care costs

[JamesWales]

Re: care costs

Typically rational and well thought out response.

Does a wealthy person pay more for their child's state education than a poorer person, does a wealthy person pay for more their NHS care than a poorer person, does a wealthy person pay more for policing in their area compared to a poorer person. Do I need to go on?

With this system we will have a progressive system of taxation for healthcare until you reach old age when effectively (for the vast majority) a flat tax kicks in. It is clear that governments of the UK are not keen to tax accumulated wealth in the way they do income, this is driven by lord knows what but isnt sustainable given current economic patterns and therefore is entirely irrational.

Sorry your response is flawed because the original graphic is flawed

The aim of the change to care costs is to create a sustainable means of caring for people in older age and ensure no one is left destitute. If you have no money or assets well below £100,000 you WILL pay far LESS than a wealthy person.

This graphic picks the figure of £100,000 precisely to enrage you. It's the political BBC at its worst. Why doesn't it show someone with £30,000 in assets? Or £1 in assets ? It is they who benefit most from this.

Or would you rather the person on £100,000 in assets pay nothing until the person with £500,000 has seen theirs reduced to the same amount? Let me tell you, you'll never see that money because no child will see their parents life work be spent on someone else for nothing.

Would you? A terraced house in North Cardiff can cost £350,000. You happy for your parent to give it all away so the person in a £100,000 house in Merthyr doesn't have to?

The money will disappear and the system will fail.

This new plan ensures care be paid for and people will be left with something to pass on to their kids. It's the best way of paying for elderly care in hundreds of years. Perfect no, but you come up with a better system.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: care costs

Sorry your response is flawed because the original graphic is flawed

The aim of the change to care costs is to create a sustainable means of caring for people in older age and ensure no one is left destitute. If you have no money or assets well below £100,000 you WILL pay far LESS than a wealthy person.

This graphic picks the figure of £100,000 precisely to enrage you. It's the political BBC at its worst. Why doesn't it show someone with £30,000 in assets? Or £1 in assets ? It is they who benefit most from this.

Or would you rather the person on £100,000 in assets pay nothing until the person with £500,000 has seen theirs reduced to the same amount? Let me tell you, you'll never see that money because no child will see their parents life work be spent on someone else for nothing.

Would you? A terraced house in North Cardiff can cost £350,000. You happy for your parent to give it all away so the person in a £100,000 house in Merthyr doesn't have to?

The money will disappear and the system will fail.

This new plan ensures care be paid for and people will be left with something to pass on to their kids. It's the best way of paying for elderly care in hundreds of years. Perfect no, but you come up with a better system.

Maybe you can answer in good faith for once and explain how my post is 'flawed'.

I will answer your points so that this thread doesn't turn into two people barking their own monologues, you should probably do the same.

This graphic picks the figure of £100,000 precisely to enrage you. It's the political BBC at its worst. Why doesn't it show someone with £30,000 in assets? Or £1 in assets ? It is they who benefit most from this.

Somewhat fair point, but then again it doesn't show the higher end of the wealth bell curve either. Is it political for them not to show how millionaires fair under the system too? I'd imagine in 2021, the groups are actually pretty similar in size.

Could we possibly have protected the poorest without protecting millionaires at the same time? I can't see why not, maybe you can tell me why not.

Would you? A terraced house in North Cardiff can cost £350,000. You happy for your parent to give it all away so the person in a £100,000 house in Merthyr doesn't have to?

In short yes (and your example describes my parents situation quite well in terms of their level of property wealth).

What this policy effectively says is a person should pay a maximum of 86000 for their own care regardless of wealth and from then, other forms of taxation will be used to pay for it. I don't agree with the principle of an absolute cap/flat rate and I dont agree that working people who are struggling should prop up somebody who is well off by paying for their care so that they can pass their house on to their 50+ year old children when they die.

Or would you rather the person on £100,000 in assets pay nothing until the person with £500,000 has seen theirs reduced to the same amount? Let me tell you, you'll never see that money because no child will see their parents life work be spent on someone else for nothing

If your 'lifes work' is accruing property wealth then I feel sorry for you. The point doesn't really add up anyway. We live in a country where the majority of people are taxed quite heavily on earned income (even more so because of these reforms). We will pay for care somehow and shielding people with wealth from paying for their own, just means somebody else has to pay for it, it comes out of another pot.

You can talk about this proposal being sustainable but that depends on so many different factors that it is complete guess work at this point. What isnt guess work is that the property wealth amongst the old age groups is climbing and wages are mostly not rising in line with inflation. Unchecked, that itself puts pressures on our economic model, we probably need to find fair ways to access that wealth in order to ease the tax burden on working people.

[JamesWales]

Re: care costs

Thanks for the response. I genuinely suspect that like a lot of activists you don't actually want a solution though, as it would prevent an opportunity for a political argument.

This isn't perfect but it is the best system for hundreds of years and vastly better for those with low levels of wealth. (Again, bafflingly that post now decides for the benefit of the graphic that the poorest are people with £100,000 in assets!)

Your starting point really should be more amicable towards the proposals in my opinion. It's just party politics that prevents you doing that. Free yourself of that burden!

Or at least outline properly an alternative, so people can pick holes in that.

This is a pretty good summary atm

https://order-order.com/2021/11/23/labour-mp-asked-9-times-how-theyd-fund-social-care/

[Eric Cartman]

Re: care costs

Thanks for the response. I genuinely suspect that like a lot of activists you don't actually want a solution though, as it would prevent an opportunity for a political argument.

This isn't perfect but it is the best system for hundreds of years and vastly better for those with low levels of wealth. (Again, bafflingly that post now decides for the benefit of the graphic that the poorest are people with £100,000 in assets!)

Your starting point really should be more amicable towards the proposals in my opinion. It's just party politics that prevents you doing that. Free yourself of that burden!

Or at least outline properly an alternative, so people can pick holes in that.

This is a pretty good summary atm
https://order-order.com/2021/11/23/l...d-social-care/

Or indeed that the richest only have 500k??

I don't even know where to start with your post but how about this, if you are going to denounce party politics, maybe don't back that up by posting a party political article from a well known biased internet shit rag. Plenty of conservative MPs couldn't bring themselves to vote for the bill, if you wanted to not be party political you could ask them why they chose that route.

Your assumptions about me are completely wrong, notice how I haven't made any assumptions about you or your motivations.

[JamesWales]

Re: care costs

Or indeed that the richest only have 500k??

I don't even know where to start with your post but how about this, if you are going to denounce party politics, maybe don't back that up by posting a party political article from a well known biased internet shit rag. Plenty of conservative MPs couldn't bring themselves to vote for the bill, if you wanted to not be party political you could ask them why they chose that route.

Your assumptions about me are completely wrong, notice how I haven't made any assumptions about you or your motivations.

It's a verbatim video from Sky News. If you only watch news from sources you approve of you won't get the full picture. You should watch the video as it's wholly relevant. It's easy to nitpick but it's bloody hard to govern.

Sorry for any assumptions, that was wrong of me, but that is how it comes across. This is a big step forward that is a big movement in the right direction. One can argue it doesnt go far enough but it is a sea change and a positive move and people really should see it like that (unless you approve of people losing almost all their savings?)

It really does read a lot that people supportive of the opposition do not want things to succeed or do not want to see progress made if it isnt under their terms.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: care costs

It's a verbatim video from Sky News. If you only watch news from sources you approve of you won't get the full picture. You should watch the video as it's wholly relevant. It's easy to nitpick but it's bloody hard to govern.

Sorry for any assumptions, that was wrong of me, but that is how it comes across. This is a big step forward that is a big movement in the right direction. One can argue it doesnt go far enough but it is a sea change and a positive move and people really should see it like that (unless you approve of people losing almost all their savings?)

It really does read a lot that people supportive of the opposition do not want things to succeed or do not want to see progress made if it isnt under their terms.

James you are sort of missing the point. Many conservative MPs couldn't support this proposal despite almost always voting with the government on every other issue, don't you want to know why? I don't really care what Labour's proposal is until they have one and they probably won't have one until they are in government because you don't win elections by being honest. You think 'well what are Labour going to do??!' is some big gotcha because you have decided I am some politicised left wing activist, I am not and therefore it isn't.

I disagree, I don't see it as a big step forward. I do not have much in way of savings, live in rented accommodation and will inherit more of my parents wealth as a result of this bill, but I still don't support it because it is prioritises preserving generational wealth over what is best for the country which is accessing it and distributing it via progressive taxation. I will make it really simple, I don't feel entitled to my parents accumulated wealth and I think it is counter intuitive to build our funding model around the premise that inherited wealth is a good thing for the nation as a whole.

[JamesWales]

Re: care costs

James you are sort of missing the point. Many conservative MPs couldn't support this proposal despite almost always voting with the government on every other issue, don't you want to know why? I don't really care what Labour's proposal is until they have one and they probably won't have one until they are in government because you don't win elections by being honest. You think 'well what are Labour going to do??!' is some big gotcha because you have decided I am some politicised left wing activist, I am not and therefore it isn't.

I disagree, I don't see it as a big step forward. I do not have much in way of savings, live in rented accommodation and will inherit more of my parents wealth as a result of this bill, but I still don't support it because it is prioritises preserving generational wealth over what is best for the country which is accessing it and distributing it via progressive taxation. I will make it really simple, I don't feel entitled to my parents accumulated wealth and I think it is counter intuitive to build our funding model around the premise that inherited wealth is a good thing for the nation as a whole.

My understanding is that somr Tory MPs, generally in working class areas, voted against due to a change in the legislation which made it less palatable, especially in terms of how the media and opposition framed it. They were, of course, safe in the knowledge the legislation would pass.

I would also agree with you on progressive taxation etc. I am in favour it as opposed to regressive taxes such as VAT etc.

It doesnt change the basic principle here however. Social care needs paying for. It's a can that has been kicked down the road for years and causes emotional and financial heartache for thousands of families every year and is a massive contribution towards many elderly feeling they are a burden.

It is probably impossible to find a perfect solution to something as grossly imperfect and unjust as caring for the sick or old, but this is the closest we have come to it and it is a massive step forward and hopefully prevents the endless politicisation of it. Remember this ridiculousness? How many have had finances wiped out needlessly in the last four years because of that? https://www.theguardian.com/society/...tive-manifesto

My suspicion is that were the exact same policy put forward by a different party then you would be in favour, recognising, imperfect that it is, that it is a step forward and gives more security to the poorest in old age, which it manifestly does compared to the system that is currently in place and has been for years

[Eric Cartman]

Re: care costs

My understanding is that somr Tory MPs, generally in working class areas, voted against due to a change in the legislation which made it less palatable, especially in terms of how the media and opposition framed it. They were, of course, safe in the knowledge the legislation would pass.

'Less palatable' in what way?

From what I heard, a lot of those who abstained rather than voted against did so because they were very confident the bill in its current form wouldn't make it past the next stage in the Lords. It won't be changed enough for me to support it but I think the new way of calculating the cap (that the gov tried to slip in without telling anybody) will be removed.

My suspicion is that were the exact same policy put forward by a different party then you would be in favour, recognising, imperfect that it is, that it is a step forward and gives more security to the poorest in old age, which it manifestly does compared to the system that is currently in place and has been for years

That probably says more about your approach to political discourse than mine. I supported May's policy as it created provision for people to access wealth held in their homes to pay for social care (i.e. what I have said in almost every post in this thread), unfortunately CCHQ wrecked it after she started nose-diving in the polls.

[life on mars]

Re: care costs

NHS , Social Care and immigration are political football and enjoyed by parties as weapons of argument to supplement ones political view , my guess is if your ran a business you'd find a different way to fund them that favours you .

[Eric Cartman]

Re: care costs

NHS , Social Care and immigration are political football and enjoyed by parties as weapons of argument to supplement ones political view , my guess is if your ran a business you'd find a different way to fund them that favours you .

Is that meant to be directed at me? I have already said I stand to benefit from the proposals and still do not agree with them so that doesn't really make any sense.

[jon1959]

Re: care costs

Is that meant to be directed at me? I have already said I stand to benefit from the proposals and still do not agree with them so that doesn't really make any sense.

LOM not making sense?

[life on mars]

Re: care costs

Is that meant to be directed at me? I have already said I stand to benefit from the proposals and still do not agree with them so that doesn't really make any sense.

No not at all, just a at statement really for anyone ?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: care costs

No not at all, just a at statement really for anyone ?

Wherever I leave my at, that's my ome.

[life on mars]

Re: care costs

Wherever I leave my at, that's my ome.

Hope you left food for your at