Forum Topic

Health & Social Care Levy

Does not apply to pensioners & £86,000 maximum for care home fees. Bargain. Your houses are free to be passed on to your offspring with no inheritance tax & younger tax payers will pick up the bill. Whoopee do.No wonder you spend your time arguing about Brexit,Afghan refugees, climate change, etc. You have nothing else to worry about.You can be woke with other peoples money & it makes you feel better into the bargain.

Paul Rolink ● 1609d21 Comments

https://theconversation.com/social-care-reform-why-boris-johnsons-plan-wont-fix-the-crisis-expert-view-167472

Philippa Bond ● 1608d

So I suppose the NHS as an employer will be paying more NI for the staff as well as the staff paying more themselves.  That will take up a fair bit of the increased NI income.

Philippa Bond ● 1608d

I think you will find that it is already in two parts.  There is the amount you pay for the care and the amount for living costs.  That would be how you get to the higher figure for say dementia care where there may be movement sensors in rooms and locks on doors to stop wanderers from going out.It is hard to get NHS Continuing Health Care and I suspect a lot more people are entitled to it than get it.  Many will never been told about it.

Philippa Bond ● 1608d

Quite agree MichaelA cross party consensus at least with Labour should have been sought and only if no meeting of minds to press ahead.  I think he wants to get the “likes” for solving social care when this likely will not do that.  He was in a hurry it came across as to be seen to do something.Your last point about being cynical, I think it’s hard to be anything else at the moment.  It’s easy to feel we are losing faith in quite a few of our institutions but politics must top the list.  Maybe a reboot will come but I’m not holding my breath!

Mike Warman ● 1608d

We could go down the route of the US and tax capital gains on first properties? (Guess why Johnson gave up his joint US citizenship ...) The problem is how gains in property value are realised. Personally in principle I've no objection to the capital gain on our property being used to pay for my health care but I would not like to feel my wife would have to sell our property and relocate to fund my care if it was more convenient to remain in our home (or me to have to move unless I wanted to if the position was reversed). I believe the issue of realising this equity value - whether it's for the £85,000 care costs or for the "hotel" costs - hasn't been covered adequately? Or maybe I've missed something in the details? I think sometimes councils will fund care upfront with recovery plus interest later (although that may restricted one's choice of care homes) but I think that needs to be part of a national scheme.I don't see (regarding Paul's comments) why views on Brexit, etc are relevant to one's views on funding care or the NHS - but surely there's all that money going to the NHS because we left the EU?I'm personally not surprised that Johnson broke his pledges because I'd no high expectations of him keeping them. I am disappointed that he didn't honour a statement I believe he made which was to enter into cross party discussions on the care solution. Not doijng so is short sighted as it's a lot more likely now that future governments will change this plan as they've no vested interest in it?To be honest the plan comes across as being hastily constructed and a first pass proposal that one might submit for discussion? But maybe I'm getting too cynical about politics.

Michael Ixer ● 1609d

Exactly, Ivonne!  On MailOnline comments, someone said look at the small print, the new daily living costs for accommodation, food and heating. How is this going to work?  Using the figure of £1,000 per week as an example of what people are currently paying, is this figure going to be broken down into 1. Care and 2. The new daily living costs.  Myself I think the £1,000 per week will be an opportunity for the private care home providers to get more money.  I guess they will keep the bill for £1,000 the same and call it care and then add on more for the new daily living costs that they will be allowed to charge for.

Martine Guy ● 1609d

Of course what I forgot was that the majority of the money raised by this tax is to deal with the NHS backlog. That is for all of us as cancer and heart disease are not the special preserve of the elderly.

Andy Pike ● 1609d

Just one thing, years ago, people had large families, a lot of women never worked like they do now. This allowed the women to look after the mothers or fathers when they got old. Now with smaller families and people not having so many children, who most will work, not all can give up work to look after their older relatives, or disabled. Because they may have young children and need to work. But years ago who really thought about their pensions, most just worked and worked and gathered enough was being taken from their wages and it was dealt with or also had a private pension.

Barbara Stevens ● 1609d

Hello Paul,You say £86,000 for care home fees.  I do not think this is correct.  That figure is for care costs not for care home fees.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1609d

Alternatively it could be done via capital gains tax i guess?You gov always attracts negative comments on here, unfairly i feel. There are two type of you gov survey, the ones that people email around and are available on their website with no login. Then there's the paid ones where you need to login to the website and you can only do it once etc etc. So i'm inclined to agree with you on the first one and not so much on the second.

Matt Palmer ● 1609d

Ah but is it only the tory ones who need care...? Having done a few yoh Gov surveys I'd take their conclusions with a pinch of salt.I agree on the house issue although there are many ways to protect the potential level of contribution, which I'm sure many have already got in place.

Andy Pike ● 1609d

That's actually a fair point and I agree with you (and Ed who said it last night) it should be on general taxation.It would seem to me that a fairer way to do this would be to take a percentage of peoples unearned wealth (over a certain point). So say if you have 100k in a house you pay nothing, but then over that theres a percentage tax that is used to pay for care. Therefore the people with the most amount of money in their houses will pay more.  You could set an upper limit so that the ultra rich dont end up paying millions etcThe majority tory voters comment comes from you gov"According to the pollsters YouGov, Labour’s share of the vote fell among the over-65s by even more than last time – to under 20% in 2019 from 24% in 2017. In 2010, Ipsos Mori said that 31% of over-65s voted Labour. This time, the Conservatives’ vote share among the over-65s was more than 60%"

Matt Palmer ● 1609d

Why do you assume all pensioners will need care in 10-15 years time. I think it's a relatively small percentage that will. Also it's not just the elderly that need social care.Good that you picked out a single sentence in my post and ignored the bits where I  feel there should be some significant contribution from property value, and that it should vs general taxation not NI so that as a taxpayer I would share the burden too. Can you back up your claim that ths majority of old people in care vote Tory.

Andy Pike ● 1609d

which (as the need for this new tax shows) wasnt enough to pay for care in their later years.

Matt Palmer ● 1609d

And who paid tax and NI for 50 years whilst working

Andy Pike ● 1609d

"I know it wont apply to all"Correct, it doesn't apply to people now retired who will need care in 10-15 years, those people who are sitting on the unearned house price nest eggs.Who also happen to generally vote conservative.

Matt Palmer ● 1609d

Additionally the triple lock has been rightly suspended this year due to the skewering of thd figures by post pandemic recovery. Additionally, it's not just the old that need social care there are many younger folk who will benefit.Finally  surely those paying the extra NI could  , in many cases, simply view it as a savings scheme ... as it's their inheritance that's being saved. I know it wont apply to all.

Andy Pike ● 1609d

Paul whilst I  agree the burden should gave been placed on general taxation. Ths principal of the young paying for the old has always been thus. Us old uns subsidised the generation before and they those before them.I also do not see anything wrong with those that have property beibg asked to set its value against their future care to a larger extent than 86k.Although those with the real money will gave already protected their assets afgainst this charge by use ofvtrusf funds and the like. I bet Johnson, Starmer  Davey and their gangs have all protected their wealth against inheritance tax etc,

Andy Pike ● 1609d

From what I have read the £86,000 cap does not include daily living costs, such as accommodation, food and heating.  To whom does this apply?  People trying to stay independent in their own homes or in sheltered accommodation, which would seem perfectly reasonable.  Or are they saying, people going into care homes are going to be paying daily living costs?  If this is the case, I cannot for a moment see any reduction taking place in carehome fees already being charged to families or local authorities, so this can only mean even more more money being eaten up by the carehomes.           A major overhaul and rethink is needed of the whole social care system, whether it be council social services or carehomes.

Martine Guy ● 1609d

And you probably never will be Matt.They will keep moving the goal posts.Some opposition policies would be good but in the absence:  Merge NI and just call it income tax which it is.  Do away with the bands and just have a curve instead make it truly progressive!

Ed Robinson ● 1609d

No wonder you spend your time arguing about Brexit,Afghan refugees, climate change, etc.I'm not a pensioner.

Matt Palmer ● 1609d