Who should pay for social care ?

[misterdog]

The young workers won't be able to retire at 55,

Though you might find that dementia et al affects all and that 'young workers' will also require care homes and the associated fees.

The 'poor' pay no care home fees, if they have less than 20K in savings and no home.

Where the 'wealthy' will have to pay 86K.

As part of my research in another forum I tripped over this.
From a social model where all are equal ( apart from those who were slightly more equal ).


East German buyers were placed on a waiting-list of up to thirteen years.[11] The waiting time depended on their proximity to Berlin, the capital.[6] Official state price was 7,450 GDR marks and the demand to production ratio was forty three to one (1989). The free market price for a second-hand one was more than twice the price of a new one, and the average worker had to wait ten to thirteen years on a waiting list, or, if available, pay more than double for a second hand model.[11]

 

[matthewr]

And the two papers in question essentially have no choice but to continue backing Boris, because they’re hardly going to advise their readers to switch to Starmer.

They don't back Boris. They back the Conservatives in return for policies that do not seriously address taxation or wealth inequality.

 

[matthewr]

You don’t think asset prices are absurd? It’s rent for life for many as a result. That’s going to get difficult when people want to retire or dare I say, require care.

When economic commentators say "asset prices" they usually don't mean house prices, they mean all assets which may or may not include house prices depending on context.

And specifically in the context of central bank action and QE they mostly mean shares because the suggestion is that the stock market is a massive bubble because a decade plus of flat yield curves means all those excess savings with nowhere to go end up in the stock market.

Also if you want to help generation rent buy houses then I am all ears. Good luck with getting elected with a policy platform that requires house price deflation though.

 

[misterdog]

(and Labour would be no different/better, they never are).

In spite of the increasing funds, the financial state of the NHS worsened. The targets and the cash had not been matched one with the other and, in January 2002, the South-East Regional Chief Executive said it was necessary to eliminate an overspend of £60 million by the end of the financial year.

In his April 2002 budget, Gordon Brown provided a huge increase in NHS funding over the next five years. There would be year-on-year rises in UK spending from £65.4 billion in 2002 to £100.6 billion in 2007, 7.4 per cent in real terms annually and slightly above the Wanless proposals. National insurance contributions were raised by 1 per cent to find the money (immediately costing the NHS an additional £200 million as it was a large employer.)



https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chapter/1998-2007-labour-s-decade

 

[misterdog]

It's just political tennis anyway. They both sing from the same economic hymn sheet. The Tories because they're stuck in an ideological vortex which has now come to define who they are. Labour have just been kneecapped by and bought into monetarism since 1978.

'Costing' translates into: who can present the best representation of "fiscal rectitude". A New Labour voter is a pitiable creature, but a Tory voter is an absolute blockhead.

And your policy for funding a never ending increase in the cost of health and social care is ?

capitalism
Socialism
Communism
Magic money tree

Other

 

[Heckyman]

50mins: “the danger of MMT…”

(MMT =“modern monetary theory”, or is it “magic money tree”?)

 

[Tony L]

In his April 2002 budget, Gordon Brown provided a huge increase in NHS funding over the next five years. There would be year-on-year rises in UK spending from £65.4 billion in 2002 to £100.6 billion in 2007, 7.4 per cent in real terms annually and slightly above the Wanless proposals. National insurance contributions were raised by 1 per cent to find the money (immediately costing the NHS an additional £200 million as it was a large employer.)

That’s an interesting point and one that hadn’t occurred to me as I’ve been looking at this through a self-employed perspective (I’ve basically had a 1.5% income tax imposed on all money earned below the income tax threshold and 1.5% additional on that above). I’d not considered the cost to social care employers and the NHS. The whole thing is just absurdly regressive from every perspective. In any sane country people would strike/riot over this kind of self-serving corrupt elitism from a government.

 

[Ponty]

Also if you want to help generation rent buy houses then I am all ears. Good luck with getting elected with a policy platform that requires house price deflation though.

The best way to help generation rent buy homes is to stop trying to ‘help’ them. We need to see the end of ‘emergency’ IR’s and forbearance. Prices will then adjust.

 

[matthewr]

The best way to help generation rent buy homes is to stop trying to ‘help’ them. We need to see the end of ‘emergency’ IR’s and forbearance. Prices will then adjust.

Unironically, I LOLed.

 

[Ponty]

Unironically, I LOLed.

Well, it’s ultimately the main vote winner. As long as they’ve got one (or more) and prices keep going up, people of all political persuasions don’t GAF.

 

[Seeker_UK]

That’s an interesting point and one that hadn’t occurred to me as I’ve been looking at this through a self-employed perspective (I’ve basically had a 1.5% income tax imposed on all money earned below the income tax threshold and 1.5% additional on that above). I’d not considered the cost to social care employers and the NHS. The whole thing is just absurdly regressive from every perspective. In any sane country people would strike/riot over this kind of self-serving corrupt elitism from a government.

The plan is to “compensate departments and other public sector employers” in England at the next spending review for the “increased cost of the levy”.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/national-insurance-rise-government-to-compensate-public-sector-employers/

It is likely to include NHS as well as schools.

If they do compensate, the only hit will be to public sector employees, many of whom have not a pay rise this year.

 

[matthewr]

people of all political persuasions don’t GAF.

Speak for yourself.

 

[misterdog]

The whole thing is just absurdly regressive from every perspective. In any sane country people would strike/riot over this kind of self-serving corrupt elitism from a government.

If you read the the link, (yes it is massive), it said back in 2002 that the NHS requires a 1% increase over inflation every year.
It is quite an interesting to look back as to how limited health care was pre 2000.

We have had 2 rises in taxes (NI) in 20 years to fund this.

One under Labour.
One under the Tories.

(listed alphabetically )



As the medical profession keeps people alive for longer ( seperate debate as to quality of life at the end of life ) the costs increase.

And will always do so.

Social care funding was important to the labour party in 2000 yet here we are 21 years later,
so after 21 years of 'debate' at least something has been done.

(Labour also said we need some new sources of electrity supply 21 years ago, as the power stations we have/had were knackered)

How do we fund this ever increasing cost on our ever incresing longevity.

It's not the rich or the poor, not labour or tory voters it's all of us.


Though this debate is small beer compared to the cost of climate change.

Last weeks think tank saying that converting to electric vehicles would cost 'the government'
(any ) in lost fuel duty that a 6p in the £ rise in taxation may be needed.

https://institute.global/policy/avoiding-gridlock-britain



Funding health/social care costs are merely todays distraction to ellicit outrage.

Good nightnurse.

 

[Ponty]

Speak for yourself.

I’m fairly well documented here saying I’d like to see prices fall.

 

[clivem2]

If you read the the link, (yes it is massive), it said back in 2002 that the NHS requires a 1% increase over inflation every year.
It is quite an interesting to look back as to how limited health care was pre 2000.

We have had 2 rises in taxes (NI) in 20 years to fund this.

One under Labour.
One under the Tories.

(listed alphabetically )



As the medical profession keeps people alive for longer ( seperate debate as to quality of life at the end of life ) the costs increase.

And will always do so.

How do we fund this ever increasing cost on our ever incresing longevity.

It's not the rich or the poor, not labour or tory voters it's all of us.


Though this debate is small beer compared to the cost of climate change.

Last weeks think tank saying that converting to electric vehicles would cost 'the government'
(any ) in lost fuel duty that a 6p in the £ rise in taxation may be needed.

https://institute.global/policy/avoiding-gridlock-britain



Funding health/social care costs are merely todays distraction to ellicit outrage.

Re the fuel duty..that’s easily fixed. The chargers are “smart”, they can identify that an EV is being charged and a fuel duty is then applied. This doesn’t help the case for EVs but it’s bound to happen in some form.

 

[Le Baron]

And your policy for funding a never ending increase in the cost of health and social care is ?

capitalism
Socialism
Communism
Magic money tree

Other

Have you tried laughing gas? It might help what you're saying appear to have more gravitas. Right now you're offering yourself up as cannon fodder for a neoliberal master. Shape yourself.

 

[misterdog]

Re the fuel duty..that’s easily fixed. The chargers are “smart”, they can identify that an EV is being charged and a fuel duty is then applied. This doesn’t help the case for EVs but it’s bound to happen in some form.

All we need then is to convert every lampost into an EV charging point and 5G transmitter.

Simples.

Though is the cable in the street capable of providing all this electricity ?

Plus all the extra power for our new air source heat pumps to heat our homes.

 

[misterdog]

Have you tried laughing gas? It might help what you're saying appear to have more gravitas. Right now you're offering yourself up as cannon fodder for a neoliberal master. Shape yourself.

So your fully funded costing system for the NHS and social care is laughing gas.

Good effort, please show your workings.

 

[matthewr]

I’m fairly well documented here saying I’d like to see prices fall.

My point was more than this is essentially a Canute like belief.

 

[Le Baron]

So your fully funded costing system for the NHS and social care is laughing gas.

Good effort, please show your workings.

'Fully costed'. Understand my dear fellow that govUK is not financially-constrained. It refuses to jettison clapped-out ideas wrought under Thatcher: 'natural rate of unemployment' (sledgehammer approach to inflation control); stupid ideas about private companies materialising money out of thin air and being the 'source' of it (though even Thatcher poured money into their pockets right at the top to achieve 'private enterprise')... What govUK refuses to do is use its financial power to mobilise the idle resources in the UK. It prefers skeleton services and paying companies to squirrel away the money they receive in Caribbean islands. 'Costing' is what you do when you sit at home budgeting your limited income, govUK doesn't do that.
A government has the power to actually influence prices by setting what it is prepared to pay to furnish society with goods and services. It already does this in the UK with regard to drug prices. If this wasn't true the NHS would be forced to bow to prices set by global pharmaceutical giants, it doesn't. You have the argument backwards.