Social Care - Increase Tax Or Not.

[crookesey]

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]

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]

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]

@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............

[tinfoilhat]

4 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.

I didn't know that. (Doesn't look like Anna did either). Do you know how they compare price/service wise with the public sector?

[Anna B]

4 hours 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. I wouldn't object to the majority of care homes being kind of nationalised rather than the private sector exploiting the situation for the purpose of profit. However, this would involve good management to avoid wastefulness which is a massive problem in the NHS.  I believe most working people wouldn't object to an increase in national insurance contributions if they believed it would genuinely vastly improve the situation in social care.

It now takes the salaries of two working adults to pay the mortgage/ rent/ bills. That means that someone who gives up work to look after an elderly relative will lose a full wage in return for a £60 a week carer's allowance (- which incidently is taken from the cared for's benefits.) Not everyone can afford to do that, also proximity is a problem with families no longer living close, and often the cared for require things like hoists  and specialist equipment not available in ordinary homes. So please don't be so quick to judge families, there are reasons why they cannot always look after someone. 

 

I would not object to paying more tax, if I could be sure it would alleviate the situation, but I guarantee that it won't, unless the whole system is turned round as Barron 19 and El Cid say in their posts. That simply won't happen under a Tory government. The problems are many and far reaching, and the result of the Tory cuts and 'Austerity' over many years. It is fundamentally not in  their ethos to change things, they want to 'roll back the state' (ie, provide less help not more,) and merely produce soundbites, give the increase in taxes to their friends and cronies running the privatised services, and make matters worse.  

 

As for who pays the extra tax/national insurance, they have already introduced an argument setting the young against the old, so we all bicker and argue between ourselves, rather than look to where the problems really originated.  A fine Tory example of 'divide and conquer.'

[tinfoilhat]

10 minutes ago, Anna B said:

It now takes the salaries of two working adults to pay the mortgage/ rent/ bills. That means that someone who gives up work to look after an elderly relative will lose a full wage in return for a £60 a week carer's allowance (- which incidently is taken from the cared for's benefits.) Not everyone can afford to do that, also proximity is a problem with families no longer living close, and often the cared for require things like hoists  and specialist equipment not available in ordinary homes. So please don't be so quick to judge families, there are reasons why they cannot always look after someone. 

 

I would not object to paying more tax, if I could be sure it would alleviate the situation, but I guarantee that it won't, unless the whole system is turned round as Barron 19 and El Cid say in their posts. That simply won't happen under a Tory government. The problems are many and far reaching, and the result of the Tory cuts and 'Austerity' over many years. It is fundamentally not in  their ethos to change things, they want to 'roll back the state' (ie, provide less help not more,) and merely produce soundbites, give the increase in taxes to their friends and cronies running the privatised services, and make matters worse.  

 

As for who pays the extra tax/national insurance, they have already introduced an argument setting the young against the old, so we all bicker and argue between ourselves, rather than look to where the problems really originated.  A fine Tory example of 'divide and conquer.'

The "who pays" NI is working people, but not rich working people with their own accountant. Or pensioners.

[the_bloke]

20 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I didn't know that. (Doesn't look like Anna did either). Do you know how they compare price/service wise with the public sector?

It's been a long time since I had any knowledge of it, but the care packages provided were designed to equal the benefit income of the client, with extra costs for non essential care. So I wouldn't imagine it was any different to that of the private sector to be honest; it's not like the clients (those needing care) are going to have money left over. Note that was for respite care, rather than care for pensioners, of which I have no idea about - but don't think that just because care is subsidized by the social components of council tax that it's any cheaper than private.

[Annie Bynnol]

5 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.

SCC and NHS have 'care homes' in Sheffield but their function is not the same as other care homes in the city.

They do not have places that people can apply for directly. 

A person would be referred there as an emergency or because they have a level of need which cannot be met at care or nursing homes.

Three/four years ago I visited  most of the care homes in Sheffield that offered nursing and dementia care for a relative who had the highest level of financial support. This included a NHS facility and one of the three SCC units. In both cases places it became clear and made that their role was not to provide the type of care provided by other homes in the City.

 

I am not certain but the SCC Warminster Road site  is no longer a respite unit.

 

 

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

9 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Good  families who genuinely love and respect their vulnerable relatives find a  way to look after them rather than dumping them in a care home. The truth is the majority of families who put vulnerable relatives in care homes are selfish people who don't like hard work and don't really love and respect the relative they dump in a care home. 

Absolute rubbish and hurtful even if you are trolling.

You neither understand the situation or what is best for the relative.