Social Care - Increase Tax Or Not.

[Anna B 1,414]

58 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Labours  Liz Kendall was interviewed on news today . Despite being asked three or more times what Labour would do , she couldnt answer 

This doesn't surprise me. It requires a complete turn around back to old Labour values that gave us the NHS in the first place. Neither she or Starmer would ever admit that. They are part of the problem, they all belong to the same  neoliberal party as Boris.

[kidley 48]

19 minutes ago, Anna B said:

This doesn't surprise me. It requires a complete turn around back to old Labour values that gave us the NHS in the first place. Neither she or Starmer would ever admit that. They are part of the problem, they all belong to the same  neoliberal party as Boris.

are you saying you want people like Jeremy corbyn running the country, he had the same idea ie returning to the old labour ways?

[Baron99 794]

'Social care' appears to have become a bit of a misnomer with people solely associating the term as merely looking after pensioners in care or nursing homes due to various reasons.  However, social care is there for anyone who requires it, from cradle to grave, so the argument that the young will be paying for the old is groundless.  The 'old' could equally be paying to support the young. 

 

There's around 31 million people currently in work in the UK & in the grand scheme of things, when paying out, (both for the necessary utilities & other bills & for the additional non-essentials that people could reduce; lets say go without one day's expensive coffee; that £6 pint of craft beer or downloading that music track), 99% wouldn't notice or mimd say a 1% increase in NI as long as it WAS spent on care. 

 

The NHS is heavily involved in social care, not just private nursing homes & isn't that the basis that the NHS was built on?  Everyone contributes regardless, to help everyone else & also yourself if needed, as you'll be very lucky not to require it at some point in life, whether it be a care home or simply requiring a regular nurse home visit or rehabilitation sessions. 

[Delayed 461]

24 minutes ago, kidley said:

are you saying you want people like Jeremy corbyn running the country, he had the same idea ie returning to the old labour ways?

Yes that's her answer to all of the world's problems.

 

"X wouldn't be happening if Corbzy was in charge."

 

https://youtu.be/fAo40EYjUUY

[hackey lad 3,970]

36 minutes ago, Delayed said:

Yes that's her answer to all of the world's problems.

 

"X wouldn't be happening if Corbzy was in charge."

 

https://youtu.be/fAo40EYjUUY

Cracking video .

[Thirsty Relic 213]

As I see it, a lot of people simply don't trust Government (leaving party politics out - I trust none of them!) to spend money they get properly, or for the reasons given.  Too often we hear of it being mis-spent, or siphoned off to quangos and so on, never to be seen again.

We had the opportunity of many millions (maybe billions?) of pounds being available each year to the HNS without the Government having to touch tax funds a few years ago.  What did they do?  Turned it down.  I refer to the offer of Richard Branson to run the National Lottery for the benefit of the NHS.  Instead, they gave the licence to print money to a company from outside the UK.

 

They held auctions for the 3G (and other) wavelengths a few years ago, and were amazed how much money they got.  Did we hear about vast increases in NHS spending and similar?  No.

 

Every 10 years we have a census.  Did an English company get the job of running it this time.  No.  Did it last time?  No.  They'd rather give the work, and profits, to others.

 

Does anybody really think that if taxes were to rise that all the increase revenue would go to the deserving cases like the NHS, and Social care budgets that they say it would?

 

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

14 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

As I see it, a lot of people simply don't trust Government (leaving party politics out - I trust none of them!) to spend money they get properly, or for the reasons given.  Too often we hear of it being mis-spent, or siphoned off to quangos and so on, never to be seen again.

We had the opportunity of many millions (maybe billions?) of pounds being available each year to the HNS without the Government having to touch tax funds a few years ago.  What did they do?  Turned it down.  I refer to the offer of Richard Branson to run the National Lottery for the benefit of the NHS.  Instead, they gave the licence to print money to a company from outside the UK.

 

They held auctions for the 3G (and other) wavelengths a few years ago, and were amazed how much money they got.  Did we hear about vast increases in NHS spending and similar?  No.

 

Every 10 years we have a census.  Did an English company get the job of running it this time.  No.  Did it last time?  No.  They'd rather give the work, and profits, to others.

 

Does anybody really think that if taxes were to rise that all the increase revenue would go to the deserving cases like the NHS, and Social care budgets that they say it would?

 

 

Perhaps they'd rather give the census job to their mates. Perhaps they'd rather give the census job to the cheapest option - the big prize is the data anyway.

[El Cid 219]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Relic said:

Every 10 years we have a census.  Did an English company get the job of running it this time.  No.  Did it last time?  No.  They'd rather give the work, and profits, to others.

Do you buy foreign electrical goods and cars, so why should the Government always buy British when ordinary British people dont?

We live in an international world, when many FTSE companies are international. Johnson got the vote of the patriotic, but its rather symbolic.

[crookesey 633]

16 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

The "who pays" NI is working people, but not rich working people with their own accountant. Or pensioners.

Some accountant that, a decent one would advise their client to take advantage of zero tax thresholds and to pay NI contributions in order to qualify for a state pension, they would also advise that a none earning spouse be taken on the books and treated in an identical manner.

[harvey19 541]

There is only one solution to the social care situation.

Social care care should be provided with no extra expense when needed.

The rich pay more into the system by their taxes and some pay nothing into the system.

Some have been careful with their money through their earning years and saved whilst others have squandered their money.

So extra taxation but also a thorough reassessment of how money can be spent on the NHS which would include social care.

[Anna B 1,414]

13 hours ago, Baron99 said:

'Social care' appears to have become a bit of a misnomer with people solely associating the term as merely looking after pensioners in care or nursing homes due to various reasons.  However, social care is there for anyone who requires it, from cradle to grave, so the argument that the young will be paying for the old is groundless.  The 'old' could equally be paying to support the young. 

 

There's around 31 million people currently in work in the UK & in the grand scheme of things, when paying out, (both for the necessary utilities & other bills & for the additional non-essentials that people could reduce; lets say go without one day's expensive coffee; that £6 pint of craft beer or downloading that music track), 99% wouldn't notice or mimd say a 1% increase in NI as long as it WAS spent on care. 

 

The NHS is heavily involved in social care, not just private nursing homes & isn't that the basis that the NHS was built on?  Everyone contributes regardless, to help everyone else & also yourself if needed, as you'll be very lucky not to require it at some point in life, whether it be a care home or simply requiring a regular nurse home visit or rehabilitation sessions. 

Yes indeed. Social Services cover a wide variety of needs for both young and old. It also covers people with disabilities, and we are all one accident or one illness away from this, that's why it's called 'insurance.'

The current situation for people with these needs and their families is dreadful. They are mostly now the poorest people in society, and very badly served, thanks to the cuts.

 

Also everyone of us is going to grow old and frail whether we believe it or not.

Incidentally, I'm a pensioner and I still pay my tax. 

 

[Bargepole23 337]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

Your friend sounds like a good bloke. If all families had the same values and respect for their relatives as him then our country wouldn't have the social care problem we do today. I hope your friend manages to find a suitable paid job soon.  I'm rather impressed you have such a friend.

No doubt he is a good bloke, but was he, despite his best efforts, able to provide the care that his mother actually needed?

 

No need to answer because neither you or I know the answer. Suffice to say that all situations are different, and just because somebody can cope financially/emotionally with round the clock care for a relative, others can't and we as a society should provide the required help.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Bargepole23