Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:01 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Fundamentally, if you can afford your own social care, either by using savings or other assets, why should you expect the taxpayer to fund your care ?

and if you havent saved and invested prudently and pi55ed it up against the wall, why should the diligent investor pay for your social care?

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:11 am  

IR80 I know it is unlikely but do you have children, have you used the NHS because if you have my taxes have been used towards these. If I had a choice for you I would happily say no but I don’t so you benefit from my taxes.

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:23 am  

IR80 wrote:

and if you havent saved and invested prudently and pi55ed it up against the wall, why should the diligent investor pay for your social care?

Should we have a discussion about tax avoidance as well.
You do seem utterly incapable of reasoned discussion, which although not a surprise, is still a shame.

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:41 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Fundamentally, if you can afford your own social care, either by using savings or other assets, why should you expect the taxpayer to fund your care ?

So my understanding is that if I pay in during my working life I will be looked after when I retire and have the same access to services as everyone else - if I paid in more will I get any better care than those who have paid in less?

Given I have already paid in significantly more to support those currently availing themselves of social care why when I need it should I have to pay more again for exactly the same service as everyone else?

So if we take your logic - if I have provided a private pension for myself then I should not be entitled to the state pension because if I can fund myself when should the state fund me?

On that premise then you would allow those of us who pay for private education - exemption from the contributions we make towards the state education system.

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:18 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So my understanding is that if I pay in during my working life I will be looked after when I retire and have the same access to services as everyone else - if I paid in more will I get any better care than those who have paid in less?

Given I have already paid in significantly more to support those currently availing themselves of social care why when I need it should I have to pay more again for exactly the same service as everyone else?

So if we take your logic - if I have provided a private pension for myself then I should not be entitled to the state pension because if I can fund myself when should the state fund me?

On that premise then you would allow those of us who pay for private education - exemption from the contributions we make towards the state education system.

You are mixing up the argument.

On all other issues, benefits, social care being just one example are generally given for those with no money or significant assets.
Therefore, why is social care offered universally and to those who could afford to pay ?

Are we treating it as part of the health service "free at the point of service" or, should "basic" social care be "free" for everyone.

You may be surprised that I own my own reasonable home, paid for both kids to go to school, have a private and company pension etc.
Despite the shouts of "jealousy" etc, at some point, I will probably be one of the people that are affected by these costs / benefits.

However, I dont understand the theory of the taxpayer "subsidising" someone who clearly can afford to cover the cost but, is instead allowed to protect their primary asset for the benefit of their children etc.

There will come a time in the not distant future where this wont continue or that we may have to insure against such need.
Boris, has so far ducked the issue and is hoping for a cross party policy or similar but, the crunch will have to happen some time. Unless of course the coronavirus wipes out half of the pensioners.

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:22 pm  

Sal Paradise's arguments here sum up exactly what I meant in my post before about the difficulty for the Conservative party in finding a solution.

If you assume Sal is a "target Tory voter" then how do you find a solution to the declining standard of social care that doesn't involve higher taxes for working age people. Which is probably where Labour will go with it.

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:20 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Sal Paradise's arguments here sum up exactly what I meant in my post before about the difficulty for the Conservative party in finding a solution.

If you assume Sal is a "target Tory voter" then how do you find a solution to the declining standard of social care that doesn't involve higher taxes for working age people. Which is probably where Labour will go with it.

The shortfall has to either come from taxes or the government would have to remove the protection on personal property or more likely a mixture of both.
Mind you, with their triple lock on vat, income tax and national insurance, they have left themselves short on wiggle room, hence the other thread on "mansion tax and pensions raid".
Any new funding would likely have to come from one or both of these or, they could of course borrow more. Something they and the media slaughtered Labour for during the election campaign but, something that they now seem more than happy to do themselves.

With their myriad of spending pledges, they wont be too far off the Labour promises (apart from the re nationalisation campaign and broadband).

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:12 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Sal Paradise's arguments here sum up exactly what I meant in my post before about the difficulty for the Conservative party in finding a solution.

If you assume Sal is a "target Tory voter" then how do you find a solution to the declining standard of social care that doesn't involve higher taxes for working age people. Which is probably where Labour will go with it.

As I said - the only way is through higher taxation - which is OK providing the monies are used for that. If Labour does what it did last time the NI rate was increased to fund the NHS it will bow down to union pressure and increase the salaries of those in the NHS so where do the improvements come to the service if all you do is use the money to increase the costs of the existing services?

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:17 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

The shortfall has to either come from taxes or the government would have to remove the protection on personal property or more likely a mixture of both.
Mind you, with their triple lock on vat, income tax and national insurance, they have left themselves short on wiggle room, hence the other thread on "mansion tax and pensions raid".
Any new funding would likely have to come from one or both of these or, they could of course borrow more. Something they and the media slaughtered Labour for during the election campaign but, something that they now seem more than happy to do themselves.

With their myriad of spending pledges, they wont be too far off the Labour promises (apart from the re nationalisation campaign and broadband).

Labour were going to spend £250bn just on their bonkers "green initiative" - I don't want to digress but could someone explain a couple of things: once we all go to electric cars how will the fuel duty be replaced? Does anyone seriously believe we can generate sufficient electricity from solar and wind? Finally gas is an incredibly clean abundant energy source why are we abandoning it?

Re: Social Care : Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:23 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

You are mixing up the argument.

On all other issues, benefits, social care being just one example are generally given for those with no money or significant assets.
Therefore, why is social care offered universally and to those who could afford to pay ?

Are we treating it as part of the health service "free at the point of service" or, should "basic" social care be "free" for everyone.

You may be surprised that I own my own reasonable home, paid for both kids to go to school, have a private and company pension etc.
Despite the shouts of "jealousy" etc, at some point, I will probably be one of the people that are affected by these costs / benefits.

However, I dont understand the theory of the taxpayer "subsidising" someone who clearly can afford to cover the cost but, is instead allowed to protect their primary asset for the benefit of their children etc.

There will come a time in the not distant future where this wont continue or that we may have to insure against such need.
Boris, has so far ducked the issue and is hoping for a cross party policy or similar but, the crunch will have to happen some time. Unless of course the coronavirus wipes out half of the pensioners.

Social care for the aged should be offered by the government - it has been more than paid for via everyone's NI contributions.

So if we take you argument that the taxpayer subsidising those that can afford are you suggesting limited access to the NHS for those who can clearly afford the treatment? So those that work hard and provide for a rainy day or to pass on something to their children shouldn't be allowed and the state should have access to all additional monies on their death?