That is a luxury you can afford of you are very rich

For someone on average income an extra 1p in the £ Income tax is less than £8k over a career of around 40 years (less than £200 per annum)

Many families face bills of many times that amount for residential care

Personally I prefer consistency in my finances and to know that my loved ones and eventually myself will have decent provision at what can be a distressing and difficult period of life

Taxation seems the most efficient and equitable way to balance out the uncertainties as none of us can predict how long we will live and the health we will have and this the support that we will need and will be available when we need it

The government - No
Tory ministers, MPs and Lords?

http://nhap.org/what-you-can-do/fact...te-healthcare/

Contracts for social care providers are agreed at a local level, nothing to do with private healthcare or politics.
The attachment you have provided is left wing propaganda site.

Is it left wing propaganda that socail care is in crisis ? The private sector have alot to do with social care.

That article had nothing to do with this topic.

The private vs public dilemma is also much of an irrelevance

The simple fact is local authorities have been chronically underfunded and have had to deal with cuts out of proportion to other services. A fools economy as the lack of adult social care services simply transfers the job to the NHS.

From a political point of view, this underlines how comfortable the Tories are at the moment with little to no opposition to counter them.

They're considering cutting pensioner benefits and raising council tax - both of which are sure fire vote losers which would never have been considered if labour were closer to them.

Did I say that Have a look at the attachment and see if it is relevant to the discussion! Nobody has said that the private sector have little to do with social care. The thread is how are we going to possibly be taxed to provide social care.

Odd that only you seem to think so, was the point too subtle? or just too difficult?

Instead of funding social care by increasing council tax something which would certainly impact the less well off much harder than the better off, whereas a 1 penny in pound increase in the basic rate of income tax for everyone would be a 'fair' way of getting the required funds,
I (and I am certain many other low income people) would happily give 1% of my total income if it went directly towards social care, provided that the top earners did the same,

So obviously that will never happen.

Yep you'd be better, the person gettng care would be better off, the taxpayer/council tax payer would be better off, but you're not thinking of the poor shareholders and executives/owners of the care companies who will lose their profits.

There are those who are calling for some of the bloated overseas aid budget to be spent on social care.
A lot of this money is wasted, badly spent given to countries that really do not need it, or simply ends up in the pockets of advisers or corrupt officials.

If a government can put into law that the UK has to spend 0.7% of its GDP on foreign aid, and agree to pay a percentage of our GDP on defence and NATO, then why not do the same for social care?

If our GDP grows, so would the amount spent on social care.

As the money is already there for overseas aid, would not switching some of that money negate having to raise taxes to pay for any shortfall in social spending?
Taxing those who are probably least able to pay.
It may also stop health and social care becoming a political football.

It is unbelievable that we can spend billions, some of which cannot even be accounted for on helping others, yet we are told that there is no money to help our sick and elderly, so we have to pay more in tax.

Just a thought.

Exactly my point. Profit does not go back to the Treasury but in to the back pockets of mates of the Tory party.

The problem is that the money is not already there for the overseas aid budget, we have to BORROW it.
But I agee cut this money and target the aid more effectively.

Providers are decided at local level and have to be accredited to supply a service, nothing to do with any political party.

You will have to ask others why they don't bother responding......
Yes, subtle must be your middle name!

Although I would not be happy with an increase in council tax it would be the most logical approach. Those that currently get a reduction could easily be made exempt from the increase.
Then the rich Tories that own all the larger properties end up paying more than those on low incomes.
Council tax is kept (not given back to central government) at local level to finance services, including social services.
I cannot imagine for a second you would trust the grabbing uncaring Tories to use the increase in income tax for the benefit of social services.
Hope you didn't find that too hard.

The most profitable services are cherry picked whilst less profitable services such as social care are neglected. It's all done above board on a neutral basis if you're naive enough to believe that.

Which services that are more profitable are cherry picked?

I would say we have gone past which services are cherry picked as the most profitable, its now choosing which people who need care are being cherry picked as the most profitable. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...fawvnfFiZqfEbg. The elderly and disabled are being ‘put up for auction’ by local councils on ‘eBay-style’ websites, with care firms then bidding to offer them a bed.. And the people who no profit can be made from are left for the NHS to sort out. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...LpGX5HwG2AWHAA. 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

How true. Council tax is not paid by many on benefits and they are most likely to be unable to pay for care if and when needed. VAT would therefore seem to be the answer.

The government are quite happy for anyone with any assets at all to pay for their own care, not just the "rich" but even those who bought a modest council house so they did not have to pay rent in their retirement.

Even if there was a state insurance scheme I would be certain that it would be limited or means tested or both. The Care Act 2014 was intended to put some cap on fees but that was soon forgotten about immediately after the 2015 Election.

It's a reverse lotterey - "win" it and you get financially wiped out. Hey ho....

How soon before we get a National care Service that is nationally funded and works closely with the NHS.
Last time I looked it was a national problem.

I agree with your sentiment. I still think the aid budget should be a commitment but are the overseas aid committee able to do their job properly?

Using council tax to fund or part fund social care is absurd, local government should be the delivery mechanism for the service, however, the funding itself should be wholly via central government subsidy

That happened to my father, the hospital tried to find a care home place for him, couldn't and he stayed in hospital a few months till he passed away.

The Tories are panicking big time because their unnecessary austerity is coming back to haunt them now.

Hospitals are reaching critical mass now because they're full of patients that can't be discharged because of their cuts.

It's staggering that so many people were persuaded to vote for this, but it's like everything else in life; folk don't think it'll affect them, so they don't care.

Well, it is affecting us all now & now they want to pass the buck to local councils by trying to pretend they're giving them more money, which isn't really the case, as it was money the councils were going to get to use for other purposes anyway.