So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

You're focusing entirely on older people - which is often the case - but the social care crisis goes far wider and deeper than that; you're missing out the very high cost packages of specialist care that are required for people with LD, mental illness, physical disabilities and acquired conditions - and that's not even considering the terminally knackered children's sector - which is a whole subject in itself.

Very wealthy older people already self-fund in 'boutique' care homes and retirement facilities; often they are mixed with LA funded residents, which will prop up the EBITDA of the home, because LA fees alone are nowhere near enough to sustain them - and this has precipitated the steady rise in bed numbers. Older people's homes are now 70+ beds - economies of scale and all that bloodless stuff.

The specialist packages I'm referring to are the real kicker - we're looking at £2.5k per week plus - and there are increasing numbers of them, as the Transforming Care agenda sees people discharged from long term hospital placements - which in turn, are easily £5k per week and above.

Both aspects of the sector are screwed - they rely almost entirely on private providers - and as LA's have lost billions to austerity measures, their ability to fund them appropriately has reduced year on year; such that LA's are now compelling providers to do more for less - sometimes to a dangerous degree - and many of the smaller providers are exiting the market, leaving the massive, hedge-funded operators to dominate; and if one them goes pop - as with Southern Cross a few years ago - that creates a huge problem for the LA, and for the people who relied on their services.

Social Care is always the last consideration - because it doesn't have the public sympathy or affection that the NHS has - but it is an urgent crisis that is getting worse every year; if something doesn't change, the sector will collapse, and society will find itself with hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people needing specialist care - with no one to deliver it.

come on Sal, wrencat has asked that question 20 times now and still no answer....?

This is like Michael Howard with Jeremy Paxman going "did you threaten to overrule him"

Ha ha - I would have thought my model would explain who has funded the vast majority of the care costs due to their financial contributions over the years in both income tax and VAT. I am struggling to understand how Wrencat still thinks the lower paid are supporting the higher paid?

I dont know quite what happened with the multiple posts, I think that the RLFans gods must have wanted to help me make the point.

However, in the scenario that I mentioned, the person on 100k, who didn't buy their home, for whatever reason, would pay more tax than the homeowner and would not have the housing asset when they retired or needed social care.
To use a gambling term ,they would be "all in", whereas the home owner would still have their asset tucked away, to pass on to their family and yes, every other tax payer would be subsidising the home owners social care.

It's not too difficult to understand, although, I do accept that the vast majority of people earning 100k will have bought their own home.

However, to test the theory, simply reduce the income and the chances of home ownership and decide if it is still wholly reasonable for those without property to keep on paying for those with property.

I know that a certain poster thinks that these are the ideas of envy etc, etc but, it's an interesting debate and in every other aspect of life, we are encouraged to "pay our own way", yet, on this issue, selling our main asset to help ourselves in old age is seen as taboo.

The cost of care will be the same whether you earned 100k or 25k - so I am struggling to understand why you think its the rental are funding the homeowner? Surely the homeowner will have already paid in significantly more over their lifetime which will be used to fund the social care of those who have contributed significantly less? Am I missing something? As their mortgage drops as a % of income they will have more disposable income to spend? So why is it OK to take even more off them? So would you also take their savings too?

Fundamentally, if you can afford your own social care, either by using savings or other assets, why should you expect the taxpayer to fund your care ?