If not what's the alternative?
Do we now need a social care tax (SCT) to fund a national care service (NCS)?
1 of 3
I'd vote yes to that.
At least we would know where the money is going and not dumped in the money pit of general taxation.
At least we would know where the money is going and not dumped in the money pit of general taxation.
What we need is for a government to come clean for once.
Tell us what decent social care for our elderly would cost. And tell us what that would mean in taxation.
We are grown ups. We can tolerate being treated as such.
Tell us what decent social care for our elderly would cost. And tell us what that would mean in taxation.
We are grown ups. We can tolerate being treated as such.
Originally Posted by alan29:
“What we need is for a government to come clean for once.
Tell us what decent social care for our elderly would cost. And tell us what that would mean in taxation.
We are grown ups. We can tolerate being treated as such.”
“What we need is for a government to come clean for once.
Tell us what decent social care for our elderly would cost. And tell us what that would mean in taxation.
We are grown ups. We can tolerate being treated as such.”
I agree. The fudge over this can't continue. It's either tax or pay for it. The people decide. The big issue is families expect state to provide where in past most families cared for the elderly.
Originally Posted by Aurora13:
“I agree. The fudge over this can't continue. It's either tax or pay for it. The people decide. The big issue is families expect state to provide where in past most families cared for the elderly.”
“I agree. The fudge over this can't continue. It's either tax or pay for it. The people decide. The big issue is families expect state to provide where in past most families cared for the elderly.”
...... and they expect the state to pick up the tab for looking after their parents and still expect to inherit their house!
Bonkers.
Originally Posted by alan29:
“...... and they expect the state to pick up the tab for looking after their parents and still expect to inherit their house!
Bonkers.”
“...... and they expect the state to pick up the tab for looking after their parents and still expect to inherit their house!
Bonkers.”
Well we were never put in that position, when my mother became to unwell to be looked after at home, social services asked that she be placed in a care home, we then had to have the house valued, the valuation sent to the Social Services Dept locally, when the house was sold, the money had to put in my mothers bank account, and Social Services then wanted sight of my mothers bank book to be sure we had placed all the money from her house into it, my mother then had to fund herself at the care home until her assets at the bank reached (I think it was £16,000.00 at that time) the Social Services then started to make a contribution for my mothers care
It's all just tax, and it's all about choices. We are not short of cash in this country, but our 'leaders' choose to spend it on Trident and HS2. Every UK resident is going to have more taken from them as apparently we can't afford to look after our elderly unless we provide the money. If we complain, we will be made to feel guilty about depriving those needing care. Great move by the govmt!
Also, I do not want any of my taxes going towards the private companies who supposedly provide care, and cream off profits for their own execs etc.
Also, I do not want any of my taxes going towards the private companies who supposedly provide care, and cream off profits for their own execs etc.
Originally Posted by Aurora13:
“I agree. The fudge over this can't continue. It's either tax or pay for it. The people decide. The big issue is families expect state to provide where in past most families cared for the elderly.”
“I agree. The fudge over this can't continue. It's either tax or pay for it. The people decide. The big issue is families expect state to provide where in past most families cared for the elderly.”
The problem is not every could do the caring roll for lots of reasons, more common today to find both people working could not afford to give up work because thier mortgage needs paying, so could become homeless themselves.
I don't mind paying extra if every penny of it reaches the vulnerable elderly as intended. Bare in mind those who have assets already pay for their care and subsidise the local authority funded residents, that is not fair and needs to stop.
Originally Posted by alan29:
“...... and they expect the state to pick up the tab for looking after their parents and still expect to inherit their house!
Bonkers.”
“...... and they expect the state to pick up the tab for looking after their parents and still expect to inherit their house!
Bonkers.”
That only works out if they have a house to leave.
It seems the government is looking at increasing council tax beyond the 2% they are already allowed to to help fund social care. It is claimed spending has fallen by 9% in the last 5 years with local government blaming central government cuts to their funding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38286145
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38286145
Originally Posted by Net Nut:
“If not what's the alternative?”
“If not what's the alternative?”
Well yes. But if you take more in tax for that someone has to pay it, and you now have a very large percentage of the population dependent on others having enough spare money to buy their inessential services. Do you want to create more care home jobs for EU immigrants, at the expense of unemployed, otherwise better paid, and more skilled, kitchen designers, beauty technicians and chefs - or actors, tutors and architects ?
We would get a lot more for our money if private entities were not involved creaming off a hefty profit.
The involvement of private firms is what the problem is.
The involvement of private firms is what the problem is.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“We would get a lot more for our money if private entities were not involved creaming off a hefty profit.
The involvement of private firms is what the problem is.”
“We would get a lot more for our money if private entities were not involved creaming off a hefty profit.
The involvement of private firms is what the problem is.”
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...zVhlFcRglkqZhA. The patients who can’t leave hospital – as no one will make a profit
Elderly and disabled becoming ‘bedblockers’, despite wanting to go home, as private care firms refuse to take on their cases
Before you agree to plunge into loading social care charges onto your council taxes just take care. Be aware that you are playing right into the devious hands of the Tory party who want you to pay more of your taxes directly into the greedy and often corrupt hands of their friends in the privatised care industry. Once this has been done there will be no going back and you will be fleeced for ever with no guarantee that the old folk will be looked after properly or the people who do the caring are paid or treated properly. Certainly something has to be done now about the crisis in social care, but this must be done fairly and taken right out of the hands of the Tory party. I do not trust them.
Originally Posted by Aurora13:
“I agree. The fudge over this can't continue. It's either tax or pay for it. The people decide. The big issue is families expect state to provide where in past most families cared for the elderly.”
“I agree. The fudge over this can't continue. It's either tax or pay for it. The people decide. The big issue is families expect state to provide where in past most families cared for the elderly.”
Families in the past were much bigger - there were often multiple daughters to cope. Infirm people died quickly . And most of the population died within a few years of pension age. You have a more fundamental problem - with ever increasing numbers of geriatrics with chronic, age decline related, issues, small families with both partners working, and medicine able to keep people who would naturally have died in their seventies living on into their 80s and 90s.
Add on relatively small numbers of young people and few wishing to do such nasty jobs, you already have a situation where we only cope with immigrant labour, and by ever increasing hospital waiting lists .
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“It seems the government is looking at increasing council tax beyond the 2% they are already allowed to to help fund social care. It is claimed spending has fallen by 9% in the last 5 years with local government blaming central government cuts to their funding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38286145”
“It seems the government is looking at increasing council tax beyond the 2% they are already allowed to to help fund social care. It is claimed spending has fallen by 9% in the last 5 years with local government blaming central government cuts to their funding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38286145”
I live in a council area that is hugely disproportionately elderly, with many people choosing to retire to a part of the country that is massively deprived to start with. Here in Blackpool, the council are faced with near impossible tasks of trying to cut a budget with a desperately poor, disadvantaged local population, a vast and growing immigrant population, drawn by the seasonal and casual work, and a rapidly aging group, who require huge resources for their social and medical care.
For this area, I suspect even a sharp rise in council tax won't cover what is needed, and I think the solution needs to be nationalised, so that the money can get allocated fairly, rather than some areas having a flush of cash for a relatively small older population, and others stretched beyond the max by a poor (majority non-council tax paying) population unable to subsidise the needs of extra social care.
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“Families in the past were much bigger - there were often multiple daughters to cope. Infirm people died quickly . And most of the population died within a few years of pension age. You have a more fundamental problem - with ever increasing numbers of geriatrics with chronic, age decline related, issues, small families with both partners working, and medicine able to keep people who would naturally have died in their seventies living on into their 80s and 90s.
Add on relatively small numbers of young people and few wishing to do such nasty jobs, you already have a situation where we only cope with immigrant labour, and by ever increasing hospital waiting lists .”
“Families in the past were much bigger - there were often multiple daughters to cope. Infirm people died quickly . And most of the population died within a few years of pension age. You have a more fundamental problem - with ever increasing numbers of geriatrics with chronic, age decline related, issues, small families with both partners working, and medicine able to keep people who would naturally have died in their seventies living on into their 80s and 90s.
Add on relatively small numbers of young people and few wishing to do such nasty jobs, you already have a situation where we only cope with immigrant labour, and by ever increasing hospital waiting lists .”
And things can only get worse. The ageing population
Over the last 25 years the percentage of the population aged 65 and over increased from 15 per cent in 1983 to 16 per cent in 2008, an increase of 1.5 million people in this age group. Over the same period, the percentage of the population aged 16 and under decreased from 21 per cent to 19 per cent. This trend is projected to continue. By 2033, 23 per cent of the population will be aged 65 and over compared to 18 per cent aged 16 or younger.
The fastest population increase has been in the number of those aged 85 and over, the ’oldest old‘. In 1983, there were just over 600,000 people in the UK aged 85 and over. Since then the numbers have more than doubled reaching 1.3 million in 2008. By 2033 the number of people aged 85 and over is projected to more than double again to reach 3.2 million, and to account for 5 per cent of the total population.
IMHO I think that some sort of additional house wealth/inheritance tax is what we need to deal with the situation. People built up vast amount of equity over their lifetime (usually without actually doing anything other than living in a house for multiple years). Why not use that money to pay for people's care in old age rather than giving it as a windfall to relatives? I understand that IHT is a sensitive subject but as far as i'm concerned it's one that does the least amount of damage to the economy or harm to individuals.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“We would get a lot more for our money if private entities were not involved creaming off a hefty profit.
The involvement of private firms is what the problem is.”
“We would get a lot more for our money if private entities were not involved creaming off a hefty profit.
The involvement of private firms is what the problem is.”
No it isn't . The NHS answer was to use the old workhouses as massive holding centres for old folk. The NHS couldn't afford that , old folk hated them, and people wanted something better. Thus was the private care home born.
The problem is the same as the general problem with health spending. Demand, wages treatment costs, and hotel costs have risen and risen. , Meanwhile the economy has stagnated for a decade, barely recovered lost growth, and is still growing at a third of the rate of health demand There is simply not enough money , and even if people wanted to lose their jobs to pay for more health spending, government can't spend more and more of national income from a a declining tax base on health.
I think caring is the highest profession with poverty working people in it. That isn't right.. these people dedicate their life and time to improving people's lives.. it is a very noble job.
Originally Posted by blueisthecolour:
“IMHO I think that some sort of additional house wealth/inheritance tax is what we need to deal with the situation. People built up vast amount of equity over their lifetime (usually without actually doing anything other than living in a house for multiple years). Why not use that money to pay for people's care in old age rather than giving it as a windfall to relatives? I understand that IHT is a sensitive subject but as far as i'm concerned it's one that does the least amount of damage to the economy or harm to individuals.”
“IMHO I think that some sort of additional house wealth/inheritance tax is what we need to deal with the situation. People built up vast amount of equity over their lifetime (usually without actually doing anything other than living in a house for multiple years). Why not use that money to pay for people's care in old age rather than giving it as a windfall to relatives? I understand that IHT is a sensitive subject but as far as i'm concerned it's one that does the least amount of damage to the economy or harm to individuals.”
But that only works if people own a house. People of State Pension age are the largest group who claim housing benefit
Originally Posted by blueisthecolour:
“IMHO I think that some sort of additional house wealth/inheritance tax is what we need to deal with the situation. People built up vast amount of equity over their lifetime (usually without actually doing anything other than living in a house for multiple years). Why not use that money to pay for people's care in old age rather than giving it as a windfall to relatives? I understand that IHT is a sensitive subject but as far as i'm concerned it's one that does the least amount of damage to the economy or harm to individuals.”
“IMHO I think that some sort of additional house wealth/inheritance tax is what we need to deal with the situation. People built up vast amount of equity over their lifetime (usually without actually doing anything other than living in a house for multiple years). Why not use that money to pay for people's care in old age rather than giving it as a windfall to relatives? I understand that IHT is a sensitive subject but as far as i'm concerned it's one that does the least amount of damage to the economy or harm to individuals.”
Post #6
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“No it isn't . The NHS answer was to use the old workhouses as massive holding centres for old folk. The NHS couldn't afford that , old folk hated them, and people wanted something better. Thus was the private care home born.
The problem is the same as the general problem with health spending. Demand, wages treatment costs, and hotel costs have risen and risen. , Meanwhile the economy has stagnated for a decade, barely recovered lost growth, and is still growing at a third of the rate of health demand There is simply not enough money , and even if people wanted to lose their jobs to pay for more health spending, government can't spend more and more of national income from a a declining tax base on health.”
“No it isn't . The NHS answer was to use the old workhouses as massive holding centres for old folk. The NHS couldn't afford that , old folk hated them, and people wanted something better. Thus was the private care home born.
The problem is the same as the general problem with health spending. Demand, wages treatment costs, and hotel costs have risen and risen. , Meanwhile the economy has stagnated for a decade, barely recovered lost growth, and is still growing at a third of the rate of health demand There is simply not enough money , and even if people wanted to lose their jobs to pay for more health spending, government can't spend more and more of national income from a a declining tax base on health.”
Actually the UK's level of health spending is not particularly high compared to other western nations. We spent just over $4,000 per person in 2015 compared to $4,400 in France, $5,300 in Ireland and a massive $9,450 in the US. As you said, healthcare demands are raising at a considerable rate and if we're going to maintain the NHS system then increasing taxation is the only way. If we only went back to the levels of tax we had in 2010 it would be a start.
1 of 3
