Maybe @Chris-P-Bacon isn’t keen on the NHS being accessible to and by all … perhaps he would care to explain why.
You're making an unfair assumption. Why would I not want the NHS to be "accessible"? But IMO paying somebody 75k to address an issue that I don't think exists is a shocking waste of money better spent on other things - like looking after our aging population, our disabled or our chronically or terminally ill?
I don't even know what an Head of Equality Diversity & Inclusion is..nor what they actually do on a daily basis? ..do you? And is it worth 50 to 75k?. Unpalatable to some perhaps but quite frankly I think it's virtue-signalling wokery of the worst kind.
Social care needs sorting out but what is the fair way?
It seems to me that a lot of the complaints come from people paying their way from assets or a charge on their house. The idea that the assets you want to leave to your loved ones is shrinking. It might be very unpopular but any money you have when alive should perhaps be used to pay your way while alive. Should your kid's inheritance be protected by poorer people paying more in taxes on earnings? The very fact you have assets above the threshold for paying your own social care means you're not poor.
BTW I don't know the solution but if social is to be truly funded from the general tax pot then that extra money should be fairly harvested. NIC has a central range of income from quite low to fairly common income levels already paying what 12%. Below the Iower level no NIC, above the upper level is 2%. That seems daft enough already without increasing it. Add in seniors potentially with higher incomes from pensions or capital are not paying NIC. It all seems illogical. Perhaps the who state income needs rationalising. A single income tax without NIC or even local council tax, or national and a local income tax perhaps?
OMG WHAT they wanna raise our taxes to pay for old people?! Covid obviously didn't kill enough old people, despite Covid killing loads of facking old people. I would happily go to a pentobarbital clinic (and have done for years) instead of being forced to stay alive for the next 40 years to pay taxes to force people to stay alive with extremely poor qualities of life in care homes. Society doesn't agree with that.
Totally true - but look at the age split for social care spend. To me there are two levels here (and hence why I said that social care and pension are effectively 'bundled') - general social care (which I think should be covered by the current tax contributions), and the draining post-retirement social care. I still think the gov(s) are moving towards ditching(or reducing) the State Pension and going private anyway. Would it be so stupid to do the same for post retirement social care? The gov has said that the contribution to care cover will be capped, so that gives a target for each of us to hit over our lifetimes - and whether we do that via taxation to the gov or paying a private service, the money has to be saved doesn't it? Personally, I think both routes have their drawbacks - if paid to the gov, at least shareholders aren't paid, but then the gov(s) have a poor record running such schemes (admin goes up) - and the temptation is to use the money collected for other things. If paid to a private org, you have control over the money and can manage your own pot, but then they'll be charges for admin and payments to shareholders and what happens on an individual basis if you don't reach your target fund total?
If what I perceive to be happening actually is, then the slowly diminishing number of public sector final salary pensions will stop hitting the gov 'pot', and over a longer period, private pensions will supersede the state pension. The gov 'pot' will have a significantly smaller drain. It's odd that people don't see their contributions to private pensions as another tax - which is why I'm surprised that old Boris didn't bite the bullet and go private on post retirement social care - as it wouldn't be seen to be a 'gov' thing.
Well, plenty of people see no value in what they see as “keeping people alive” when they have no quality of life and should be “allowed to die”.
What they really mean is that they would happily see these people would die of neglect in squalor, not out of some imagined joyous, planned, life departure.
But plenty of people think like that, I know quite a few.
Well, plenty of people see no value in what they see as “keeping people alive” when they have no quality of life and should be “allowed to die”.
What they really mean is that they would happily see these people would die of neglect in squalor, not out of some imagined joyous, planned, life departure.
But plenty of people think like that, I know quite a few.
Hitler was one … exterminating the disabled was the start …
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Posts
But IMO paying somebody 75k to address an issue that I don't think exists is a shocking waste of money better spent on other things - like looking after our aging population, our disabled or our chronically or terminally ill?
I don't even know what an Head of Equality Diversity & Inclusion is..nor what they actually do on a daily basis? ..do you? And is it worth 50 to 75k?.
Unpalatable to some perhaps but quite frankly I think it's virtue-signalling wokery of the worst kind.
It seems to me that a lot of the complaints come from people paying their way from assets or a charge on their house. The idea that the assets you want to leave to your loved ones is shrinking. It might be very unpopular but any money you have when alive should perhaps be used to pay your way while alive. Should your kid's inheritance be protected by poorer people paying more in taxes on earnings? The very fact you have assets above the threshold for paying your own social care means you're not poor.
BTW I don't know the solution but if social is to be truly funded from the general tax pot then that extra money should be fairly harvested. NIC has a central range of income from quite low to fairly common income levels already paying what 12%. Below the Iower level no NIC, above the upper level is 2%. That seems daft enough already without increasing it. Add in seniors potentially with higher incomes from pensions or capital are not paying NIC. It all seems illogical. Perhaps the who state income needs rationalising. A single income tax without NIC or even local council tax, or national and a local income tax perhaps?
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
If what I perceive to be happening actually is, then the slowly diminishing number of public sector final salary pensions will stop hitting the gov 'pot', and over a longer period, private pensions will supersede the state pension. The gov 'pot' will have a significantly smaller drain. It's odd that people don't see their contributions to private pensions as another tax - which is why I'm surprised that old Boris didn't bite the bullet and go private on post retirement social care - as it wouldn't be seen to be a 'gov' thing.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.