This NI increase for Social/Health Care

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

Fair enough, if that's the argument ... I'm not here to apologise for Boris, I just think we're capable of a higher standard of political debate than calling people dishonest just because they're in the wrong party, or we didn't vote for them.

Nevertheless, the proposal that he always intended to break the manifesto pledge and only needed an excuse is very hard to prove. If there was a lesser excuse than covid, then maybe that would stand as evidence of dishonest dealing, but the truth is, covid has been a genuine emergency that has cost the country an absolute fortune. I suspect that paying it down will most likely yet involve measures that weren't in the manifesto.

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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

He kept his promise by breaking another, they don't cancel each other out, there is no spin you can put on this and like it has plenty of times in the past I hope his dishonesty costs him his job, it's not like he's any good at it anyway

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

He's not an honest person, Chris. His thinking behind this smacks of trying to gain public approval by claiming he's met a manifesto commitment (he hasn't fixed it at all).

His job is to oversee sustained economic growth so that the Covid debt can be paid off over 50+ years.

Leaving the EU saves us current account money of c. £16 billion per annum. What's that going to be used for? It's dishonest not to mention it (at best economical with the truth).

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

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

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Refresh my memory on how he planned to do it before the election please? I remember him saying he had a plan and I remember the criticism he got for being vague but that's about it, oh yes and I remember Michael Howard and The Times sacking him for being dishonest, do leopards change spots often

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.

Originally Posted by pip08456

You might want to read this Hugh.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ocial_Care.pdf

Thank you for this - very much appreciated.

On page 20

Case Study – Mary and Bob

Mary is a pensioner living in Cheshire with her husband, Bob. Together, they own a home worth £90,000 and have joint savings of £10,000. They both worked hard throughout their lives, planned carefully for their retirement and have a joint weekly income from pensions of £762. Mary has dementia and receives care in their home, but Bob is her main carer. Sadly, after a year Bob suffers a severe stroke and both Bob and Mary need to enter residential care.

Under the current system, if they both stayed in residential care for two years, Mary and Bob would have spent around £114,000 in total towards their care. They wouldn’t have got any state support until right at the end when they individually reached the Upper Capital Limit of £23,250, which would be based on half of their shared assets. They would be left with around £44,000 in assets.

Under the new system, once they both enter a care home, they immediately become eligible for some state support due to each of their £50,000 share of their wealth being below the new £100,000 Upper Capital Limit. Under the new system, they spend £66,000 in total for their care from their income and assets.
Over their combined care journeys, Mary and Bob save £48,000 from their assets and their income in the new system compared to the current system.

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?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thank you for this - very much appreciated.

On page 20

So they save £48,000, so what? They're not able to spend it on anything. eg World Cruise, Ferrari, etc. 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 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

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

Originally Posted by nomadking

So they save £48,000, so what? They're not able to spend it on anything. eg World Cruise, Ferrari, etc. 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.

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

[TheDaddy]

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

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

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.

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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

As a property owner, June had to "self-fund", so sold her house to afford fees which over four years have risen to nearly £1,200 a week.Her capital is almost all gone. The local authority will help, but only up to £640 a week - while the cheapest homes locally charge £900.

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.

Originally Posted by nomadking

So they save £48,000, so what? They're not able to spend it on anything. eg World Cruise, Ferrari, etc. 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.

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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.

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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.

[Taf]

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).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Taf

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).

As I've repeatedly said, the plan fixes nothing. Care and accommodation go hand in hand.

This is just a Boris vanity project that dips into our pockets. If he's going to dip into our pockets, then it should at least solve the problem.

That Javid twit said this morning on LBC that we are still one of the lowest taxed countries in Europe. Big deal - we are also among the lowest state pensions. This is because governments, concerned only with staying in power, have neglected the necessaries - which are to look after everyone throughout their lives, of course having regard to people's ability to pay but without robbing them of their homes.

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

noun: home; plural noun: homes
1. the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.
"the floods forced many people to flee their homes"

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.

One of the major triggers for private care home expansion in the 1980s was that, from 1983 until the 1993 implementation of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, private residential and nursing home care could be paid for by the DHSS from uncapped ‘supplementary benefit’ payments. This provided a perverse incentive to be cared for in private residential care rather than at home.

A key component of the Griffiths recommendations concerned the use of social security
resources within funding for social care. The ‘perverse incentives’ identified by the Audit
Commission were concerned with the use of Supplementary Benefit payments (the
equivalent to Income Support in current terms) to pay for residential care. A person who
qualified for Supplementary Benefit and who wished to enter a private or voluntary sector
residential care home could do so with their care fees being paid through the social
security system. For local authorities trying to protect limited budgets this allowed a useful
mechanism for diverting demand to another source of funding. However, the rapid growth
in the numbers of people being supported through public funds, and the clear conflict
which this introduced with an apparent objective to achieve community care, were the
major factors driving the need for reform.

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.