Care fees to be limited to £35K, Cameron pledges to end forcing elderly to sell homes

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...I totally agree care home fees should be limited, (ideally eliminated) and cradle to grave NHS care should be exactly that, without any fees being imposed at point of use....

what??

not so long ago i seem to remember someone or other on this board asking why all state-provided services shouldn't be "paid for on a 'fee for service' or 'pay per use' basis?".

i suppose that different rules apply when a pwoperdee's involved?

i put it to you, H, that there's not a shred of integrity or coherence to pretty much anything you say on here other than a rampant desire to verbally 'defend' house prices.

[edit]

but i don't even see why making old people pay for their own care is a pro- or anti- house price issue? it doesn't change the number of houses that are empty or the amount of money available to spend on/borrow against them... i don't think it even particularly affects the timing of houses coming on the market... just the net proceeds & who gets what. it's almost a pure fairness issue combined with a minor 'economic' one in the sense that most taxes are distortionary [& without taxes there can obviously be no public spending].

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

what??

not so long ago i seem to remember someone or other on this board asking why all state-provided services shouldn't be "paid for on a 'fee for service' or 'pay per use' basis?"..

Wrong again, Piglet....

What I actually said was:

why shouldn't almost all services be paid for on a "fee for service" or "pay per use" basis?

And I stand by that remark.

However given that almost all pensioners who have earned enough to buy a house will also have spent a lifetime paying into the system via tax and national insurance, on the understanding that doing so would ensure their care in old age, forcing them to pay twice via asset stripping their house would seem to be, well, just wrong.

I'm all for reducing taxes and implementing pay for use in almost all areas, however I do think the NHS and aged care should be one of the exceptions, particularly as we are all forced to pay a hefty chunk of our lifetime income via national insurance, which was (originally) supposed to cover such things.

One of the most insidious aspects of various governments through the years has been the creep of tax funds from specific applications into general revenue.

For example VED and fuel tax raises more than enough money to pay for all road maintenance in the UK, and significant improvements as well. However only around a quarter of it is spent on roads, with the rest going into general funds.

I'd like to see taxes such as NI and VED ringfenced for specific spending, and general taxation lowered.

Then fee for service implemented across more areas, so that those people who use services pay for them, and those who don't, don't.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wrong again, Piglet....

What I actually said was:



And I stand by that remark.

However given that almost all pensioners who have earned enough to buy a house will also have spent a lifetime paying into the system via tax and national insurance, on the understanding that doing so would ensure their care in old age, forcing them to pay twice via asset stripping their house would seem to be, well, just wrong.

I'm all for reducing taxes and implementing pay for use in almost all areas, however I do think the NHS and aged care should be one of the exceptions, particularly as we are all forced to pay a hefty chunk of our lifetime income via national insurance, which was (originally) supposed to cover such things.

One of the most insidious aspects of various governments through the years has been the creep of tax funds from specific applications into general revenue.

For example VED and fuel tax raises more than enough money to pay for all road maintenance in the UK, and significant improvements as well. However only around a quarter of it is spent on roads, with the rest going into general funds.

I'd like to see taxes such as NI and VED ringfenced for specific spending, and general taxation lowered.

Then fee for service implemented across more areas, so that those people who use services pay for them, and those who don't, don't.

to be fair H your earlier post made it explicitly clear that the NHS wasn't to be an exception, tho again with no pwoperdee involved - "Why should smokers subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers? Why should drinkers subsidise the healthcare of non drinkers?".

as i've told you more than once the total UK tax burden has not changed one iota during either of our lifetimes, whatever the Mail or Telegraph would have you believe, although where it's collected from & spent on have moved around quite a bit.

the fact is that our national books balance, just about. the tax money in equals the spending that goes out. anyone on about an average income at gets out at least as much as they've put in. the years of tax & NI [& VAT] that they've paid don't really amount to all that much when set alongside the cost of healthcare, education, defence, & whatnot. only really high earners [those who pay thier proper share in taxes anyway] genuinely put in more than they get out. & they're the ones who'll probably be going to very expensive carehomes anyway. it's a sub-daily mail myth that average earners are massively in black with the taxpayer as they approach the ends of their lives & as such 'deserve' a big £50k or whatever gift. a windfall of this size would put even more people firmly into the red.

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.....One of the most insidious aspects of various governments through the years has been the creep of tax funds from specific applications into general revenue. ......

Insidious it may be. But I don't think it's a trend.

I am pretty sure that governments have never - as a matter of principle - 'ringfenced' tax revenue. The correct term is "Hypothecation".

These muppets can't even manage to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for spending - or far better still, spend only the amount they can realistically raise from taxation of all kinds.

If they start hypothecation, then just think what would happen. The guys in charge of motoring would add up the revenue from Petrol, Road Tax, Special Purchase tax and VAT on cars/fuel, etc. and that would mean they could double the miles of motorway, make them all 10 lanes wide, and still have enough change left over to give every pensioner a free BMW for their Christmas Bonus!

If you had to invent a tax raising system for any county's economy, you would certainly not do it with anything like the complicated system we have. But sadly, such complexity helps to mask the true tax burden per individual, and fulfil the myth that it is "The Government's Money".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I am pretty sure that governments have never - as a matter of principle - 'ringfenced' tax revenue.

Not quite....

The introduction of National Insurance under the National Insurance Act 1911 was one of the first steps towards the creation of the welfare state.

The scheme, which came into effect in July 1912, was intended to create a national system of insurance for working people against illness and unemployment. All wage-earners aged between 16 and 70 were obliged to contribute 4d per week, while employers paid 3d and the state 2d. In return, workers were entitled to a level of free medical care and advice, and a "dole" of 7 shillings per week for up to 15 weeks per year in the event of unemployment.
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/national-insurance

If they start hypothecation, then just think what would happen. The guys in charge of motoring would add up the revenue from Petrol, Road Tax, Special Purchase tax and VAT on cars/fuel, etc. and that would mean they could double the miles of motorway, make them all 10 lanes wide, and still have enough change left over to give every pensioner a free BMW for their Christmas Bonus!.

Sounds good to me....

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not quite....

The introduction of National Insurance under the National Insurance Act 1911 was one of the first steps towards the creation of the welfare state.

The scheme, which came into effect in July 1912, was intended to create a national system of insurance for working people against illness and unemployment. All wage-earners aged between 16 and 70 were obliged to contribute 4d per week, while employers paid 3d and the state 2d. In return, workers were entitled to a level of free medical care and advice, and a "dole" of 7 shillings per week for up to 15 weeks per year in the event of unemployment.
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/national-insurance



Sounds good to me....

I will apologise in advance, because I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but your appear to be saying that NI contributions are ring fenced. They might have been once, I wasbt around then, but NI contributions now fall woefully short of all the things they allegedly pay for.

oldvicar

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I am pretty sure that governments have never - as a matter of principle - 'ringfenced' tax revenue. The correct term is "Hypothecation".

An interesting briefing from the House of Comons Library on hypothecation of taxes is here. Whilst it generally presents (for MPs) all the reasons against hypothecation ...

It points out that the BBC Licence Fee is a hypothecated tax;

It kind of suggests (but not absolutely) that the temporary tax we know as Income Tax was originally hypothecated for warmongering - but it isn't 100% clear on this;

It similarly suggests that the intention (which failed in practice) of the Road Fund Licence (VED) was to entirely hypothecate the revenue for roads

and most interestingly it shows that modern day Chancellor (and later PM), Gordon Brown seemed to be a great fan of hypothecating his increases in taxes such as National Insurance (for the NHS) and fuel duties, but that they had no direct effect because he simply splurged many times more than the hypothecated increases.

The paper does in fact suggest that a part of NI has always been hypothecated to the NHS, but that it doesn't really matter since a variation in the hypothecated tax simply leads to an equal and opposite adjustment in the amount the NHS receives from the consolidated fund.