Andy Burnham should put the damn social care tax on landlords and big occupational pensions

[CurdinHenry]

Why is it always workers who pay

we need to end the segregation between how some illnesses are deemed NHS and paid for by the state (cancer) and some are deemed social care and are paid for by the individual or family (Alzheimer’s) Either illness is treated free at the point of need, or it isn’t. At the moment this split causes great hardship.

I agree with this @Witchlite . We pay for care for adults with learning disabilities who will never be able to work, so why is Alzheimer's treated differently? At least many of those who develop Alzheimer's will have worked and paid for other people's care needs during their working lives.

Aren’t people on 100k already paying far more tax than the rest of us and have already lost a number of benefits? Shouldn’t we be encouraging wage growth, so more people are able to earn great salaries?

Yes, that's something else that needs to change. More use of tapering would stop that. But of course, someone already paying max pension contributions can't pay in any more, so it doesn't work for those quite a way over £100k.

Yes indeed.

Totally agree. I know the owners of a private care home and they are loaded. They charge a fortune in fees and have a lovely home in the Uk plus a lovely holiday home abroad, all on the back of the care homes they own.
Scandalous that a resident has had to sell their own home they worked hard for, instead of leaving it to their dc. Then the owners cream off the sale of the residents home. There should be a cap on fees, it's an absolute disgrace 😡😡
I've been invited to go to the holiday home, but I have turned it down on principal.

100%. Someone earning £100,000 already pays enough tax. £31,442.60 to be precise. I reckon they're contributing more than enough.

In fact, someone earning £125,000 pays £46,942.60 in tax.

That poster is really is barking up the wrong tree if she thinks there are any pips left to make squeak out of the mid to high earning bracket.

I think this is really tricky as it depends so much on quality of life not just age.

One of my nans was living independently and getting the bus into town aged 94 - it was definitely worth her having treatments she needed in her 80s as she had a good quality of life.

My other nan was in a home with dementia in her 80s and it felt cruel to prolong her life further, especially with aggressive treatments. She would have been upset at what it was costing.

But who makes the decisions between these two cases?

Educated societies have less children and do less agrarian labour.
We are where we are. Or There you are then.

The Irish Fair Deal gets criticized for underfunding and lack of support for home-based care.

Japan and Germany have the Long Term Care Insurance Mandate that everyone over 40 pays. However, housing costs are less and they don't have the tuition fees burden that we do. Most of my contemporaries have primary-aged kids and they are struggling. I can't see that happening here.

Denmark does it through high income and VAT taxes, plus everyone pays for "hotel" expenses, such as basic accomodation and meals.

The Netherlands operates on subsidised basis, with the state paying some of the costs and the caree the rest, based on a sliding income scale. The aim is to keep the system affordable without draining everyone's savings.

The big problem isn't the money (although I'm skeptical that 30 billion will be enough - the NHS was underfunded from day one - and Japan and Germany have had to overhaul their system twice) - it's the infrastructure. All of the counties I mentioned above have home-first mandates, community centres, dementia villages and agressive reablement packages to stop people from being bed-bound in the first place. The cheapest thing you can do is keep people active.

It's going to need a massive culture change across the UK, including faster NHS discharges, more purpose-built places and people taking more responsibility for their health.

The irony is, the more people take responsibility for their health, the longer they live. You can reduce risk of certain care needs by managing weight, maintaining mobility and strength as best you can, but there's not a great deal you can do about cognitive decline, which accounts for up to 80% of people in residential care.

Also not a lot you can do about all the various different cancers that don't have any known "lifestyle" causes, nor other entirely random health conditions likewise with no lifestyle causes. Cancer treatments are very expensive yet 60% aren't caused by modifiable lifestyle choices and are either entirely random, hereditary or environmental outside the person's control.

All you need to do is have care homes run as non profit making organisations. DD1 lives in a care home, run by charity. They are not allowed to make a profit. The fees charged are the cost of the placement.

I agree… so why are there not more charity run care homes?

Hospices seem to be run by charities.

It’s a strange landscape…

I worked hard to leave my assets to my children
Which I will find a way to do well in advance.

Squeezed to absolute fuck and well beyond that.

But you may not get that choice if you require care for dementia for instance.

And if you do dispose of your assets to your children, (risking DoA) who is going to pay for the care you need?

Higher paid people can get a lot of tax relief on pensions and ISAs…

Everyone is entitled to pay into a pension or ISA and get tax relief

That's not an issue for those that never had the money in the first place is it?
I wont be risking DoA... I am free to give my assets away well in advance according to my solicitor.

But people on low incomes can’t afford to.

It’s a way better off people can reduce their overall tax bill, and have more money in their pockets in the long term.

Yes, to support themselves and not become a burden to the state.

But a higher earner still pays more tax while using tax efficient methods to reduce the bill! I am self employed, I minimise my tax bill but using all tax reductions I can - pensions, paying myself dividends instead of salary etc but I still pay more tax than a lower income earner. It’s not then my job to pay more again!!

The thing is if you do that you won’t have to pay for care but you’ll get the minimum, so short visits from different carers until you absolutely cannot stay alone any longer and then the LA will fund a home that you won’t get much choice about. In the meantime your family will be tearing their hair out trying to help and support you without the funds to do it. Hopefully AB will carry through his promises and it will all be improved for those with money or without money, for professional carers and for family carers.

I don't want to pay for social care as I want the option for euthanasia instead at the point I would need social care.