Labour ?

For me there's something very odd about the Tories not declaring the income threshold above which the winter fuel allowance ill be withdrawn. It would have been straight-forward enough to peg it to the 40% income tax band. That's what they did when they wanted to reduce child benefit. It's also the cap for the transfer of unused personal tax allowance when one partner doesn't work.  I wonder why that wasn't used this time? Could it be perhaps that they know that proportionately most pensioners vote and tend to vote Conservative? Stalling until consultation after the election couldn't possibly be a cynical move to get the votes, then reveal the cut off could it?   

I don't think means testing will work I just think that with so many calls on the public purse it's absurd to give relatively well off people heating benefit and other support. A more effective way would be to give everyone an increased state pension but include in the income tax assessment for the better off. 

Regarding the Care issue,  what is the answer? bearing in mind the NHS is already extremely underfunded how do you finance the endless money pit that Care requires? 

Winter fuel allowance?  In some ways I have no problem with those that don't need it still receiving it, because hardworking people are expected to pay for everything, so why not.

On the flip side, money saved from those that don't require it, could be used elsewhere.

Knocking any policy is easy, coming up with a credible answer/alternative  is much more difficult.......

Another thing that may raise a flag is Conservative plans to increase restrictions / controls on the Internet.

The State Pension is already subject to income tax. The personal allowance for this tax year is £11,500 which equates to just over £220 per week.  The State Pension is way behind that, even if you added the annual £300 winter fuel allowance to it.  

wenger2015 posted:

Regarding the Care issue,  what is the answer? bearing in mind the NHS is already extremely underfunded how do you finance the endless money pit that Care requires? 

[...]

Knocking any policy is easy, coming up with a credible answer/alternative  is much more difficult.......

The problem with the NHS / Social Care is (IMO) like many problems with government funding ... the worrying about funding them shows that the real problem has been missed. Essentially it is a product of the inequity in the U.K.  If wages for the low paid were higher: a lot of in work benefits could be eliminated as well as pushing tax receipts up. 

wenger2015 posted:

Regarding the Care issue,  what is the answer? bearing in mind the NHS is already extremely underfunded how do you finance the endless money pit that Care requires? 

Winter fuel allowance?  In some ways I have no problem with those that don't need it still receiving it, because hardworking people are expected to pay for everything, so why not.

On the flip side, money saved from those that don't require it, could be used elsewhere.

Knocking any policy is easy, coming up with a credible answer/alternative  is much more difficult.......

 

Dilnott proposed the answer: set a cap on care costs - Cameron's government said it would set it at £72k - which then enables people to insure against the cost. Without a cap the insurance sector won't provide a suitable product. The consequence of the current Tory proposal is that if you are unlucky enough to contract dementia the state is effectively saying 'you're on your own'.       

MDS posted:

The State Pension is already subject to income tax. The personal allowance for this tax year is £11,500 which equates to just over £220 per week.  The State Pension is way behind that, even if you added the annual £300 winter fuel allowance to it.  

For reference; the less than £2bn paid in winter fuel allowance is around 2% of the £108bn paid in pensions. 

MDS posted:

Dilnott proposed the answer: set a cap on care costs - Cameron's government said it would set it at £72k - which then enables people to insure against the cost. Without a cap the insurance sector won't provide a suitable product. The consequence of the current Tory proposal is that if you are unlucky enough to contract dementia the state is effectively saying 'you're on your own'.       

It (a cap) was a better idea; but still makes dementia something you have to pay for vs cancer with NHS covers you for. 

The big hypocrisy in this is that May stood up saying how mental health problems should be treated with equity compared with physical health problems; then this regressive policy speaks volumes!

PS dementia isn't contagious so you would "suffer from dementia" not "contract dementia" but of course I know what you meant!

MDS posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Regarding the Care issue,  what is the answer? bearing in mind the NHS is already extremely underfunded how do you finance the endless money pit that Care requires? 

Winter fuel allowance?  In some ways I have no problem with those that don't need it still receiving it, because hardworking people are expected to pay for everything, so why not.

On the flip side, money saved from those that don't require it, could be used elsewhere.

Knocking any policy is easy, coming up with a credible answer/alternative  is much more difficult.......

 

Dilnott proposed the answer: set a cap on care costs - Cameron's government said it would set it at £72k - which then enables people to insure against the cost. Without a cap the insurance sector won't provide a suitable product. The consequence of the current Tory proposal is that if you are unlucky enough to contract dementia the state is effectively saying 'you're on your own'.       

If that is the case, I totally understand your point of view. 

wenger2015 posted:

Knocking any policy is easy, coming up with a credible answer/alternative  is much more difficult.......

I'm no expert... but I suspect part of the answer would be to stop treating health and social care as two separate (competing) funding pots and integrate the two. Currently NHS blame local authorities (social care) and vice versa.

PS (from MDS above) Dilnott was an expert ... we shouldn't go around listening to people like that!

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Regarding the Care issue,  what is the answer? bearing in mind the NHS is already extremely underfunded how do you finance the endless money pit that Care requires? 

[...]

Knocking any policy is easy, coming up with a credible answer/alternative  is much more difficult.......

The problem with the NHS / Social Care is (IMO) like many problems with government funding ... the worrying about funding them shows that the real problem has been missed. Essentially it is a product of the inequity in the U.K.  If wages for the low paid were higher: a lot of in work benefits could be eliminated as well as pushing tax receipts up. 

Eloise - Please do expand on this, for this comes across as a mix of concepts (to my eyes).

The social care issues & funding challenges are a direct result of an aging population, the increased UK population and general operating costs. See the KingsFund NHS review of recent times to understand the funding and demand-side drivers. Quite scary from a £'s perspective.

Unfortunately, just increasing NMW won't cure such a profile - it could even worsen it. I would suggest that running open borders with the EU and the level of economic migrancy is also in play here. In a closed economy, labour rates would naturally increase in line with market demand. A profound issue for the UK within the Brexit implications is what will happen to the raft of cheap (EU) labour which many parts of our economy now rely on.  

As to the Labour rhetoric and sound-bite politics around the means testing of the fuel payments and the extremis implications, I think I am right in saying  the mechanism has yet to be determined (as MDS mentions). There has been no suggestion payments would be withdrawn from those who need them. As I read the general thrust of the Tory manifesto, the latter would go against the grain of what is being suggested i.e. we need to maintain fiscal husbandry (lest we expose ourselves to potential forced austerity measures down the line), those who can afford to cover/contribute to their own social care will need to do this in the years ahead as UK plc won't be in a position to cover all such costs - acting more as a lifeboat than a (subsidising) charity for the well-off. Reality bites....which has been on the table for many years.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

A more effective way would be to give everyone an increased state pension but include in the income tax assessment for the better off. 

Virtually this is actually Labour's policy - give the fuel allowance to everyone, then get it back in tax from those who don't need it. McDonnell said as much on Any Questions on Friday. Doing it that way kills multiple birds with one stone.

There's a lot of benefit money that goes unclaimed each year for various reasons. Among which, under a means testing regime, must surely be older people who aren't very good at/can't negotiate the claiming procedures, paperwork etc. Or who don't realise they could claim it. Or don't want to stigmatise themselves as benefit claimants, etc etc. That's part of why the Tories' plan seems so badly thought out - there will inevitably be those who need the payment, but don't get it. The tax way of doing it gets the payment to those who need it regardless.

There's also the cost involved in means testing - both in terms of the assessment and the administration of who gets paid, who doesn't, etc. Even if the means testing is tied to tax brackets as MDS suggests, considerable costs will still be involved. Whereas classing the payment as general income, and therefore taxing it as part of income tax, avoids that. It just adds a small calculation to tax allowances and it's done.

Ironically, the internet regulation changes in the Tory manifesto sound like they were written by a pensioner scared of the internet. So they've remembered one of their core demographics somewhere, at least.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Heating support.  I'm going to be fortunate enough to retire next year on an excellent package with considerable benefit.  Why on earth should I receive heating benefit and a bus pass when a relative of mine earns just on the living wage pays £4 a day in bus fares to get to work.   Corbyn, Labour and the socialist movement is so detached from reality it beggars belief.   Hell I'm angry.     

Yes, but he probably already has your relative's vote but by and large he doesn't have the elderly votes, those he needs to buy even if that means ignoring the obvious affordability issues and the widening gap between the old and young and dodging the difficult decisions that are required.  And before anyone bothers to say, I am sure that the payment can be targeted without taking it off everyone and putting those who need it at risk. 

Labour policy would appear to be paper over the issues with the leader and his team by attempting to buy sections of the public whilst ignoring the financial damage that this will cause.  Cynical and desperate.  We are so desperate for a new leader it's unreal.

Regarding the social care proposal, I don't think calling it a "dementia tax" is very helpful. My mother lived to 97. She didn't have dementia but for the last few years she needed more help than I could provide so she moved into a care home. The vast majority of people who live to advanced old age will need some kind of support whether they have dementia or not, and it will need to be paid for. My mother's house was sold to fund her care and I was absolutely fine with that - it was her needs and her money. I put no money into that house and had no right to expect the state to contribute to "preserve my inheritance". An inheritance is what's left over after someone's lifetime needs have been met and £100,000 allowance seems a more than generous way of meeting people's wish to pass something on to their children, especially since the children of  very old people will mostly be in their 50s or older and should have sorted themselves out by then.

As we all (hopefully) live longer the need for social care will increase and it will have to be paid for. For those with assets they should pay for themselves, and the state should provide care for those who can't afford it. The best way to fund this is surely by taxing people after they and their partner are both dead. My only reservation about this is how it is going to be implemented and how loopholes can be plugged. I would prefer a massive increase in death duties but that is probably politically impossible and lacks the hypothecation element of the current proposals. 

As a natural Labour supporter , I am dismayed by the Party's negative reaction. There should be scope for a cross party consensus on this issue.

May has bottled it, and will consult on a cap. The Tories really were a bit dim on this, but what's to be expected from a leader who doesn't even know what's in her party's own manifesto? The idea just wasn't thought through. 

Yep, either a fumble or a blatant attempt to get something horrible through because she feels she can't lose.  You would think politicians would be wise to the risks of complacency by now wouldn't you?

Crikey. It comes to something when UKIP label a policy as "nasty", which is what they done with the Tory care proposals today.  UKIP are the experts on "nasty"!

Media now labelling the announcement of including a cap in the consultation as a U-turn. Had to see it any other way. TM looked rattled at her press conference this morning. And TM labelling Corbyn's criticism of her policy as "fake claims" is just too Trump-like for comfort. Surely she doesn't want to be associated with Trump's handling of challenge?  

Pev posted:

Regarding the social care proposal, I don't think calling it a "dementia tax" is very helpful. My mother lived to 97. She didn't have dementia but for the last few years she needed more help than I could provide so she moved into a care home. The vast majority of people who live to advanced old age will need some kind of support whether they have dementia or not, and it will need to be paid for. My mother's house was sold to fund her care and I was absolutely fine with that - it was her needs and her money. I put no money into that house and had no right to expect the state to contribute to "preserve my inheritance". An inheritance is what's left over after someone's lifetime needs have been met and £100,000 allowance seems a more than generous way of meeting people's wish to pass something on to their children, especially since the children of  very old people will mostly be in their 50s or older and should have sorted themselves out by then.

As we all (hopefully) live longer the need for social care will increase and it will have to be paid for. For those with assets they should pay for themselves, and the state should provide care for those who can't afford it. The best way to fund this is surely by taxing people after they and their partner are both dead. My only reservation about this is how it is going to be implemented and how loopholes can be plugged. I would prefer a massive increase in death duties but that is probably politically impossible and lacks the hypothecation element of the current proposals. 

As a natural Labour supporter , I am dismayed by the Party's negative reaction. There should be scope for a cross party consensus on this issue.

Well, Pev. Your mum had a good innings, though I know it must have been difficult at the end.  But early onset dementia affects thousands of people in their forties and fifties, when the progression is much more rapid and the effects awful.   

Pev posted:

Regarding the social care proposal, I don't think calling it a "dementia tax" is very helpful. My mother lived to 97. She didn't have dementia but for the last few years she needed more help than I could provide so she moved into a care home. The vast majority of people who live to advanced old age will need some kind of support whether they have dementia or not, and it will need to be paid for. My mother's house was sold to fund her care and I was absolutely fine with that - it was her needs and her money. I put no money into that house and had no right to expect the state to contribute to "preserve my inheritance". An inheritance is what's left over after someone's lifetime needs have been met and £100,000 allowance seems a more than generous way of meeting people's wish to pass something on to their children, especially since the children of  very old people will mostly be in their 50s or older and should have sorted themselves out by then.

So pev ... would you support a much reduced IHT limit (say the £100,000 you say is a reasonable inheritance.  Perhaps a 60% tax of everything above £100k, 85% tax for inheritance above £1m?

The unfairness (IMO) is that there is it's down to luck basically over if you need social care or not.  Everyone should pay a contribution to societies costs.

Hungryhalibut posted:

May has bottled it, and will consult on a cap. The Tories really were a bit dim on this, but what's to be expected from a leader who doesn't even know what's in her party's own manifesto? The idea just wasn't thought through. 

But has she done a U-turn because she realises it's an unfair policy, or is the U-turn simply because she is loosing support?  A governement should be doing what they believe is right , not just what's popular.

As much as I disagree with Thatchers policies, I would suggest for the most part she pushed them through because she felt they were best for the country.  The more May acts the more I feel she is just aiming to consolidate power.

Eloise posted:

So pev ... would you support a much reduced IHT limit (say the £100,000 you say is a reasonable inheritance.  Perhaps a 60% tax of everything above £100k, 85% tax for inheritance above £1m?

The unfairness (IMO) is that there is it's down to luck basically over if you need social care or not.  Everyone should pay a contribution to societies costs.

Yes I would - the figures you suggest seem reasonable to me. If we need to raise more for public services, and I believe we do, then who better to tax than dead people?

What a shame May seems to be turning back from this proposal - anything that UKIP hates must have some merit!

Hungryhalibut posted:

May has bottled it, and will consult on a cap. The Tories really were a bit dim on this, but what's to be expected from a leader who doesn't even know what's in her party's own manifesto? The idea just wasn't thought through. 

Nigel - not sure I would agree on the 'bottled it' bit. I think the Tory's primary issue is setting down only outline plans (question begs as to why they needed to vent it at all), with the gaps/outlines allowing for extremis interpretations to be thrown out there, with usual negative and aggressive sound-biting (witness Angela Rayner on QT last week on the fuel allowance). I agree that someone needs to start thinking about the Tory's face to the people.

They've got themselves in a hole and must stop digging (IMV one of the challenges is that Mrs May doesn't dig well - she lacks the verbal fluency of Cameron which is far from reassuring). And offering up the likes of BJ (proven to have been inaccurate on Brexit aspects), doesn't help them.

I think we all recognise this is her election to lose and she's having a good go at achieving this - which is very worrying from my perspective i.e. allowing Labour to get the keys to the Treasury and whether Mrs May, if the Tories win, has the gravitas and capability to be PM.

I fear a key aspect in all this is that the elderly home-owning voters who voted for Brexit, will now go 'Little Britain' again, and not face the reality of economic life for the elderly in the UK moving forward (as Pev has outlined).

Social care funding  is such a major issue that however it is resolved it is bound to upset a proportion of the population. Only the state has been willing (and for a time large enough) to accept some form of risk pooling - insurance companies won't go near it for social care. Assuming that you don't want to increase taxes, then, as far as I can see, the only viable alternative is for individuals to accept responsibility and the costs where they have the resources. I'm sure that most would like to pass on the maximum inheritance and have social care funded by the state, without paying extra taxes but its not going to happen. If you also accept that over recent years there has been a significant transfer of wealth from younger generations to the elderly then using potential inheritances makes sense as it avoids increasing taxation across the working population (especially the young) and reducing further inter-generational wealth transfer. If it was easy  then it would have been sorted by now

BN

I'd agree that capping care costs but increasing inheritance tax is a fairer way to go. Why should someone who has very expensive cancer (say) treatment get it on the NHS while someone with dementia has to pay with their house? The whole issue of paying for the impact of an ageing population needs to be reviewed thoroughly and a consensus reached, and cannot be fixed with knee jerk suggestions in election manifestos.