The cost of later life social care

  oresome 08:35 19 May 2017

Should it be financed collectively through taxation or by stripping the assets of those unfortunate individuals who need it?

  Forum Editor 15:17 19 May 2017


"They drop the tax of the rich then expect the poorer to make it up."

Let me quote from a report prepared by the Institute for fiscal studies in 2010. The IFS is Britain's leading independent economic research institute. This is part of what they said about the tax burden in the UK:-

"If we define "net taxes" as "taxes paid less benefits received", then the net tax rate of the poorest fifth (of taxpayers) is -46% of their original income (or -32% of their after-tax income), with the negative number reflecting that they are net beneficiaries. At the other end, the richest fifth have a net tax rate of +33% of their original income (or +50% of their after-tax income). These figures show what one would expect: the tax and benefit system as a whole takes money from the rich, and gives it to the poor."

That was in 2010, but two months ago, the Institute updated the statistical data, and this is what they said then:-

**The proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people. Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax.**

Just under a half of the population pays no income tax at all.

I prefer to listen to an independent research institute, rather than to your extremely biased opinion.

  Pine Man 15:27 19 May 2017


'I shall either spoil my ballot or not vote at all this time.'

You don't like the Tory manifesto so cannot vote for them and no other party warrants a vote. I get that and not voting is clearly an option BUT what on earth would you be hoping to achieve by spoiling your ballot?!

  john bunyan 15:46 19 May 2017

I do think Mrs May has shortened the odds of a win by an unnecessary offer to visit fox hunting, being a bit vague as to which OAP's will lose the winter fuel allowance ( why not say the loss will apply to households where one or more OAP's are on the 40% tax level) , and not adopting the Liberal notion of 1% on income tax for the NHS. Also their campaign has been obsessed with the cult of personality. They may well have converted a landslide into a close call or worse. I hope that folk realise that , regrettably, Labour have been taken over at the top , including Monentum, by a Marxist revolutionary movement, acting as a Trojan horse into a formerly credible Opposition. Defence alone , for me , stops me voting for Labour this time.

  Flak999 15:53 19 May 2017

Pine Man

"what on earth would you be hoping to achieve by spoiling your ballot?!"

I know it won't achieve anything, but if enough people did it, it would send a message that we find all of the parties policies lacking.

  Toneman 17:29 19 May 2017

Pine Man Do you think for one moment that any one of them would take notice?

  Quickbeam 17:47 19 May 2017

A single vote for may won't make a difference to her strong and stable landslide, but multiplied by the many, not the few, it all adds up...

  morddwyd 19:51 19 May 2017

morddwyd: IF and when you need social care, what you have gained in life will not matter to you.

I already need social care, and I and I have to pay for it when others don't.

I can assure you that what I have gained in life - a slightly better retirement income and my own home - do matter to me!

  JYPX 20:20 04 Jun 2017

It is hard to figure out is this is important....(this link) click here is a disagreement between Tory Mp Kevin Hollingrake and Paul Lewis (BBC Money Box). Hollingrake is quoting something that Theresa May said to Andrew Neil. "First, we will align the future basis for means-testing for domiciliary care with that for residential care." Hollingrake says....Expect that rule to continue. Lewis is saying he has written confirmation from CCHQ that this rule will not continue.

But the part that got my attention is the bit that triggered the exchange. When the Tory manifesto appeared, the The Chartered Institute of Taxation said: "There is a great deal of detail missing that we need. But bringing the value of the house into the equation, how would that work if more than one person lived in the house with you? Now (currently) the value of the house is disregarded. One has to assume that this would be same under these proposals.’

In BBC Money Box (broadcast yesterday), Tory MP Chris Philp told Lewis that a charge will be put on the house when the first person in a couple goes into a care home. So the assumption (last paragraph) is wrong then?

Is this an acceptable state of affairs 4 days before a General Election?


  Quickbeam 20:43 04 Jun 2017

It smacks of election policy being made on the hoof!

  Forum Editor 22:23 04 Jun 2017

"It smacks of election policy being made on the hoof!"

As most election policies are, to some extent.

Electioneering is an art, not a science. Policies are outlined, and then massaged as the changing mood of the electorate is discerned. It's the reason that manifestos are often vague on detail.

It's not an ideal system, but it's the one that has operated for as long as I can remember. Campaigning politicians are taking part in a competition, with the prize being votes.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Mi Mix 3 5G UK Release Date, Price & Specification

D&AD Awards 2019: Check out the Pencil winners from the year's biggest creative awards

WWDC 2019 dates and what to expect

iPhone 2019 : date de sortie, prix et autres rumeurs