+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 192

Thread: So it's National Insurance then

  1. #41

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by Vindec View Post
    With today's announcement, coupled with all the other increases since the bus, the health service will probably receive somewhere near or even more than the £350m per week but not because of BREXIT. The Kings Fund state an additional £60bn but it is impossible to disaggregate the figures with inflation etc.

    The bus statement was misleading but I suppose it was intended to convey the point that the BREXIT saving would free up funds for a government to spend that amount on the NHS or anything else for that matter. We know how that has worked out.

    Of course Labour might have a brilliant plan for social care but the interviews I have seen today avoids giving a straight answer. In essence there is no opposition plan meaning those who are asked to comment can only criticise.

    As I have said before, at least we now have a plan which is far better than the arrangements which currently apply which forced me to sell under a power of attorney my parents house for Nursing Home fees. The new arrangements are far from perfect but at least the nettle has been grasped.
    There's no denying the extra funding that the current government has put into the NHS, but isnt it just papering over the cracks of cuts by previous Tory administrations?

  2. #42

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by dml1954 View Post
    Sounds like the politics of envy there to me. Plus, just because you are living in a house worth over £500000 doesnít mean you are rich. There are two or three bed semis in Cardiff worth that. Plus again that most pensioners have worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and National Insurance, and spent/saved their money prudently, so why should they have their property snatched off them later in life.
    Sounds like a slogan somebody without a point uses to me.

    You don't think people should have to pay for their own food and housing? That's a bit too far left for me you tankie.

  3. #43

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesp View Post
    The care home my mum is in it works out around 17 months, so we'll be at that point in about a month's time. be interesting to see this pans out now The home she is in is brilliant but obviously expensive.
    Assuming that this idea is a re-invented version of changes proposed in 2015 (which it seems to be), the idea that no-one will pay more than £85,000 is a myth, unfortunately - but it's a great headline!

    I'm an IFA specialising in retirement / later life planning, and the proposal seems to be along the lines of ...

    Let's say someone's paying £60,000pa (which is about the rate for a good quality care home).

    Firstly, £12-£14,000 of this £60,000 will be treated as 'hotel costs' (food and accommodation) so immediately only around £47,000 will be counted towards the 'cap'.

    Secondly, the system needs to be set up to avoid it being abused ... if it's all fully paid for when someone hits the 'cap', then we there would be a clamour to book mum and dad the flashest, nicest - and most expensive care home possible. So the amount that counts toward the 'cap' will be a 'reasonable' one. This looks like it's based on what the local authority pay for their care homes; somewhere in the region of £35,000pa.

    So, forget that someone's paying £60,000 - Boris reckons £35,000 is what's 'reasonable' to pay (although I've not met any self-funder able to get a half decent care home for anywhere near this), and we need to deduct £13,000 for hotel costs. Therefore of the £60,000 paid, only around £22,000 will only count to this £85,000 'cap'.

    To hit the £85,000 'cap' on care, someone paying £60,000pa would need to have actually paid around four years (longer than the average spell in a care home incidentally) - so around £240,000.

    After this point, Bozza will step in and pay what they feel is a reasonable element towards the 'care' cost (ie £22,000 per year of the £60,000).

    I've got too much time on my hands ... bring back the football!!!

  4. #44

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Putting politics aside we do need to consider that 400 billion has been spent on Covid and that is an extraordinary value.

  5. #45

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by life on mars View Post
    Unless its funded from the public purse , taxpayers or as other countries do through separate insurance , as you righty point out folk are living and working longer that pulls on the purse strings as the elderly need greater support and care , we can't have it all ways Covid health funding ,vaccines , job / business support , has tipped the world of government funding on its head , extreme measure for extreme times .

    I note the triple lock is going to be suspended or scrapped , this is a big balancing act .
    It was suspended because it spat out an absolutely ridiculous 8%, the pension will still go up significantly more than most peoples wages in this country this year.

  6. #46

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by Re-sign Carl Dale View Post
    Assuming that this idea is a re-invented version of changes proposed in 2015 (which it seems to be), the idea that no-one will pay more than £85,000 is a myth, unfortunately - but it's a great headline!

    I'm an IFA specialising in retirement / later life planning, and the proposal seems to be along the lines of ...

    Let's say someone's paying £60,000pa (which is about the rate for a good quality care home).

    Firstly, £12-£14,000 of this £60,000 will be treated as 'hotel costs' (food and accommodation) so immediately only around £47,000 will be counted towards the 'cap'.

    Secondly, the system needs to be set up to avoid it being abused ... if it's all fully paid for when someone hits the 'cap', then we there would be a clamour to book mum and dad the flashest, nicest - and most expensive care home possible. So the amount that counts toward the 'cap' will be a 'reasonable' one. This looks like it's based on what the local authority pay for their care homes; somewhere in the region of £35,000pa.

    So, forget that someone's paying £60,000 - Boris reckons £35,000 is what's 'reasonable' to pay (although I've not met any self-funder able to get a half decent care home for anywhere near this), and we need to deduct £13,000 for hotel costs. Therefore of the £60,000 paid, only around £22,000 will only count to this £85,000 'cap'.

    To hit the £85,000 'cap' on care, someone paying £60,000pa would need to have actually paid around four years (longer than the average spell in a care home incidentally) - so around £240,000.

    After this point, Bozza will step in and pay what they feel is a reasonable element towards the 'care' cost (ie £22,000 per year of the £60,000).

    I've got too much time on my hands ... bring back the football!!!
    That is really useful information and actually seems fairer to me than what the headline suggests.

  7. #47

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by Vindec View Post
    Of course Labour might have a brilliant plan for social care but the interviews I have seen today avoids giving a straight answer. In essence there is no opposition plan meaning those who are asked to comment can only criticise
    This is a massive open goal for Labour, which I'm sure they'll completely miss like usual.

  8. #48

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    So someone earning 50k could mitigate the NI rise by drinking aporox 4 pints less per week .

  9. #49

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    c,mon starmer now its your chance to shine .....................

  10. #50

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by Re-sign Carl Dale View Post
    Assuming that this idea is a re-invented version of changes proposed in 2015 (which it seems to be), the idea that no-one will pay more than £85,000 is a myth, unfortunately - but it's a great headline!

    I'm an IFA specialising in retirement / later life planning, and the proposal seems to be along the lines of ...

    Let's say someone's paying £60,000pa (which is about the rate for a good quality care home).

    Firstly, £12-£14,000 of this £60,000 will be treated as 'hotel costs' (food and accommodation) so immediately only around £47,000 will be counted towards the 'cap'.

    Secondly, the system needs to be set up to avoid it being abused ... if it's all fully paid for when someone hits the 'cap', then we there would be a clamour to book mum and dad the flashest, nicest - and most expensive care home possible. So the amount that counts toward the 'cap' will be a 'reasonable' one. This looks like it's based on what the local authority pay for their care homes; somewhere in the region of £35,000pa.

    So, forget that someone's paying £60,000 - Boris reckons £35,000 is what's 'reasonable' to pay (although I've not met any self-funder able to get a half decent care home for anywhere near this), and we need to deduct £13,000 for hotel costs. Therefore of the £60,000 paid, only around £22,000 will only count to this £85,000 'cap'.

    To hit the £85,000 'cap' on care, someone paying £60,000pa would need to have actually paid around four years (longer than the average spell in a care home incidentally) - so around £240,000.

    After this point, Bozza will step in and pay what they feel is a reasonable element towards the 'care' cost (ie £22,000 per year of the £60,000).

    I've got too much time on my hands ... bring back the football!!!
    Thank you for the explanation, as always with these things the devil is in the detail eh? It frightens me to think what kind of care we would get for £35,000 per year when we pay nearly double that. I don't know if you've had any experience dealing with Cardiff Council to help with care funding but bloody hell they are slow, still waiting for an assessment of my mum's needs after 6 months!

  11. #51

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    My understanding that this increase was also to help clear some of the NHS backlog?

  12. #52

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesp View Post
    Thank you for the explanation, as always with these things the devil is in the detail eh? It frightens me to think what kind of care we would get for £35,000 per year when we pay nearly double that. I don't know if you've had any experience dealing with Cardiff Council to help with care funding but bloody hell they are slow, still waiting for an assessment of my mum's needs after 6 months!
    Aye , it's torture

    Good luck

  13. #53

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    edit

  14. #54

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Whilst we are living in unprecedented times ......

    Matt Hancock , Mr Naughty as he's known with the ladies , stood up in the commons to speak 😉

    WTF ?

  15. #55

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Lets be honest here. At a rough guess, iíd say at least 50% of self employed folk claimed all 5 government grants, when they couldnít really justify it.
    That will be conveniently brushed under the carpet by the Government bashers on here.

  16. #56

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by William Treseder View Post
    Lets be honest here. At a rough guess, iíd say at least 50% of self employed folk claimed all 5 government grants, when they couldnít really justify it.
    That will be conveniently brushed under the carpet by the Government bashers on here.
    Self employed people who said their declared income was etc etc and were accused of always trousering the cash had an income during the pandemic equitable to what they had declared

    Which is right and justifiable isn't it ?

  17. #57

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by Re-sign Carl Dale View Post
    Assuming that this idea is a re-invented version of changes proposed in 2015 (which it seems to be), the idea that no-one will pay more than £85,000 is a myth, unfortunately - but it's a great headline!

    I'm an IFA specialising in retirement / later life planning, and the proposal seems to be along the lines of ...

    Let's say someone's paying £60,000pa (which is about the rate for a good quality care home).

    Firstly, £12-£14,000 of this £60,000 will be treated as 'hotel costs' (food and accommodation) so immediately only around £47,000 will be counted towards the 'cap'.

    Secondly, the system needs to be set up to avoid it being abused ... if it's all fully paid for when someone hits the 'cap', then we there would be a clamour to book mum and dad the flashest, nicest - and most expensive care home possible. So the amount that counts toward the 'cap' will be a 'reasonable' one. This looks like it's based on what the local authority pay for their care homes; somewhere in the region of £35,000pa.

    So, forget that someone's paying £60,000 - Boris reckons £35,000 is what's 'reasonable' to pay (although I've not met any self-funder able to get a half decent care home for anywhere near this), and we need to deduct £13,000 for hotel costs. Therefore of the £60,000 paid, only around £22,000 will only count to this £85,000 'cap'.

    To hit the £85,000 'cap' on care, someone paying £60,000pa would need to have actually paid around four years (longer than the average spell in a care home incidentally) - so around £240,000.

    After this point, Bozza will step in and pay what they feel is a reasonable element towards the 'care' cost (ie £22,000 per year of the £60,000).

    I've got too much time on my hands ... bring back the football!!!
    Very interesting. If true there is not a single commentator who has analysed the implications in such detail. I presume the upshot of today's plan will mean those in residential care will still be required to sell their homes to pay for their care.

    If that is the case I cannot understand why so much money is required to pay for a system that is not very much different (except for some tinkering around the edges) to the present arrangements.

  18. #58

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY View Post
    Aye , it's torture

    Good luck
    Thanks Sludge

  19. #59

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    So Wales gets a share of this money

    Considering South Wales in particular spends a great deal on social care then clearly it needs to get its nose in the trough

  20. #60

    Re: So it's National Insurance then

    Quote Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY View Post
    The social care system in this country has had it

    The elderly population keeps living longer

    And the people who work in care are paid crap wages

    It's a tsunami
    When people regularly take out more of the system than put in thatís what happens.

    Then those same people who have contributed the best part of Fukc all moan about it.

    There absolutely should be a tier system for who has paid NI over the years.
    Those that have paid most should absolutely get better and preferential treatment.

    The houses that they WORKED to pay for should go to what they want.

    You do believe in Darwinís Survival of the Fittest and natural selection after all!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •