What are we likely to be paying through the nose for this time? A proposed National Social Care system it seems.
Now before I unleash the dogs of war on whether I think such an idea is worth it’s salt, I’d like to throw a few grenades out there to encourage ‘debate’ – something that today’s permanently offended Wokerati strive to shut down at all costs because having an opinion that doesn’t fit their skewed view of the world is not allowed. (Cancel her!)
I’m going to begin this debate with a number of questions/observations to which I’m sure there are statistical answers out there somewhere.
First question: What percentage of the total UK population are actually in care or using social care services?
Inevitably, we’re all going to get older yet NOT EVERYONE is going to need to either go into care or require social care services to lead independent lives.
My aged parents 91 and 88 years old are still managing to look after themselves in their own home in spite of a compendium of health issues the size of a woolly mammoth. They’ve managed for years without care and every time I broach the subject, I get shot down in flames. They soldier on regardless as do many of their generation. Care home? Pah! Over our dead bodies. Well, it might come to that…
Second question: Of the percentage of people that are currently in care or using social care services, how many pay privately and how many get care costs covered by the state/local authorities?
There are several trains of thought running through this second station where the platform is full of Have and Have Not passengers.
Firstly – some passengers have saved diligently throughout their working lives for their old age and everything that comes with it. If I had saved £100 per month for the whole of my 43yr working life, I would have £51,600 to put towards retirement or care. I would also be significantly over the threshold that entitles me to ‘free or state sponsored’ care, the means testing threshold being just over £23,000. If I have some money then it’s expected that I pay for part of my care – fair?
Secondly – there are some passengers who have squandered every single penny acquired either through hard graft or scrounged from the State with never a thought as to what might happen in their later years. The expectation of those passengers appears to be that if care or anything else is needed then someone other than themselves or their family will pick up the tab. They’ve taken ZERO accountability for managing their own care or lives. If the Government is going to levy a separate NCS tax then that very same levy needs to be taken from any benefit handouts so that everyone contributes equally for their future care costs.
Thirdly – There is also the question of choice and personal expectations of care. Wealthier patrons using social care services may prefer to pay privately in order to obtain a higher standard of care that is tailored more specifically to their needs or expectations. It’s like choosing to stay at The Ritz instead of at a Travelodge or sending your kids to private schools. Luxury costs money. If I want the best, I can hardly expect someone else to pay for it, can I? Local Authorities are certainly not going to pay for you to stay at the Ritz that’s for sure.
Third question: Of the percentage of people currently in care or using social care services paid for by the State or Local Authorities, how many of them are on benefits?
Welfare claimant levels are growing yet the magic money tree that generates the cash to fund their lives is not. This tree is withering under a drought of lower birth rates and fewer tax payers. Whilst we always associate ‘care’ with the elderly, there is probably a surprisingly high percentage of users of care services that are under state retirement age. Who have never worked or worked very little throughout their lives.
This growing majority is propped up by a dwindling working minority so political parties of every persuasion are going to have to come up with new and exciting ways to fleece taxpayers further to keep the magic money tree alive. Why not create yet another Ponzi type scheme where everyone pays in but not everyone gets a payout?
Fourth question: Is it fair to expect people to invest in a system where they do not see any tangible benefit or return on their investment?
I am not averse to paying a bit more tax (I am) if that extra money is specifically ring fenced for care costs. Ring-fenced cash for care would enable me to buy into the fantasy that I’m putting money aside for when my turn comes. However, having paid in that bit extra then I’d expect to have some kind of guaranteed payback in return. After all, investors usually get paid dividends when they invest their money.
What I would not expect is to contribute for a lifetime then find that none of my care needs can be met by the State decades later.
I do not want a new baby brother or sister for the NHS. It’s bad enough that none of my current health needs or expectations can be adequately met without me having to dip into my pocket time and time again for private treatments. Having an NCS (National Care Service) to pay for as well would quite frankly, be pants.
Fifth question: How much Inheritance Tax revenue does the Treasury stand to lose if people have to sell their properties in order to pay for care?
You’ve worked hard all your life to acquire material wealth which you hope to pass on to your offspring one day. What no-one ever expects is to have to liquidate their material assets before they kick the bucket in order to fund care costs. Unfair? Yes, it is. But without voluntary euthanasia to resort to then what other choice do you have? Care is not going to pay for itself.
Funding a National Care Service sounds a bit like the Government wants a bigger slice of your cake whilst you’re alive in the form of an extra care tax and again once you’re dead when the value of your property pushes your estate over their frozen IHT thresholds. Double bubble for the Treasury.
Surely it is better to sell your property so that you can spend your later years living in Ritz-like care home luxury, waited on hand and foot than to leave your dependants with a huge IHT headache once you’ve gone? Remember - the only one really benefitting from elderly people holding onto material assets is The Revenue, not you or your families.
I know I’m sounding insensitive and I do apologize because deep down, I’m not a hard-hearted callous bitch but a caring person who does not like seeing others being taken for a ride.
I’ve rambled on (as always) so I shall finish this epic post with one final observation:
HAVE and HAVE NOTS – we cannot get away from the fact that in life for whatever reason, there will always be inequalities. These inequalities give rise to two-tier systems. It may not seem fair to have two-tier systems but that’s the way it is. Life’s not fair by any means.
Social care should not be a one-size-fits-all blanket funded by the State. In the ideal world, of course it would be but then we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world where everyone is different, has different needs/expectations/demographic/wealth etc, etc. That’s a whole lotta of differences and the key thing to remember is that NOT EVERYONE NEEDS social care.
Andy Pandy and those advocating any kind of national social care system need to do a lot of data crunching before making any changes or else we’ll end up with yet another scenario where the many, end up paying unfairly for the few. My questions might actually help him identify how much of a real problem social care actually is.
