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:
CitrineRaindropPhoenix · 30/07/2024 16:31

According to the ONS, about a third of all workers count as key workers. If you exclude them plus innovators and exporters, you've probably lost at least half of your tax base. That will mean massive wealth taxes on everyone, huge income tax rises on the remainder and a drop in benefits which makes austerity look generous.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/coronavirusandkeyworkersintheuk/2020-05-15

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:30

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:02

If rich people moved their money out the country that would simply be a form of quantative tightening. The people who actually work for a living would become wealthier as a result of it.

Why are you so hoodwinked by this?

Show quote history

Emm no. Doesn’t work like that. Less people with money and less wealth creators means less taxes and less wealth.

we get you want others to pay for your care so you can keep your money. But the top 1% already pay 28% of all taxes and many already do not pay their way. Why do you think relatively wealthy people should have others subsidize them so they can leave windfalls to their children?

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:27

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:21

That's very easy, I'd rebalance tax to societal value instead of earnings and heavily tax paper wealth generation.

Why would you exclude inheritance from that?

Key workers, innovators, exporters all get low to zero tax.

Key workers low to zero tax! We have an ageing population & a “free” NHS, how would this even work? Key workers is a massive section of society, where would revenue come from?

That's very easy,

No idea why nobody has thought of it tbh 😆

I wouldn't need to exclude inheritance in a meritocracy.

It comes from the high tax on paper wealth generators.

How do you know nobody has thought of it? Have you read every book and paper on this subject?

OP posts:
blackcherryconserve · 30/07/2024 16:27

TheSpoonyNavyReader · 30/07/2024 16:19

They are going to move to the other side of the world.

Pension will not be taxed, they will come back and stay here for 5 months of the year.

Show quote history

Rather drastic to move so very far away from family to avoid paying taxes on their pension. Who will take care of them if/when they become infirm? And are you happy about it? Serious question.
I'm not wealthy (pensioner on fixed income) but I know my DDs and grandchildren would be devastated if I ever contemplated leaving to go so far away. I've already lived with my partner in France 10 years ago but at least I could get back to see them regularly. Five months a year trip back as your DPs plan sounds good on paper but all the travelling and upheaval isn't ideal the older you get!

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:24

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:20

That’s not going to raise any money. Wealth taxes never do and that’s far too high to catch enough people.

I don’t agree that we should be subsidizing inheritance windfalls for relatively wealthy people. People should pay for their own personal care if they can afford to. I don’t believe it’s fair to expect the taxpayers to pay so they can instead give money to their children

Show quote history

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?

OP posts:
Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:21

That's very easy, I'd rebalance tax to societal value instead of earnings and heavily tax paper wealth generation.

Why would you exclude inheritance from that?

Key workers, innovators, exporters all get low to zero tax.

Key workers low to zero tax! We have an ageing population & a “free” NHS, how would this even work? Key workers is a massive section of society, where would revenue come from?

That's very easy,

No idea why nobody has thought of it tbh 😆

caringcarer · 30/07/2024 16:20

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

Yes, a broken promise very early on. People won't forget.

User6874356 · 30/07/2024 16:20

FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 14:53

Oh I don't know, perhaps a wealth tax which hits people around the 3million+ mark instead of the 500k- mark?

Show quote history

That’s not going to raise any money. Wealth taxes never do and that’s far too high to catch enough people.

I don’t agree that we should be subsidizing inheritance windfalls for relatively wealthy people. People should pay for their own personal care if they can afford to. I don’t believe it’s fair to expect the taxpayers to pay so they can instead give money to their children

TheSpoonyNavyReader · 30/07/2024 16:19

blackcherryconserve · 30/07/2024 16:17

How do you feel about that? Where do they plan to live?

Show quote history

They are going to move to the other side of the world.

Pension will not be taxed, they will come back and stay here for 5 months of the year.

Noras · 30/07/2024 16:19

thefireplace · 30/07/2024 14:54

Oh i'd be all for it but apparently it would mean the rich leaving the UK, so it wont happen.

Show quote history

Well fine as long as that takes into account and works out the value of gold plated public sector pensions. The private sector workers might have to hold their retirement funds in capital assets. For every £5000 paid in pension £100,000 is needed in savings. So many in the public sector are on the equivalent of millions in pension value.

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:18

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:11

@FiddlyDiddlyDee so how would you tax the wealthy?

That's very easy, I'd rebalance tax to societal value instead of earnings and heavily tax paper wealth generation. Key workers, innovators, exporters all get low to zero tax.

If anyone doesn't like it they can clear off and facilitate QT.

You seem to thing Countries are run on numbers, they are not, they are run off people. Anyone wanting to profiteer can go wreck another Country.

OP posts:
Tryingtokeepgoing · 30/07/2024 16:18

nietzscheanvibe · 30/07/2024 15:40

Eh? Are you being deliberately obtuse? They've been in for 4 weeks FFS, and now they're doing what they said they'd do, make tough (unpopular) choices. You can't grow an economy in 4 weeks! 😂

Edited for typos

Edited
Show quote history

They don't need to do anything like the scaremongering they are doing - they inherited the fast growing EU economy (IMF), and one of the fastest growing in the UK, with low unemployment and inflation. Of the £20 billion they claim is a 'black hole' (less than 2% of Government spending - so within budgetary norms), £7 billion of the £10 billion spent on pay rises for government employees is unfunded. Despite Sir Kier and Rachel Reeves constantly telling us before and after the election they would not make unfunded spending commitments... A stark reminder not to trust politicians, any politicians...!!

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:17

And is the concern only for the lower middle & not the working class?

blackcherryconserve · 30/07/2024 16:17

TheSpoonyNavyReader · 30/07/2024 16:10

My parents are wealthy, and they are going to leave the country.

Show quote history

How do you feel about that? Where do they plan to live?

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:15

@FiddlyDiddlyDee that’s not how averages work….

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:14

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:11

@FiddlyDiddlyDee why are you convinced so many do own their own home?

The average household wealth after 55 is £553,400. What are you attributing as the lower middle class if it isn't somewhere near that average?

OP posts:
Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:13

@mitogoshi exactly, it was just a Tory soundbite & if they wanted to protect lower classes why not cap at a % rather than a figure. Someone with a 200k house paying 86k is very different to someone paying 86k with a 2m house.

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:11

@FiddlyDiddlyDee so how would you tax the wealthy?

JoyousPinkPeer · 30/07/2024 16:11

Let's be absolutely honest the £86,000 care cap wasn't going to be £86k was it? As some elements eg 'rent of room, food, electric, gas, water etc' are not actual 'care' and would have been additional costs.
Personally, my mother in laws costs were high and she was in a care home for medical reasons (severe parkinsons) and I reckon if we had challenged it via solicitors we would not have had to pay at all ... more people need to do this.

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:11

@FiddlyDiddlyDee why are you convinced so many do own their own home?

TheSpoonyNavyReader · 30/07/2024 16:10

blackcherryconserve · 30/07/2024 15:01

The rich always threaten to leave. I wonder if there are any figures to support their threat 🤔

Show quote history

My parents are wealthy, and they are going to leave the country.

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:09

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:07

@FiddlyDiddlyDee I think you are confused. All I have said is that we need global policies to target global wealth & hopefully they do manage it. You disagree, which is fine.

No we don't

We need Labour to focus on taxing the wealthy and not cutting pensioners benefits and getting rid of plans for care caps

OP posts:
Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:08

Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:05

You seem to have drifted somewhat from your OP about the lower middle classes not been able to leave an inheritance. As I said many of those won’t have anything to leave regardless of the care cap.

It’s not particularly progressive to wait until you are 50/60 plus to improve your life circumstances based on inheritance.

That would be true in a system in which people can improve their life circumstances based on hard work.

And this helps the lower middle class more than it hinders them.

OP posts:
Hangingupnow · 30/07/2024 16:07

@FiddlyDiddlyDee I think you are confused. All I have said is that we need global policies to target global wealth & hopefully they do manage it. You disagree, which is fine.

Original poster
FiddlyDiddlyDee · 30/07/2024 16:06

mitogoshi · 30/07/2024 16:04

@FiddlyDiddlyDee

If you look at the details, this didn't help the lower middle at all, only the most wealthy benefitted, what a surprise. "Hotel costs" that is bed and board were not even in the cap, only care costs

How would the lower middle have not have been helped by not having to sell their home?

OP posts: