Poll: Is this socially just?

Watch this thread
Poll: Is this socially just?
Yes (11)
55%
No (9)
45%
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Man, woman or couple with valuable house need social care, nobody to leave the house to. Public purse funds their care and house is left to charity of choice.

Conservative say it isn't entirely fair and Labour say it is. Is it?
0
reply
ed98
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
No it's not fair. If they are wealthy they should pay for their own care. The public don't pay taxes so others can give to charity but for essential services.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by ed98)
No it's not fair. If they are wealthy they should pay for their own care. The public don't pay taxes so others can give to charity but for essential services.
Are you by any chance implying the Tories may be more socialist than Labour in real terms? That would be quite controversial...
0
reply
ed98
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by zhog)
Are you by any chance implying the Tories may be more socialist than Labour in real terms? That would be quite controversial...
Compared to the current labour leadership? No way. However the proposed Tory social care plans are undoubtedly a clear step towards the left and a dramatic shift from the traditional Tory position.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by ed98)
Compared to the current labour leadership? No way. However the proposed Tory social care plans are undoubtedly a clear step towards the left and a dramatic shift from the traditional Tory position.
Prepare yourself for a shock: the Tories are often more socialist than Labour and this is one of them.

Remember the bedroom tax? It was Tory policy that people in housing with a room to spare ought to be not forcefully moved (as it would happen in NKorea, China or Cuba) but 'stimulated'' to free up that space for the very long list of housing applicants. Every room counts and this is the civilized West, right?

In doing so, the Conservatives were obviously placing the interests of the collective above those of the individual. Labour opposed it to exhaustion, declaring such policy an example of Tory moral torpitude. In doing so, they were placing the interests of the individual above those of the collective.

It's exactly the same with the dementia tax. In politics, very few things are what they appear to be.
3
reply
Trapz99
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
I'd expect the Tories to think it's fair and Labour to think it's not fair. But I'd say it's not fair.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Trapz99)
I'd expect the Tories to think it's fair and Labour to think it's not fair. But I'd say it's not fair.
That;s fair enough, see how certain things in politics may not meet our expectations when we delve into them? Most people out there would expect it to be the other way round too, isn't that interesting?
1
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by ed98)
If they are wealthy they should pay for their own care.
Why? They've spent years paying for everyone else's.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#9
Everyone talks as if the proposals were aimed at people 'with children' and of course that is no serious approach to the very pressing issue of how to fund social care for all and meet the projected increased costs in future. Whoever is in government has to deal with the real picture and whoever is in opposition can just be idealistic about it for effect, Labour have no idea what the projected cost of their policy on funding social care will be in a decade, they may well not even know what it is now. As for the also-runs, they can promise anything.

So the Conservatives, being in power, have looked at it and came up with what became known as 'the dementia-tax'. Again, that is a trivialization of the issue, we are talking social-care in general and being that glib is no help to anything, same for the 'bedroom-tax'. Labour come up with these slogans in order to tittilate people's nervous chords, I think it sucks.

The debate of the proposals was allowed to turn into a question of whether people will be able to pass on their property to their children, that is a big mistake. When we plan social care or welfare we have in mind an individual, a profile has to be adopted for the sake of reference. In this case, we cannot dictate policy for 'people with children' or be necessarily led by the 'inheritance' angle, what we have is simply to care for everyone who may need some regardless of parental status and find the money for it somewhere. Nobody would like to carve out an exemption for those 'with children', that wouldn't be fair either. That is all May needed to say, she must fear being outed as a communist by Labour next.

I am a home owner with children, I know what would benefit me and mine the most. However, I have to admit the interests of the collective would be best served by the 'dementia-tax' and regard it as anything but evil.

Labourites don't look at it that way, apparently. How socialist are they really?
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Why? They've spent years paying for everyone else's.
To you and everyone voting 'yes': they woouldn't have to sell the house in their lifetime, what good is it to them once they're gone?
0
reply
Tiger Rag
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Why? They've spent years paying for everyone else's.
Where do you suggest the money comes from?
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Tiger Rag)
Where do you suggest the money comes from?
Same place as the rest of the money. I simply suggest that people who have made more money in their lives, and thus contributed more to the system in the first place, shouldn't be doubly punished and excluded from state provided care on the basis of their assets when they need it. All I can say is that, if I were chancellor, I would weight things in that direction.

(Original post by zhog)
To you and everyone voting 'yes': they woouldn't have to sell the house in their lifetime, what good is it to them once they're gone?
It's not really any of my or anyone else's business. It's their property and they can dispose of it however they like, including by way of a will.
0
reply
Tiger Rag
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Same place as the rest of the money. I simply suggest that people who have made more money in their lives, and thus contributed more to the system in the first place, shouldn't be doubly punished and excluded from state provided care on the basis of their assets when they need it. All I can say is that, if I were chancellor, I would weight things in that direction.
Our council tax has gone up to pay for it. Excellent. But why should I, someone on benefits, have to pay for someone's care when they've got money in the bank?
0
reply
Dragolien
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Same place as the rest of the money. I simply suggest that people who have made more money in their lives, and thus contributed more to the system in the first place, shouldn't be doubly punished and excluded from state provided care on the basis of their assets when they need it. All I can say is that, if I were chancellor, I would weight things in that direction.



It's not really any of my or anyone else's business. It's their property and they can dispose of it however they like, including by way of a will.
The whole point of benefits are to give money to those who lack assets to take care of themselves. The house of the wealthy person is an asset and worth money. They can afford to pay for their own social care, it just happens that their assets are not in the form of hard cash right now. They aren't unfairly excluded; they don't need benefits.
0
reply
pereira325
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
In this scenario, it is not fair. They are taking money off the state (when they could afford to pay for their own care) and getting to look like a kind person once they die. However, it could be said that they are entitled to free care from the government. This latter point doesn't sway my opinion on the fairness aspect though.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Tiger Rag)
Our council tax has gone up to pay for it. Excellent. But why should I, someone on benefits, have to pay for someone's care when they've got money in the bank?
You don't. They just get to draw on the system which they've paid into, in many cases heavily.
0
reply
Tiger Rag
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
You don't. They just get to draw on the system which they've paid into, in many cases heavily.
But that paid for the previous generation. And it does say on my council tax bill that the reason why my bill has gone up this year is because of adult social care.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by ed98)
No it's not fair. If they are wealthy they should pay for their own care. The public don't pay taxes so others can give to charity but for essential services.
Elderly care is essential services...
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Tiger Rag)
But that paid for the previous generation. And it does say on my council tax bill that the reason why my bill has gone up this year is because of adult social care.
Okay. Then the reason why you have to pay is that they deserve to be supported by the system, on the basis of their prior support for the system.
0
reply
Tiger Rag
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Okay. Then the reason why you have to pay is that they deserve to be supported by the system, on the basis of their prior support for the system.
Obviously something you don't get - it's a lot of money to have to pay (my bill went up by over £10 this year alone) when your only income is benefits.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Y13's - If you haven't confirmed your firm and insurance choices yet, why is that?

I am waiting until the deadline in case anything in my life changes (25)
18.38%
I am waiting until the deadline in case something else changes (e.g. exams/pandemic related concerns) (15)
11.03%
I am waiting until I can see the unis in person (10)
7.35%
I still have more questions before I make my decision (24)
17.65%
No reason, just haven't entered it yet (35)
25.74%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (27)
19.85%

Watched Threads

View All