Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Government scraps cap on care costs to help tackle spending ‘black hole’

241 replies

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 13:44

"The social care plan would have introduced an £86,000 cap on the amount an older or disabled person would have to pay towards their support at home or in care homes from next October.

After spending £86,000 on their care, people with a high level of need would have had their care costs paid for by local authorities."

My take on scrapping this is that it looks like another move that's punitive to the lower middle class. Many of the lower middle will burn through everything they've got in short order and leave nothing to their struggling children that need it.

OP posts:
Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:14

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 17:09

6 pages in & despite various tangents no actual valid argument why people who can pay for care shouldn’t.

Oh I'm sorry did you miss the bit where I posted 2 links to Labour arguing that they're in favour of a care cap? Why don't you go away and read those links as well as the Dilnot paper they based it on then come back when you can have an adult discussion.

OP posts:
Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 30/07/2024 17:14

Someone upthread mentioned that the cap was not equitable due to variations in house prices across the country, and I think that's true.

But Rachel Reeves said there was a huge black hole created by the outgoing government's unfunded spending plans and we can't afford to do everything at once.

It is also true that this government has only been in office for 4 weeks so surely they are entitled to a bit more time before we go off on a tantrum about them.

Unless of course you were never going to like them anyway 😂

GreenPandaB · 30/07/2024 17:13

I don’t understand the issue. If I don’t get left any inheritance because my parents need care that’s fine. It’s not my money.

Should we pay for milk at different rates according to household income? Why subsidise someone who doesn’t need it?

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 17:12

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:01

To your second paragraph.

How vulnerable do you think lower middle class people are without a care cap?

Take into account Labour is about to open a debate about euthanasia.

Show quote history

People who can afford to pay for care but don’t want to are not at all vulnerable. Hope that answers your question.

The NHS and care system are very short of resources. Subsidising the relatively wealthy is not affordable

GreenPandaB · 30/07/2024 17:12

We are already in a place where it doesn’t pay to work minimum wage jobs for single people and UC etc is propping up families. People like to talk about min wage jobs as though those people have no other source of income and UC and wages are mutually exclusive, it’s so misleading.

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:11

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 17:07

A one off wealth tax! Lol. Are you aware care costs and other spending commitments are not one off?

The uk borrowed £303 billion last year just to cover the gap between tax raised and spending obligations. Forcing people to sell their businesses to pay a 10% asset tax will only make things worse.

Show quote history

What does the fact that care costs and other spending commitments are not one off have to do with a one off wealth tax?

Now you're arguing that people will be forced to sell their business to pay for a 10% asset tax on their property instead of downsizing in the worst case.

Lol at that.

OP posts:
Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 17:09

6 pages in & despite various tangents no actual valid argument why people who can pay for care shouldn’t.

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 17:09

ThisOldThang · 30/07/2024 17:01

Surely dementia is a medical condition and treatment should be part of the NHS budget?

It’s not really affordable for the NHS to cover personal care needs of dementia patients as well as healthcare. It can’t cover its existing obligations.

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:08

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 17:04

Ok, bye then.

Another excellent contribution 😆.

Another ad hominem.

OP posts:
User6874356 · 30/07/2024 17:07

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:03

I said a one off tax, and I talked about selling property and not just moving the business.

If everyone decided to sell their home to move Country because of a one off wealth tax where would the money come for them not to lose money on that asset exactly?

Edited
Show quote history

A one off wealth tax! Lol. Are you aware care costs and other spending commitments are not one off?

The uk borrowed £303 billion last year just to cover the gap between tax raised and spending obligations. Forcing people to sell their businesses to pay a 10% asset tax will only make things worse.

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:06

nietzscheanvibe · 30/07/2024 16:56

@FiddlyDiddlyDee You talk about people who can't afford to pay for their own care as if they've ALL been "living recklessly", but many will have been the low paid key workers you were advocating for in a previous post, who were unable to.

I'm all for radical changes. For example, why do we subsidise businesses to pay low wages by providing a low-pay working benefit to the individual? This allows the companies to pay a low wage whilst turning a working individual into a "benefits claimant".

Instead, why not mandate the business to pay a proper wage then make the business claim the benefits - I'm sure society would take a much dimmer view of businesses claiming direct subsidies in this way, just to increase shareholders' profits.

Show quote history

I didn't say they've all been living recklessly.

I asked why it was fair to bail out anyone that lives recklessly?

What reason would you have not to? Get to about 70 with a moderate about of money, well, why wouldn't you go to a casino and put it all on red?

OP posts:
User6874356 · 30/07/2024 17:04

nietzscheanvibe · 30/07/2024 16:56

@FiddlyDiddlyDee You talk about people who can't afford to pay for their own care as if they've ALL been "living recklessly", but many will have been the low paid key workers you were advocating for in a previous post, who were unable to.

I'm all for radical changes. For example, why do we subsidise businesses to pay low wages by providing a low-pay working benefit to the individual? This allows the companies to pay a low wage whilst turning a working individual into a "benefits claimant".

Instead, why not mandate the business to pay a proper wage then make the business claim the benefits - I'm sure society would take a much dimmer view of businesses claiming direct subsidies in this way, just to increase shareholders' profits.

Show quote history

In reality though the minimum wage is already quite high. Many people can live on it but those who have children, high rents or work part time get subsidies. A single person working full time on the minimum wage doesn’t get uc.

How do we control for that by increasing the minimum wage yet further?

also if wages increase what happens is that industry replaces them with tech. so less jobs.

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 17:04

Ok, bye then.

Another excellent contribution 😆.

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:03

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:59

It doesn’t cost millions to move many businesses - certainly not you tube content! And yes of course - anyone would move their business if they were taxed 10% of assets a year.

Anyone I will leave you to it. Have a look into economics and tax revenues. The state pension alone costs over £100billion every single year. If you’ve chased away all the wealth creators, how you going to pay for that?

Show quote history

I said a one off tax, and I talked about selling property and not just moving the business.

If everyone decided to sell their home to move Country because of a one off wealth tax where would the money come for them not to lose money on that asset exactly?

OP posts:
ThisOldThang · 30/07/2024 17:01

Surely dementia is a medical condition and treatment should be part of the NHS budget?

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 17:01

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:53

I’m sure you would but it’s a complex matter and I have neither the time nor inclination. Look into it yourself.

i want a society where we take care of the most vulnerable with our collective resources. Not one where we pay to subsidize the relatively wealthy.

Show quote history

To your second paragraph.

How vulnerable do you think lower middle class people are without a care cap?

Take into account Labour is about to open a debate about euthanasia.

OP posts:
Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 17:00

I'm all for radical changes. For example, why do we subsidise businesses to pay low wages by providing a low-pay working benefit to the individual? This allows the companies to pay a low wage whilst turning a working individual into a "benefits claimant".

Same with housing benefit to landlords.

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:59

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:52

Ok, so basically if I ask you to pay a one off 200k tax and it costs you a few million to sell your home and move your business, you're going to move it?

Show quote history

It doesn’t cost millions to move many businesses - certainly not you tube content! And yes of course - anyone would move their business if they were taxed 10% of assets a year.

Anyone I will leave you to it. Have a look into economics and tax revenues. The state pension alone costs over £100billion every single year. If you’ve chased away all the wealth creators, how you going to pay for that?

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:57

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:56

But I haven’t claimed the western world is fine. You said we need to tax the wealthy and I asked how you would do it. I thought your answer was rubbish. That’s not bad faith 🙄

Ok, bye then.

OP posts:
nearlylovemyusername · 30/07/2024 16:56

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 14:41

That's strange

The shadow care secretary said they were committed to this prior to the election

So I guess their fully costed manifesto wasn't fully costed?

Show quote history

is anyone really surprised??

we discussed it here on many threads before election, that there will be "oh, it's much worse than we thought" soon after election and then horrific raid of middle classes

just wait for 30th October

I think a lot of people in their 50th will start retiring earlier - this will be no point in working more as everything you gain will be taken from you

nietzscheanvibe · 30/07/2024 16:56

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:24

How is it not going to raise any money, explain that to me?

Also how is it fair that people who live recklessly and spend everything don't pay for their care, and people who live within their own means do?

Edited
Show quote history

@FiddlyDiddlyDee You talk about people who can't afford to pay for their own care as if they've ALL been "living recklessly", but many will have been the low paid key workers you were advocating for in a previous post, who were unable to.

I'm all for radical changes. For example, why do we subsidise businesses to pay low wages by providing a low-pay working benefit to the individual? This allows the companies to pay a low wage whilst turning a working individual into a "benefits claimant".

Instead, why not mandate the business to pay a proper wage then make the business claim the benefits - I'm sure society would take a much dimmer view of businesses claiming direct subsidies in this way, just to increase shareholders' profits.

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:56

But I haven’t claimed the western world is fine. You said we need to tax the wealthy and I asked how you would do it. I thought your answer was rubbish. That’s not bad faith 🙄

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:56

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:53

I’m sure you would but it’s a complex matter and I have neither the time nor inclination. Look into it yourself.

i want a society where we take care of the most vulnerable with our collective resources. Not one where we pay to subsidize the relatively wealthy.

Show quote history

I have looked into it as have many economists, and it's fairly easy to raise a large amount of money from property taxes. That's political barrier and not an economic one.

OP posts:
Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:54

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:51

I take that as no countries then.

if you can’t answer the question just say, no shame.

No that's clearly the answer. The question is why you were asking me for my input in the first place if you just wanted to point out everything is just fine and dandy in the western world and functioning well rather than think about how that would work.

Again bad faith. And you should probably get back to this hard work you're on about.

OP posts:
User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:53

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:39

I'd rather you just explain it to me. How would it not raise much?

And you're basically saying you want a fair society which isn't actually fair.

Edited
Show quote history

I’m sure you would but it’s a complex matter and I have neither the time nor inclination. Look into it yourself.

i want a society where we take care of the most vulnerable with our collective resources. Not one where we pay to subsidize the relatively wealthy.