|
||||||||
Do we now need a social care tax (SCT) to fund a national care service (NCS)? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,231
|
Do we now need a social care tax (SCT) to fund a national care service (NCS)?
If not what's the alternative?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 20,806
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,626
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
|
Quote:
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.
Bonkers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 8,267
|
Quote:
...... and they expect the state to pick up the tab for looking after their parents and still expect to inherit their house!
Bonkers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,265
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11,740
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,265
|
Quote:
...... and they expect the state to pick up the tab for looking after their parents and still expect to inherit their house!
Bonkers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 48,023
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,914
|
We need help for these poverty-stricken carers on the breadline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,231
|
Quote:
If not what's the alternative?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,412
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,265
|
Quote:
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. Elderly and disabled becoming ‘bedblockers’, despite wanting to go home, as private care firms refuse to take on their cases |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,334
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,231
|
Quote:
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.
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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,933
|
Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,265
|
Quote:
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 . 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,863
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,231
|
Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,914
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,265
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 8,267
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,863
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38.


