National Care Service

Rochdale_Pioneers

Kohoutek wrote: »

There's no firm proposals at the moment, but the original plan by Labour which was derailed by the Tories was 10%, which was what ukcarper was referring to.

Thanks for the clarification. Hard for the Tories to derail a plan which wasn't a plan though. And according to their poster it was £20k, not 10%. They didn't know the details of the "plan" either then!

ukcarper

Kohoutek wrote: »

True, I agree it's preferable to taxing the working population. But I think its dangerous to keep introducing these universal benefits, which anyone is eligible for regardless of how much they've contributed to the system.

The thing is that if you do not own your own home and have no savings it's free now.

I do not know the answer and to be honest I don't think anyone does you can’t just throw people out on to the street although I know some people on here seem to want to do that. I suppose you could introduce a very basic level of care for everyone and then allow people who can top it up, but I think that would be difficult to implement.

peterg1965

Sounds like another HUGE quango in the making. No doubt the CE will be being paid circa £200K per year (with the prospect of loads(and loads) more), and the likelihood of this monolithic organistion rivaling the 'red army' sized NHS in just a matter of years. Another potential lever to start taxing more(and more and more and more as the years go by) - for which the middle classes will bear the brunt.

Bring it on............ partiularly when I have emigrated.

JayScottGreenspan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I haven't heard anyone make a serious proposition about how to pay for this. The "Death Tax" option (never a policy but why let the facts get in the way of a bad poster) is probably the best way to fund it in the least disruptive way, but politically its impossible.

The insurance proposal from the Tories is also a non-starter. Assuming that enough people take up the insurance - which the French experience demonstrates they wont - its still no solution for the masses who don't.

The Tory proposal is ludicrous.

Inheritance tax is the best way to pay for it. TBH, I'd like it if some of the current tax burden was shifted on to inheritance tax too - I'd much rather break up and plunder the estates of the rich than take income tax from those on the minimum wage.

misskool

seriously though, why not have a credit system where you pay what you owe when you die. If your estate is worth something then fine, if not then the state makes up the shortfall.

I don't see why people with short lifespans have to pay for the care of those who are more blessed to be able to live long centenerian lives.

So if you drop off at 45/55 and haven't needed care then you pay 0. If after a long fortuitous live and you've been care for 20 years you pay for the 20 years worth of care from the remainder of your estate.

I can see many flaws already but if we want a FAIR system then we should implement one where you pay for what you use instead of a random blanket tax on those who actually choose to work and don't ask for the state to subsidise them.

(yuck, that makes me sound like some ultra right when i'm supposedly a bleeding heart liberal)

Spartacus_Mills

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. Hard for the Tories to derail a plan which wasn't a plan though. And according to their poster it was £20k, not 10%. They didn't know the details of the "plan" either then!

You clearly don't as the proposal that was derailed was up to a maximum of £20,000 and whether it was a plan or a proposal it was what Labour intended to go ahead with. Argue semantics all you want.

The Tories obviously knew the plan as they, like the Lib Dems, were part of the cross-party talks on the issue.

I felt Norman Lamb came out of this very well. He tried to bridge the ideological divide between the parties and get a consensual view. Burnham was trying to steamroller his chosen policy and the Tories trying to stonewall for electoral advantage.

The "Death Tax" proposal is yet another example of Labour in its desire to penalise people who provide for themselves. To penalise thrift and reward the !!!!less, those who have not saved for their old age.

JayScottGreenspan

Why is everyone calling it a "death tax" and not just plain old inheritance tax?

Why do people get so het up about inheritance tax? Which would you rather tax: what a person earns, or what falls into a person's lap through the luck of birthrights?

wymondham

I can't understand why politicians always hash this up. Basically we need vastly more money going into care than at present. Seems silly having any schemes where people pay one off amounts or only certain people pay. Why is this seperated from National Insurance? - surely the best way is to increase NI to the required level so it spreads the cost out over vastly more people. Nobody should have to worry in their old age about care, or have to sell their homes..

"The best way to save is little and often rather than lump sums" is what we're always told, well ....... theres your answer!

Kohoutek

wymondham wrote: »

Why is this seperated from National Insurance? - surely the best way is to increase NI to the required level so it spreads the cost out over vastly more people. Nobody should have to worry in the old age about care, or have to sell their homes..

That would require politicians to start using national insurance for the purpose it is collected first...

The national insurance fund is in surplus - it has been for several years, but the government 'borrows' money from supposedly ringfenced NI fund to pay for other government expenses.

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

The "Death Tax" proposal is yet another example of Labour in its desire to penalise people who provide for themselves. To penalise thrift and reward the !!!!less, those who have not saved for their old age.

Wait a minute these guys are dead