On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.
There are 430,000 civil servants in England & Wales, give or take. Let's go with incredibly broad numbers, and say they are all on UK median income of £30,000 each. That's £12.9bn, give or take.
Which is a lot of money. But it's barely more than 1% of the £1,053bn spent by the government each year.
Edit to add: the Institute for Government has a more recent number of 468,000 - which gets you to about £14bn.
It’s in work benefits - subsidising feckless employers - that have screwed the pooch. Thanks Gordon!
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.
There are 430,000 civil servants in England & Wales, give or take. Let's go with incredibly broad numbers, and say they are all on UK median income of £30,000 each. That's £12.9bn, give or take.
Which is a lot of money. But it's barely more than 1% of the £1,053bn spent by the government each year.
Edit to add: the Institute for Government has a more recent number of 468,000 - which gets you to about £14bn.
It’s in work benefits - subsidising feckless employers - that have screwed the pooch. Thanks Gordon!
As far as I am aware a childless couple working full time, even on minimum wage, don't get any benefits.
If people work part time, or have offspring, then they may do - but is that because the employer is feckless?
Should someone with five kids (before the 2 kid cap) and who works 16 hours a week really be expected to get enough from their employer to live on in just 16 hours of work?
F1: there was an error with what I wrote Sunday (besides the tip, I mean). I accidentally was too quick writing stuff up and the numbers for the driver/constructor standings had not been updated on the official website.
Edited extra bit: I think the driver numbers were right, but not the teams'.
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.
There are 430,000 civil servants in England & Wales, give or take. Let's go with incredibly broad numbers, and say they are all on UK median income of £30,000 each. That's £12.9bn, give or take.
Which is a lot of money. But it's barely more than 1% of the £1,053bn spent by the government each year.
Edit to add: the Institute for Government has a more recent number of 468,000 - which gets you to about £14bn.
It’s in work benefits - subsidising feckless employers - that have screwed the pooch. Thanks Gordon!
As far as I am aware a childless couple working full time, even on minimum wage, don't get any benefits.
If people work part time, or have offspring, then they may do - but is that because the employer is feckless?
Should someone with five kids (before the 2 kid cap) and who works 16 hours a week really be expected to get enough from their employer to live on in just 16 hours of work?
Subsidising wages allows employers to underinvest in productivity enhancing capital. It was a way to massage unemployment figures at vast cost to the state. But because he tried (don’t know if they still do) to account for it as negative revenue instead of a cost no one realised
Meanwhile, putting eggs to one side briefly, over at U-turn news...
Neil Henderson @hendopolis I: Tory panic over tax grab plan to fund social care #TomorrowsPapersToday
It will be portrayed as a tax grab no matter what. That is to do with tabloids being tabloids.
Some on PB have argued that basing it on NI will punish the Red Wall more, or the Southern Nimby Alliance, depending on X, Y or Z. Do we talk money or % of income?
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.
There are 430,000 civil servants in England & Wales, give or take. Let's go with incredibly broad numbers, and say they are all on UK median income of £30,000 each. That's £12.9bn, give or take.
Which is a lot of money. But it's barely more than 1% of the £1,053bn spent by the government each year.
Edit to add: the Institute for Government has a more recent number of 468,000 - which gets you to about £14bn.
It’s in work benefits - subsidising feckless employers - that have screwed the pooch. Thanks Gordon!
It's worth a footnote that that £1.053 trillion includes a temporary (?) ~25% COVID uplift in Government spending.
Liz Kendal on R4 avoiding saying how Labour would fund social care.
Why don't they have answers? No wonder people are losing faith with Starmer.
Bit of a car crash:
Labour’s shadow Care Minister says her party will “set out plans before the election when we know what the economic conditions are” on how they’d fund social care.
Sector can’t afford another delay of several years. Not sure Labour leadership has any more of a plan than govt.
A leading economist appointed to Nicola Sturgeon’s panel of advisers has warned that the damage from tearing up the 300-year-old Union between Scotland and England risks being equivalent of “Brexit times ten”.
Michel Hussain is right: "we need an answer now from Labour"
Lisa Nandy was making the point yesterday that Labour think we need a cross-party discussion about this; quick fixes are not the answer. She also made the point that an increase in the NI contribution wasn't even acceptable as an interim fix!
Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?
Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.
Not seen the details but that sounds like the position in Scotland where social care is "free" but you still pay the accommodation part of your costs on a means tested basis.
On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.
I'm sure you're right and it's not being considered.
Would removing NI exemption for pensioners only affect employment income anyway?
I'd do that but also, short of a root and branch tax overhaul, try and find a revenue neutral (for workers) decrease in NI and increase in IT that would shift more of the tax take from workers to the retired.
Like other retired pb 'members', I'm financially OK..... not rich but OK ...... and I really don't see why my working grandchildren should have their taxes increased to 'help' me.
However, I'm also very aware that the retired part of the population includes many who are very much not financially OK, and need help. Especially when it comes to social care.
and these would be helped by an 8% uplift. and the wealthier ones would see the extra swallowed up by increased tax take. so overall i'd be aiming for workers neutral, poorer pensioners slightly better off, wealthier pensioners worse off but not sure by how much.
I know I've oversimplified greatly and this is easy to pick holes in but it's the general drift of what I'd aim for.
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
It's just a case of variety - i love cake but I cannot stand it if i have it for every meal.
Hes at his best when talking about systemic problems, and in fact he has done more of that lately, partly as he really dislikes Biden.
Liz Kendal on R4 avoiding saying how Labour would fund social care.
Why don't they have answers? No wonder people are losing faith with Starmer.
Bit of a car crash:
Labour’s shadow Care Minister says her party will “set out plans before the election when we know what the economic conditions are” on how they’d fund social care.
Sector can’t afford another delay of several years. Not sure Labour leadership has any more of a plan than govt.
Yes. Labour are sticking to tried and tested line of taking no risks by revealing tax plans and don't interfere when your enemy is making a mistake, but in this case they are, IMHO, wrong.
Other parties, as well as the Tories, have had decades to get it sorted. If Labour look less prepared than the govt, it will look bad.
This is an example of Labour having to address incompatible demographics. They rely on: public sector workers, benefits people, posh educated and their interests in all this differ.
BTW the Tory plan, if it is for an NI increase, is wrong.
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.
There are 430,000 civil servants in England & Wales, give or take. Let's go with incredibly broad numbers, and say they are all on UK median income of £30,000 each. That's £12.9bn, give or take.
Which is a lot of money. But it's barely more than 1% of the £1,053bn spent by the government each year.
Edit to add: the Institute for Government has a more recent number of 468,000 - which gets you to about £14bn.
It’s in work benefits - subsidising feckless employers - that have screwed the pooch. Thanks Gordon!
As far as I am aware a childless couple working full time, even on minimum wage, don't get any benefits.
If people work part time, or have offspring, then they may do - but is that because the employer is feckless?
Should someone with five kids (before the 2 kid cap) and who works 16 hours a week really be expected to get enough from their employer to live on in just 16 hours of work?
They should keep their pants on and get their arses out to work more often
Whatever "solution" is proposed for social care it will be a patch-up with sticky plaster. The basic issue is obviously a matter of social insurance.
The lifetime costs of adult social care for older people varies considerably ... In 2010 the Dilnot Commission estimated 50 per cent of people aged 65 and over will spend up to £20,000 on care costs and that 10 per cent would face costs of more than £100,000.
In 2019/20, 838,530 adults received publicly funded long-term social care, primarily in care/nursing homes or in their own homes. In addition, there were 231,295 episodes of short-term care provided.
and
The National Audit Office has estimated that in 2016/17 people spent £10.9 billion on privately purchased social care.
Many people who receive publicly funded social care are also expected to contribute towards it from their income. In 2019/20 a total of £3.1 billion was spent on these fees and charges.
Another useless appearance from one of Starmer's team.
Why after all this time Labour have not come up with a way of funding social care is incredible.
Kendel just waffling about we will bring proposals forward at NEXT general election. i.e. years away.
Can we have a working opposition please?
Theres no good answer, so they are banking on just opposing for now. Politically it is often the better move, but if you lack credibility it is less effective.
A leading economist appointed to Nicola Sturgeon’s panel of advisers has warned that the damage from tearing up the 300-year-old Union between Scotland and England risks being equivalent of “Brexit times ten”.
A leading economist appointed to Nicola Sturgeon’s panel of advisers has warned that the damage from tearing up the 300-year-old Union between Scotland and England risks being equivalent of “Brexit times ten”.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
Totally agree.
Me too.
If you have savings for a Rainy Day, when that Rainy Day comes, you use them. Not expect others to pay.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
Comments
If people work part time, or have offspring, then they may do - but is that because the employer is feckless?
Should someone with five kids (before the 2 kid cap) and who works 16 hours a week really be expected to get enough from their employer to live on in just 16 hours of work?
F1: there was an error with what I wrote Sunday (besides the tip, I mean). I accidentally was too quick writing stuff up and the numbers for the driver/constructor standings had not been updated on the official website.
Edited extra bit: I think the driver numbers were right, but not the teams'.
Some on PB have argued that basing it on NI will punish the Red Wall more, or the Southern Nimby Alliance, depending on X, Y or Z. Do we talk money or % of income?
What time is the u-turn?
Why don't they have answers? No wonder people are losing faith with Starmer.
Why after all this time Labour have not come up with a way of funding social care is incredible.
Kendel just waffling about we will bring proposals forward at NEXT general election. i.e. years away.
Can we have a working opposition please?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298465/government-spending-uk/
Labour’s shadow Care Minister says her party will “set out plans before the election when we know what the economic conditions are” on how they’d fund social care.
Sector can’t afford another delay of several years. Not sure Labour leadership has any more of a plan than govt.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1434777874242932737?s=20
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1434764765906231305?s=20
She also made the point that an increase in the NI contribution wasn't even acceptable as an interim fix!
I know I've oversimplified greatly and this is easy to pick holes in but it's the general drift of what I'd aim for.
NEW THREAD
Hes at his best when talking about systemic problems, and in fact he has done more of that lately, partly as he really dislikes Biden.
Other parties, as well as the Tories, have had decades to get it sorted. If Labour look less prepared than the govt, it will look bad.
This is an example of Labour having to address incompatible demographics. They rely on: public sector workers, benefits people, posh educated and their interests in all this differ.
BTW the Tory plan, if it is for an NI increase, is wrong.
The basic issue is obviously a matter of social insurance.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-adult-social-care
These are now clear underestimates, but they give an idea of the scale.
and ibid.
According to the Parish Rag he supports indy:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18685878.economist-mark-blyth-im-now-convert-scottish-independence/
Or did last year.
If you have savings for a Rainy Day, when that Rainy Day comes, you use them. Not expect others to pay.