If care homes are charging £1k+ per week and carers are paid minimum wage, where is the money going?

Thrugelmir

Exodi said:

I'm not convinced on the overheads justification, as you don't see Premier Inn charging £1500 a week, yet they will have loosely similar overheads.

Hopefully you don't work in a finance role in the private sector ......

Thrugelmir

Keep_pedalling said:

Malthusian said:

Sea_Shell said:

I think people are going to be sorely disappointed when family homes still need to be sold to maintain a quality of care expected for their loved ones!   Cap or no cap!

Probably. People are appalling. The guy quoted in the BBC article who wanted to move his own sister to somewhere twice as cheap to preserve somebody's inheritance and her relatives' free hotel (unchallenged by the Beeb) being a case in point.

That said, the Tories have an unprecedented amount of political capital, an unassailable majority and a once-in-a-century excuse to do whatever they want - and they still haven't succeeded in creating a system which protects well-off people's inheritances by taxing the hoi polloi, as the media keeps demanding. Most people will not get anywhere near the cap (average stay in a care home is two years with a long tail) and even for those that go on for years and years in care, nobody has any idea whether they will hit the cap either, due to lack of clarity over what counts.

What the proposal actually amounts to is a 10% increase to income tax (for the average employee) to bail out the NHS (again); less a care revolution and more Gordon Brown mark 2.

If we are all supposed to be in this this together why are well off pensioners like myself not having to contribute to this extra tax? 

You'll get your opportunity. The pandemic bill has yet to be addressed yet. This is just the start.  Going to be the same the world over. Biden's spending plans make Boris look tame. 

Malthusian

Keep_pedalling said:

Those affected by the NI increase will include the poorly paid care workers and will increase the costs of their employers, yet the very well paid can avoid a lot of Income tax and NI by pumping large chunks of their salaries into pensions which many also use to avoid  IHT. 

If we are all supposed to be in this this together why are well off pensioners like myself not having to contribute to this extra tax? 

If a pensioner is well off enough to have unwrapped dividend income from their investments then they do.

NI isn't applied to pension income because otherwise the Government would have to give NI relief on contributions. To everyone, not just those able to use salary sacrifice. Otherwise you would be taxed twice for saving into a pension vs once for just spending the money (or putting your taxed income into ISAs and buy-to-let); bye bye any hope of getting the ordinary worker to provide for their own retirement.

As to the wider question "why not apply the increase to income tax instead of NI so that both pensioners and workers pay", politics. Well off pensioners like yourself vote.

The well paid may be able to avoid a lot of income tax and NI via salary sacrifice but the very well paid hit the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance. And it's the very very well paid who pay most of the tax. 33% of income tax is paid by the top 1% of earners, for whom registered pensions are pin money.

Thrugelmir

Malthusian said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Those affected by the NI increase will include the poorly paid care workers and will increase the costs of their employers, yet the very well paid can avoid a lot of Income tax and NI by pumping large chunks of their salaries into pensions which many also use to avoid  IHT. 

If we are all supposed to be in this this together why are well off pensioners like myself not having to contribute to this extra tax? 

If a pensioner is well off enough to have unwrapped dividend income from their investments then they do.

NI isn't applied to pension income because otherwise the Government would have to give NI relief on contributions. To everyone, not just those able to use salary sacrifice. Otherwise you would be taxed twice for saving into a pension vs once for just spending the money (or putting your taxed income into ISAs and buy-to-let); bye bye any hope of getting the ordinary worker to provide for their own retirement.

As to the wider question "why not apply the increase to income tax instead of NI so that both pensioners and workers pay", politics. Well off pensioners like yourself vote.

The well paid may be able to avoid a lot of income tax and NI via salary sacrifice but the very well paid hit the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance. And it's the very very well paid who pay most of the tax. 33% of income tax is paid by the top 1% of earners, for whom registered pensions are pin money.

Of people in paid employment. The top 10% pay 60% of all income tax collected. The system is already over reliant on a small group. 

Nor forget that the personal allowance is to be frozen, and corporation tax rates increased. There'll be more to follow. 

tooldle

Keep_pedalling said:

Malthusian said:

Sea_Shell said:

I think people are going to be sorely disappointed when family homes still need to be sold to maintain a quality of care expected for their loved ones!   Cap or no cap!

Probably. People are appalling. The guy quoted in the BBC article who wanted to move his own sister to somewhere twice as cheap to preserve somebody's inheritance and her relatives' free hotel (unchallenged by the Beeb) being a case in point.

That said, the Tories have an unprecedented amount of political capital, an unassailable majority and a once-in-a-century excuse to do whatever they want - and they still haven't succeeded in creating a system which protects well-off people's inheritances by taxing the hoi polloi, as the media keeps demanding. Most people will not get anywhere near the cap (average stay in a care home is two years with a long tail) and even for those that go on for years and years in care, nobody has any idea whether they will hit the cap either, due to lack of clarity over what counts.

What the proposal actually amounts to is a 10% increase to income tax (for the average employee) to bail out the NHS (again); less a care revolution and more Gordon Brown mark 2.

Those affected by the NI increase will include the poorly paid care workers and will increase the costs of their employers, yet the very well paid can avoid a lot of Income tax and NI by pumping large chunks of their salaries into pensions which many also use to avoid  IHT. 

If we are all supposed to be in this this together why are well off pensioners like myself not having to contribute to this extra tax? 

I'm guessing the 'well off pensioners' are not being asked to contribute as it risks the faux pas of contributions being taken from those already financing their own care. My mum is a self funder in a Care Home with charges of just under £40K per year. As she has survived Dad, her pension income means she pays income tax. 
Definitely a minefield. I have no issue with mum paying for her care and indeed the family home being sold to provide the capital. What i do take issue with is that some swerve their liabilities using a variety of methods. In my experience these are not people with large pots of cash, although this may just be the demographic that I've interacted with.

strawb_shortcake

A week in a Premier Inn in my nearest city could cost me up to £850 a week, cheapest was over £600 (September prices), to me all the additional extras that would come with a care homes seems to represent good value for money 

elsien

This family home thing always gets me. Yes, there are some people who stay in the same place for donkeys years but moving around is now more the norm.
I’d changed country 3 times by the time I was an adult, then my parents divorced and both have moved a couple of times some. 

My mother has her home. It’s not a family home because her family have never lived there and all have their own homes now. It’s her home while she can stay, after which it’s an asset to keep her in comfort for as long as she needs it. 

It really is that simple. Unless you’re the landed gentry of course, which is another debate entirely. 

Sea_Shell

elsien said:

This family home thing always gets me. Yes, there are some people who stay in the same place for donkeys years but moving around is now more the norm.
I’d changed country 3 times by the time I was an adult, then my parents divorced and both have moved a couple of times some. 

My mother has her home. It’s not a family home because her family have never lived there and all have their own homes now. It’s her home while she can stay, after which it’s an asset to keep her in comfort for as long as she needs it. 

It really is that simple. Unless you’re the landed gentry of course, which is another debate entirely. 

I think that's part of the problem.   People seem to think that their house, that's "been in the family" for 40+ years does "entitle" them to be able to pass it down the generations as if it IS in that league, even if it's a 3 bed semi in Milton Keynes!!

"Our homes are our castles" and all that!!!     

Keep_pedalling

Sea_Shell said:

elsien said:

This family home thing always gets me. Yes, there are some people who stay in the same place for donkeys years but moving around is now more the norm.
I’d changed country 3 times by the time I was an adult, then my parents divorced and both have moved a couple of times some. 

My mother has her home. It’s not a family home because her family have never lived there and all have their own homes now. It’s her home while she can stay, after which it’s an asset to keep her in comfort for as long as she needs it. 

It really is that simple. Unless you’re the landed gentry of course, which is another debate entirely. 

I think that's part of the problem.   People seem to think that their house, that's "been in the family" for 40+ years does "entitle" them to be able to pass it down the generations as if it IS in that league, even if it's a 3 bed semi in Milton Keynes!!

"Our homes are our castles" and all that!!!     

The reality is most children do not want to inherit the ‘family’ home. By the time that comes around they will have their own lives living in homes of their choosing. 

Some people would like to hang on to it beyond the grave, but it is impossible to control that, and chances are the kids will  sell it and pay off their own mortgages or have a damn good time with the proceeds.

Pennylane

My late Mum sold her house to pay her care home fees as after a lifetime of hard work they were able to buy their former small council house. 

Her first care home stay was just 8 months and it was the most penny pinching place ever. Everything was on the cheap although she was paying about £900 a week to stay there.  They had no outside entertainment brought in because they said they couldn’t afford it.  The residents were never taken out.  The food portions were tiny and all came from the cash and carry or budget supermarket buys (I used to see their van delivering).  The orange squash they provided did not even LOOK orange, it was basically tap water with a splash of the cheapest juice you can buy.  Evening tea was the cheapest white thin bread with a lick of marg and that awful cheap slimy ham wrapped in clingfilm. You also got one of those tiny cakes you buy for kids parties which cost about £1 for 20.  One day I saw a lady being given a plate of prawn sandwiches and I said “oh lovely, that will be a nice change” and the careworker said “the others don’t get these …. She buys the prawns herself”.  🤣

They tried to charge me £150 for a door guard to prop her door open.  The beds were all cheap divan beds and far too low for most residents.  Towels were washed out and rock hard, bedding was old fashioned and paper thin.  All the furniture was rickety and so old.

Every few weeks they gave me a bill for about £20 for “toiletries” which I know for a fact they did not provide and when asked they could not itemise them.   That was a great scam and most families just paid up but I provided Mum’s items which no way cost £20.

Meantime the owner drove round in a brand new Range Rover and dressed in designer clothes and shoes. She and her  Manager used to go off on holiday to India and leave unqualified young girls in charge of 25 residents with just one member of staff on duty overnight.

I could write a book about that place and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect good food, a comfortable bed and some home comforts for £900 a week.