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

[FiddlyDiddlyDee]

"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.

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?

@FiddlyDiddlyDee that’s not how averages work….

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

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

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...!!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 😆

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?

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!

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?

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?

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

But we don’t live in a meritocracy.

It comes from the high tax on paper wealth generators

Is there enough of them in a meritocracy?

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

Well our chancellors clearly haven’t. Does any country in the world have this model?

@CitrineRaindropPhoenix don’t bring logic here!

'Wealth creators'

What are those then? You can post videos on youtube and make several million.

How does that actually create any of this wealth that we valuably need that you're on about?

Look at the studies of all the failed wealth taxes globally. Also above £3m won’t raise much anyway.

it’s not fair that people who don’t work or contribute have others pay for them. But what’s the alternative- let them starve? Life isn’t fair. In a decent society we take care of people who can’t care for themselves. However if you can pay for care but just would rather keep your money, that’s a want not a need.

you can’t expect the taxpayer to pay for services for you so you can give your money to your children. Public services and finances are in crisis. Giving money to wealthy people isn’t an option.

Is there enough of them in a meritocracy?

Yes there's a lot of them, you're typing on one.

Well our chancellors clearly haven’t. Does any country in the world have this model?

Oh genius chancellors. Is any country in the western world of our size actually not in trouble right now?

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?

So your basic argument is someone with a household wealth of 550k (your figure of the average lower middle class person) shouldn’t pay for their care & should be able to leave an inheritance although in an ideal world you would tax inheritance heavily.

Someone with a higher household wealth should pay because they are wealthier.

Someone with less should also pay because they were reckless.

👍

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.

Oh genius chancellors. Is any country in the western world of our size actually not in trouble right now?

Whats that got to do with the question I asked?

This isn't really a change to anything is it though. The change was that a cap was due to be put in place and now won't be. My grandfather needed care and it had to be paid for, I think this is fair enough, yes perhaps disappointing to potential beneficiaries, but fair enough.