Social Care - Increase Tax Or Not.

[Thirsty Relic 209]

The question as asked is all wrong.   It asks if we should increase taxes for social care, implying that if we want better social care, we have to increase tax.

 

Most people would agree that we need to get more funding to Social case.  Most would also agree that we need more funding to the NHS.  Does this automatically mean that we have to increase taxes for both, or should we look at where the money we currently spend goes?

 

As others have pointed out on this thread, much of the money spent goes into the pockets of Boris's mates since Social care was privatised.  Similarly, much of the money spent on the NHS (especially Covid related) also has been shown to be wasted and going to his mates.

 

We must understand that we are simply being manipulated by the Tory's and their press into believing that they are in a position where they have to abandon their manifesto promises (e.g. triple lock, social spending) because battling Covid has taken all the money.   I think we often need to ask different questions.

 

We've heard the scientists are against vaccination of 12-16 year olds after a long study, yet they are still pressing ahead with it.  They said we'd have booster jabs only for the very elderly and immune system compromised, now they are saying maybe for all over 50's. 

 

People were asking long ago why they have bought up over 350million jabs worth, and are still buying them, when we have only 69 million people in the UK.  Clearly, they have all along decided to force us all to have multiple jabs, but managed the information so we did not know the plan. 

 

Many of these doses are now far less useful than they were, as they work less well against the new variants.  why not use these (that we should not have bought in the first place, as we bought too many) to developing countries and use the newer ones for those at most risk in our population?

 

If we cut out the money wasted in over-buying Covid vaccines, re-privatise social care (so cutting out profits for grredy businesses), we may not need to raise taxes.

[tinfoilhat 11]

14 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

The question as asked is all wrong.   It asks if we should increase taxes for social care, implying that if we want better social care, we have to increase tax.

 

Most people would agree that we need to get more funding to Social case.  Most would also agree that we need more funding to the NHS.  Does this automatically mean that we have to increase taxes for both, or should we look at where the money we currently spend goes?

 

As others have pointed out on this thread, much of the money spent goes into the pockets of Boris's mates since Social care was privatised.  Similarly, much of the money spent on the NHS (especially Covid related) also has been shown to be wasted and going to his mates.

 

We must understand that we are simply being manipulated by the Tory's and their press into believing that they are in a position where they have to abandon their manifesto promises (e.g. triple lock, social spending) because battling Covid has taken all the money.   I think we often need to ask different questions.

 

We've heard the scientists are against vaccination of 12-16 year olds after a long study, yet they are still pressing ahead with it.  They said we'd have booster jabs only for the very elderly and immune system compromised, now they are saying maybe for all over 50's. 

 

People were asking long ago why they have bought up over 350million jabs worth, and are still buying them, when we have only 69 million people in the UK.  Clearly, they have all along decided to force us all to have multiple jabs, but managed the information so we did not know the plan. 

 

Many of these doses are now far less useful than they were, as they work less well against the new variants.  why not use these (that we should not have bought in the first place, as we bought too many) to developing countries and use the newer ones for those at most risk in our population?

 

If we cut out the money wasted in over-buying Covid vaccines, re-privatise social care (so cutting out profits for grredy businesses), we may not need to raise taxes.

Some councils still - to a limited degree - handle their own social care requirements. Derbyshire county council have at least a couple of care homes - including a fair size super duper new build (I say new, about 10 years old now). They charge the same rate as the majority of private care homes. If it's such a money spinner, why aren't they opening more? Why hasn't SCC got any?

[Anna B 1,401]

2 hours ago, Thirsty Relic said:

The question as asked is all wrong.   It asks if we should increase taxes for social care, implying that if we want better social care, we have to increase tax.

 

Most people would agree that we need to get more funding to Social case.  Most would also agree that we need more funding to the NHS.  Does this automatically mean that we have to increase taxes for both, or should we look at where the money we currently spend goes?

 

As others have pointed out on this thread, much of the money spent goes into the pockets of Boris's mates since Social care was privatised.  Similarly, much of the money spent on the NHS (especially Covid related) also has been shown to be wasted and going to his mates.

 

We must understand that we are simply being manipulated by the Tory's and their press into believing that they are in a position where they have to abandon their manifesto promises (e.g. triple lock, social spending) because battling Covid has taken all the money.   I think we often need to ask different questions.

 

We've heard the scientists are against vaccination of 12-16 year olds after a long study, yet they are still pressing ahead with it.  They said we'd have booster jabs only for the very elderly and immune system compromised, now they are saying maybe for all over 50's. 

 

People were asking long ago why they have bought up over 350million jabs worth, and are still buying them, when we have only 69 million people in the UK.  Clearly, they have all along decided to force us all to have multiple jabs, but managed the information so we did not know the plan. 

 

Many of these doses are now far less useful than they were, as they work less well against the new variants.  why not use these (that we should not have bought in the first place, as we bought too many) to developing countries and use the newer ones for those at most risk in our population?

 

If we cut out the money wasted in over-buying Covid vaccines, re-privatise social care (so cutting out profits for grredy businesses), we may not need to raise taxes.

Yes I agree. And yes I could have phrased the title differently, but was hoping to provoke some comments. Nobody likes paying extra taxes, even less when it's not the answer to a problem. Everything you say about Boris is true, but still people vote for him. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas. Trouble is voting for Starmer won't change things either. It needs a man of vision who is prepared to change the system radically from the bottom up instead of being ripped off by the private sector.  

[Baron99 778]

Before any discussions on how to fund social care, first & foremost, there should be a discussion about the function of social care in the UK. 

 

Clearly the services, functions & management of social care we have at the moment isn't working, therefore there's no point in throwing billions of additional pounds at it, regardless of whether that money should come out of existing tax, increasing tax or having a new separate tax scheme. 

 

Sort out why social care isn't working?  It's not as simple as more money is needed.  Let's look at how other countries fund & run their social care.  Let's look to the possibility of using new technology to help keep people in their own homes, rather than dumping people into care home or have people bed blocking in the NHS. 

 

Sort the functionality out first. 

[the_bloke 17]

11 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Some councils still - to a limited degree - handle their own social care requirements. Derbyshire county council have at least a couple of care homes - including a fair size super duper new build (I say new, about 10 years old now). They charge the same rate as the majority of private care homes. If it's such a money spinner, why aren't they opening more? Why hasn't SCC got any?

SCC do have care homes/units in the community, such as the respite care unit on Warminster Road. Not everything is privatised.

[melthebell 862]

An interesting point raised today about the NI plan is that the young will be paying it, but older people, OAPs who are closer to needing it won't be paying for it, a lot of Tory backbenchers are against the idea

[El Cid 214]

19 minutes ago, West 77 said:

You make some good points. Families should make more of an effort to look after their own. Modern technology can be used in numerous ways to help vulnerable people stay in family homes.

That is part of the problem, Conservative policies have monetised everything, from childcare to looking after the elderly.

No longer do children get looked after by the extended family, they are looked after by paid child carers.

Work is no longer a job in the same town that you grew up in, but a place of work anywhere in the country/world.

That is progress, we cannot stop it by having border controls.

5 minutes ago, melthebell said:

An interesting point raised today about the NI plan is that the young will be paying it, but older people, OAPs who are closer to needing it won't be paying for it, a lot of Tory backbenchers are against the idea

Its just a media frenzie by fed by number 10; increasing basic NI will not happen.

[harvey19 541]

I find it sad that such an important issue has become has become a case of blaming one political party instead of the other.

People are living longer nowadays and therefore there are more home places needed.

Care should come under the NHS umbrella in my mind.

An unbiased and objective inspection of how NHS funds are used and where improvements could be made.

I have heard it said that if there was an increase in N.I. contributions was made the younger workers would be paying for the older non N.I payers care don't they realise they would benefit when they got older from such a scheme. 

 

[crookesey 631]

This government allowed a none tax paying spouse to transfer £1,250 of their tax allowance to a tax paying spouse, thus increasing their income by £250.00. I’d be quite happy to pay back say, £50.00 of it to help fund social care. I’m a tax paying pensioner who doesn’t feel it right to place the entirety of this burden on working people paying National Insurance Contributions.

[Baron99 778]

2 hours ago, the_bloke said:

SCC do have care homes/units in the community, such as the respite care unit on Warminster Road. Not everything is privatised.

And if people check their SCC tax info letters that were sent to them earlier this year, they'll realise that SCC, like many other local authorities are collecting additional monies of council tax payers to fund local social care issues & projects. 

[harvey19 541]

1 hour ago, crookesey said:

This government allowed a none tax paying spouse to transfer £1,250 of their tax allowance to a tax paying spouse, thus increasing their income by £250.00. I’d be quite happy to pay back say, £50.00 of it to help fund social care. I’m a tax paying pensioner who doesn’t feel it right to place the entirety of this burden on working people paying National Insurance Contributions.

The relevant point most seem to be missing is in the name National Insurance.

 

[RollingJ 1,999]

@harvey19I agree - but the point is, all taxes (including NI)  go into one pot, so could be used to fund anything - sociaal care/roads/MPs salaries............