expected to sell their home.
The case study of "Yusuf" in the Government document "Build Back Better" is incorrect. It claims the cap would kick in after 3 years and 4 months. The cap only applies to eligible costs, which will usually be a lot less than the actual costs. The difference under the new proposals will be a lot less than stated. Not only would take longer to reach the cap, he would still have to pay the excess.

Once the £86,000 cap is reached,
Local Authorities will pay for all eligible personal care costs. No-one will need to
make a contribution from their income towards these care costs. People may
choose to “top up” their care costs by paying the difference towards a more
expensive service, but this will not count towards the cap.

Things like issues of part-ownership are already taken into account.



The housing market never crashes?

Originally Posted by nomadking

When are people requiring only short or medium term care ever expected to sell their home.


The case study of "Yusuf" in the Government document "Build Back Better" is incorrect. It claims the cap would kick in after 3 years and 4 months. The cap only applies to eligible costs, which will usually be a lot less than the actual costs. The difference under the new proposals will be a lot less than stated. Not only would take longer to reach the cap, he would still have to pay the excess.
Things like issues of part-ownership are already taken into account.



The housing market never crashes?

It’s pretty clear you have difficulty with nuance, which makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion with you (about almost anything, in my recent experience).

1. The medium-term care funding question can and does arise. I have personal experience of this.
2. I don’t care about “Yusuf”; I made no argument based on the government case studies so your reply to me on that matter is besides the point.
3. Here’s where you are struggling with nuance. Your question is already adequately answered in my earlier comment. As such it’s irrelevant to any attempt to move the discussion forwards.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

OB i do like the way you selectively quote.

Didn't Boris say yesterday in his statement to the HoC that this action was being taken partially due to the fact that proceeding governments had kicked this particular can down the road?

Let us not say that this is entirely down to the Covid pandemic, because as your illustrious leader himself admitted yesterday. it isn't.

I think we must be at cross purposes here. It is the tax hike that was not set out in the manifesto, not the NHS/Care Services reform, which was. And the tax hike was necessary because we have already spent many sackfuls of money on Covid, which was not known about at the time.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]The Brexit dividend over three years would raise £48 billion.
What's happened to that?

Maybe the dividend never existed and you've been lied to.

As for healthcare we've been underfunding for decades, and saying we're happy to pay more in opinion polls. The Govt have called our bluff.

Whether it should be the young (again) to subsidise the old and wealthy is open to debate. There were other fairer taxes (eg capital gains, upper tiers of income tax, inheritance tax) - targeting those that can afford it, that could have been used. Not very Tory though.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe the dividend never existed and you've been lied to.

As for healthcare we've been underfunding for decades, and saying we're happy to pay more in opinion polls. The Govt have called our bluff.

Whether it should be the young (again) to subsidise the old and wealthy is open to debate. There were other fairer taxes (eg capital gains, upper tiers of income tax, inheritance tax) - targeting those that can afford it, that could have been used. Not very Tory though.

That is a hollow argument. What have you, I, OB, Carth etc been doing for the last 40 years or so?

[1andrew1]

Regardless of whether we like Johnson's proposals or not, credit is due for addressing the issue. I suspect it's not a complete solution but it looks like his government are making far more progress on this than previous ones.

---------- Post added at 09:38 ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That is a hollow argument. What have you, I, OB, Carth etc been doing for the last 40 years or so?

Posting world-leading insights on CableForum?

[heero_yuy]

This money is initially meant to help the NHS deal with the backlog of demand pent up by dealing with the covid pandemic. Subsequently some of this money is meant to go into the social care sector.

Unfortunately we know that the gaping maw that is the NHS will swallow the whole lot for good and still be demanding more while the care chrisis goes unresolved.

[Sephiroth]

Paywall link + useful quote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...aign=DM1488089

NHS spends millions hiring an army of £200,000 bureaucrats

The NHS is hiring an army of 42 new executives on salaries of up to £270,000 each as Boris Johnson faces mounting anger over his tax rise to fund healthcare.

More than £9 million will be spent employing dozens of chief executives of new integrated care boards, each of whom will earn more than the Prime Minister.

Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary, promised on Wednesday he would be “watchful for any waste” of the £12 billion a year tax revenue, but has yet to fully explain how the money will be spent.

On Wednesday night, senior Tories said they were “appalled” by the decision to hire the new executives, saying workers on low salaries would struggle to understand why they were having to pay more tax to fund “mega” pay packets for a legion of new managers.

Not much more to say, is there?