Johnson's Social Care statement

[Newchodge]

I have just heard the 'social care statement' from Johnson. Can anyone explain to me, in simple, or indeed, any, terms, what the statement explained would happen to social care. Where was Johnson's ready made plan that he had when he was being elected? Where was anything that helps the social care issues? Limit on how much people can be asked to pay, insurance products to help pay. What about the lack of care staff? What about the lack of beds? Where was the money to pay care staff at a level above NMW? What a pile of rubbish, what a surprise!

 

[japancool]

The NI rise is supposed to raise £12bn, which will be phased in to the social care sector over 3 years (it goes to the NHS first).

Presumably that will address those issues.

 

[Newchodge]

The NI rise is supposed to raise £12bn, which will be phased in to the social care sector over 3 years (it goes to the NHS first).

Presumably that will address those issues.

Social Care Plan? What is the plan, apart from raising money from those who can least afford to pay?

 

[japancool]

Social Care Plan? What is the plan, apart from raising money from those who can least afford to pay?

Well, money is what the care sector says it needs. When they say "the care system is broken", it means "there ain't enough money".

It's all very well and good saying things like limit the amount people are asked to pay, but all that care has to be paid for somehow.

 

[Paul Norman]

There is an assumption amongst voters, often, that putting £12bn into a thing is automatically good, and that cutting spending on a thing is always evil.

Putting money in does not change a single outcome unless it is spent well. And as, one might observe, the NHS procurement skills seem flawed, it is fair to assume that the 12 billion will just drop into the same black holes as the last 12, leaving nothing over for social care.

The recruitment, training, and resourcing issues faced by the social care sector are complex. For sure, some money will be needed, at least in the short term, to address those. But addressing those kinds of longer term issues is not the strength of governments.

And it is a long term challenge. Recruiting and training people, and building the needed facilities takes a few years. Of course, that is not a reason not to start right now.

 

[NickGrogan]

Where was Johnson's ready made plan that he had when he was being elected?

To be fair, quite a few things have changed since he was elected.

Social Care Plan? What is the plan, apart from raising money from those who can least afford to pay?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NI is paid by those in work, earning above a certain amount. How do you consider those in work the least able to pay?

You can't really ask for higher salaries and more staff, without asking for more money from somewhere.

 

[japancool]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NI is paid by those in work, earning above a certain amount. How do you consider those in work the least able to pay?

They could just raise the higher level of NI though, and keep the lower level where it is, putting the burden onto the higher earners.

 

[Newchodge]

To be fair, quite a few things have changed since he was elected.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but NI is paid by those in work, earning above a certain amount. How do you consider those in work the least able to pay?

You can't really ask for higher salaries and more staff, without asking for more money from somewhere.

NI starts to be paid by people earning £9,568 per year. Income tax starts to be paid at £12,570 per year. Once you start paying NI you pay at 12% (soon to be 13.25%) until you earn £50,270 per year. All money earned after that attractys NI at 2%. The self employed pay less, those whose earnings are in the form of dividends or rents or other unearned income pay nothing. Who do you think can best afford to pay?

 

[Newchodge]

They could just raise the higher level of NI though, and keep the lower level where it is, putting the burden onto the higher earners.

I would like to see, at the very least, the 2% rate above £50,000 odd inceased to 5%. (I suppose increasing it to the 12% that the lower paid pay would be a bit of a hike.)

The current proposal also increases employers' NI. Increasing the rate for those over £50,000 odd would not, necessarily, mean an increase for employers.

 

[japancool]

Tax on share dividends is also due to rise by 1.25%.

 

[japancool]

I would like to see, at the very least, the 2% rate above £50,000 odd inceased to 5%. (I suppose increasing it to the 12% that the lower paid pay would be a bit of a hike.)

The current proposal also increases employers' NI. Increasing the rate for those over £50,000 odd would not, necessarily, mean an increase for employers.

I don't disagree.

 

[Newchodge]

Tax on share dividends is also due to rise by 1.25%.

That is true, but it is on a very low base. Why isn't all income taxed equally?

 

[japancool]

That is true, but it is on a very low base. Why isn't all income taxed equally?

Because donors to political parties tend to have large shareholdings, perhaps.

 

[NickGrogan]

So those earning between 10 - 50k will pay 10% more NI

Those who earn 50k+ will pay 60% more NI on the income over 50k

Someone earning £30k (around the average wage, I think) will pay £255 more per year.

Someone earning 100k will pay £1130 more per year.

source: BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58436009

If the 50k+ rate was raised to 10%, how much money would this raise? any data?

 

[Newchodge]

So those earning between 10 - 50k will pay 10% more NI

Those who earn 50k+ will pay 60% more NI on the income over 50k

Someone earning £30k (around the average wage, I think) will pay £255 more per year.

Someone earning 100k will pay £1130 more per year.

source: BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58436009

If the 50k+ rate was raised to 10%, how much money would this raise? any data?

I have seen figures suggesting 12 billion, but I cannot quote a source.

While % increases are interesting, I think absolute figures and absolute % of income paid are more interesting.

 

[NickGrogan]

I have seen figures suggesting 12 billion, but I cannot quote a source.

While % increases are interesting, I think absolute figures and absolute % of income paid are more interesting.

That's why I quote % and actual.

I think that an initial increase for everyone, followed by a phased increase for the 50k+ payers to the same % would be reasonable.

I guess this would raise about £25B based on your figures. (10B from everyone + 12B - 50k @ 10% + 3B 50k @ 13.25%)

The next problem is spending it properly.

 

[Newchodge]

That's why I quote % and actual.

I think that an initial increase for everyone, followed by a phased increase for the 50k+ payers to the same % would be reasonable.

I guess this would raise about £25B based on your figures. (10B from everyone + 12B - 50k @ 10% + 3B 50k @ 13.25%)

The next problem is spending it properly.

I think the first problem is expecting people who earn below the income tax threshold, and many of whom struggle to survive, to find an increased contribution to the government to alleviate the problem faced by those who are much better off than they are.

 

[NickGrogan]

I think the first problem is expecting people who earn below the income tax threshold, and many of whom struggle to survive, to find an increased contribution to the government to alleviate the problem faced by those who are much better off than they are.

Are all the people in care homes better off than them? Will they expect social care at some point?

 

[japancool]

Whatever happened to people looking after their own parents and grandparents?

 

[JustGettingOnWithIt]

NI starts to be paid by people earning £9,568 per year. Income tax starts to be paid at £12,570 per year.

Raising NI makes it even harder if you want to work but are stuck on benefits. Working gets less financially appealing with less in the wage packet.

The freeze on the income tax threshold until 2026 also squeezes the bottom end earners too. Not much incentive to work there either.

 

[gpietersz]

I think NI is an outrage. It means earned income is taxed at a higher rate than unearned income. That is just not right.

They are raising NI rather than income tax in the hope that it gets less noticed than a rise in income tax - Blair and Brown did that successfully. This time it does seem to be getting attention.

 

[gpietersz]

Whatever happened to people looking after their own parents and grandparents?

Long working hours, long commutes, more women working.

 

[IanSuth]

Long working hours, long commutes, more women working.

Largely the latter of those

If you need both adults in a family full or nearly fulltime working to pay for a 25yr mortgage which they dont get until they are 30 then they wont have the time to "care" for a relative until they reach 55 by which time if their parents were 25+ when they had them those parents are already 80+

When you look at the average age of childbirth in the uk 28.9 and first house owning 31 then factor in longer mortgage terms (lots of 30 yr mortgages), it is only going to get worse,

 

[DontAsk]

I think NI is an outrage. It means earned income is taxed at a higher rate than unearned income. That is just not right.

What's new? None of my unearned income has been taxed for a long time. Could sort that out first.

 

[DontAsk]

A tory PM with the balls to break manifesto pledges and raise taxes. Whatever next?

 

[Mark T Jones]

Populist narrative

- The way to solve a problem is to throw money at it.
- The NHS = wards, nurses, scanners and - at an absolute push - doctors. (but of course, the latter are quite well paid, so we don't really care about them).

Economic reality:

- Pouring money into an inefficient system will make it less, not more efficient
- The NHS isn't under-funded, it is corrupt, monumentally inefficient and in need of a complete overhaul.
- Some nurses are wonderful, some are lazy and useless. (A few deliberately kill patents)

Whatever your political leanings, the actual problem is one of democracy. No political leader could ever survive standing up and telling the truth about the NHS!

 

[UKSBD]

Has it all been announced yet?

 

[UKSBD]

Has the employers NIC gone up 1.25% as well?

 

[IanSuth]

Populist narrative

- The way to solve a problem is to throw money at it.
- The NHS = wards, nurses, scanners and - at an absolute push - doctors. (but of course, the latter are quite well paid, so we don't really care about them).

Economic reality:

- Pouring money into an inefficient system will make it less, not more efficient
- The NHS isn't under-funded, it is corrupt, monumentally inefficient and in need of a complete overhaul.
- Some nurses are wonderful, some are lazy and useless. (A few deliberately kill patents)

Whatever your political leanings, the actual problem is one of democracy. No political leader could ever survive standing up and telling the truth about the NHS!

But it isnt inefficient compared to it's rivals - we actually only spend about £2500 per capita on the NHS and we have less mgrs per head them as well. If you feel I am wrong tell me which country has a system which pays less per capita (adjusted for cost of living/wages) and which healthcare system is more streamlined. - At the end of the day it is one of the largest employers in the country so even ignoring the fact that the bigger it is the more likely you are to find outlier employees (good and bad) big organisations are labyrinthian in complexity and structure no matter what the industry

The only area I am aware on us being bad is actually data systems - our NHS record keeping (and ability for disparate parts of the system to see the same info) is woeful and that dates back to paper days. We have had too many political decisions to create NHS IT systems that have failed catastrophically

 

[IanSuth]

Has the employers NIC gone up 1.25% as well?

Yes and also 1.25% on share dividends

 

[Alyson Dyer]

Whatever happened to people looking after their own parents and grandparents?

In the days where people looked after their own parents very few people over 50 yo had parents still alive, less women worked full time and most people lived fairly close to where their parents lived.
All that has changed.

 

[KM-Tiger]

The only area I am aware on us being bad is actually data systems

It's all sorts of systems that need dragging into the 21st century, eg why are the NHS still sending letters through the post? Except for a few edge cases it's totally unnecessary.

 

[japancool]

But it isnt inefficient compared to it's rivals - we actually only spend about £2500 per capita on the NHS and we have less mgrs per head them as well. If you feel I am wrong tell me which country has a system which pays less per capita (adjusted for cost of living/wages) and which healthcare system is more streamlined.

Thailand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Thailand

 

[Newchodge]

Are all the people in care homes better off than them? Will they expect social care at some point?

All the people in care homes who have to contribute to the cost of their care are better off than them. You don't start to contribute, I understand, until you have more than 23,000

 

[thetiger2015]

A tory PM with the balls to break manifesto pledges and raise taxes. Whatever next?

Interesting take. More like he knows he can get away with it, as there's no opposition.

As for the NHS, the long term plan for over a decade has been to make it barely functioning, cripple it, burn money with it. Then people will scream for privatisation - they're already doing this.

The NHS could be streamlined, if they had the desire to do so, but how does that make profit for private healthcare ventures? They're moving to the US system of insurance backed care, this money will be swallowed up by the administrative burden of transferring over to the new private health care services.

 

[NickGrogan]

All the people in care homes who have to contribute to the cost of their care are better off than them. You don't start to contribute, I understand, until you have more than 23,000

And what about the people in care homes who aren't contributing?

In England, nearly half (46 per cent) of care home residents are part or fully funded by their
local authority

source: AgeUK

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalasse...positions/care-and-support/ppp_care_homes.pdf

 

[DontAsk]

It's all sorts of systems that need dragging into the 21st century, eg why are the NHS still sending letters through the post? Except for a few edge cases it's totally unnecessary.

Only the other day I registered for electronic delivery from my local trust. It's not the only one that does it either. Test results, etc., Come direct to the NHS app on my phone, etc., etc.,...

 

[JustGettingOnWithIt]

They are raising NI rather than income tax in the hope that it gets less noticed than a rise in income tax -

Yes, and it leaves the door open to raise income tax down the road.

 

[Alyson Dyer]

All the people in care homes who have to contribute to the cost of their care are better off than them. You don't start to contribute, I understand, until you have more than 23,000

In England you contribute on a sliding scale from around £14k to £23k, we are better off in Wales where you don’t contribute if you have under £50k BUT the amount paid by local authorities does not cover the care home charges so people and their families are required to pay a top up fee.
Don’t run away with the idea that the proposed cap will cover all care home fees, it will only cover the nursing fees which is about £200 per week (so about 7.6 years worth) NOT the “hotel” costs which are anything from £700 per week.
Considering that most care home stays average 2.5 years very few people will reach this cap. this is a rehash of the Dillnot report of 2010.

 

[Mr D]

I have just heard the 'social care statement' from Johnson. Can anyone explain to me, in simple, or indeed, any, terms, what the statement explained would happen to social care. Where was Johnson's ready made plan that he had when he was being elected? Where was anything that helps the social care issues? Limit on how much people can be asked to pay, insurance products to help pay. What about the lack of care staff? What about the lack of beds? Where was the money to pay care staff at a level above NMW? What a pile of rubbish, what a surprise!

Would you prefer a social care package that is drawn up in a few minutes?

Or carry on as we are, NHS with massive backlog that may well build every year plus a social care system that costs its users considerably?

The situation now is not as it was in 2019. You agree with that bit?
Right, what should NHS do about its backlog? Staff working more shifts? Train more staff?
Quite possibly for a few years we'll have backlog build up again on a local level - so a good idea to try getting it down somehow.
That will cost money. Overtime is nice and all, as is more staff trained, however costs money.
Has to come from somewhere.

Perhaps cut police budget to give NHS more? Or perhaps reduce education budget to give NHS more?
Hey, how about raising a particular tax? Good idea or bad idea?

NHS is needing more cash. Social care is needing more cash.

You mention people on NMW - OK so they could earn more. How much extra should they be paid and where should the money come from?
Will paying them more make any difference to the work they do, the speed they do it, the quality of the work? I've done social care work - paying more money for the work wouldn't have made any difference to the job.
So if simply paying them more won't make a difference, what should be done instead?

The lack of care staff - you are aware that we have high employment at the moment? Where should the extra care staff be recruited from? The same pool of people that HGV drivers, retail staff, hospitality staff, logistics staff etc are pulled from?