Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Surrey County Council propose 15% council tax rise


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, ingermany said:

I don't understand why social care at end of life cannot be like student finance.  

1. Allow care homes to charge what they like, so there's no shortage of places.  

2. Make alternatives to council social care unobtainable and unsupportable. 

3. Government should  pay 100% of fees demanded by providers,   via an "OAP Loan" secured on property. 

4. Allow HMRC to seize  pensions, property and assets to finance care. 

5. Call it a " care tax" to make it sound progressive and caring.

6. Make people with houses in Scotland exempt from "care tax."

Problem solved. 

 

1. If they do then it will be unaffordable for virtually everyone. The people who are the subject of this funding proposal are those with assets of less than £23,250 including their house.

2 This contradicts 1 above which assumes a free market to make any sense at all.

3 You only get social care if you pay for it, or you have less than £23,250 in assets. Many homes are already sold to finance social care or have a charge placed against them by the council. And if you don't have property?

4 This already happens -see 3 above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, Atma said:

Social care includes disabled , those with learning difficulties as well as older people. Also young people who may be disabled.

 

My wife worked with adults with learning disabilities. In home car in specialist accomodation (converted city centre flats) with a room for 'care assistants' to sleep in.

The most challenging part of her job was making sure people spent enough of their money that their savings didnt exceed the benefits cap. This would result intheir benefits being stopped and needing to be reapplied for. 

Thus there was a constant procession of new digital dslr cameras, laptops, holidays etc to try to burn through the benefits before they were stopped. Staff meetings to work out what 'david' might be able to spend 1k on this month etc.

I accept that a car is a useful tool to allow adults who require assistance get around. But im aware of an 20 year old who cannot drive who was walked into a car showroom to pick the car he wanted and chose a peugot 307 soft top. Its not for him to drive, its for his 'carers' and im not sure there is any compelling reason why he would need a sports soft top model. 

As im sure you are aware most carers are on pitiful wage. Its interesting that in some european countries there is a legal cap on doing caring work of as little as 7 years because its so stressful. Its rubbing those peoples nose in it to be helping others spend money like water needlessly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Just seen a post of twitter saying the chief exec gets paid £215K a year !!!!

Drop that to £65K and the savign will cover 700 famillies increase.

Do that across the board and the care funding has been found.

He did get 215k but then it increased to 220k, which isn't bad compared to my council CEO's 16% rise.

Council pay ballooned under New Labour as they tried to buy votes with it. The Coalition were supposed to have frozen pay but some want the rises they missed. That's partly why this year there are much larger increases in council tax. Our CEO had 42k paid into his pension because as wages have risen so has the pension bill. More and more of our council tax is going into pensions. However councils won't say we need more money for our huge salaries and pension, they blame it on another excuse, like social care, to get people arguing amongst themselves instead of at the council about their remuneration. Why should the CEO of a council be paid more than the PM? Particularly as starting high at the top filters down the council scale. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crouch said:

1. If they do then it will be unaffordable for virtually everyone. The people who are the subject of this funding proposal are those with assets of less than £23,250 including their house.

2 This contradicts 1 above which assumes a free market to make any sense at all.

3 You only get social care if you pay for it, or you have less than £23,250 in assets. Many homes are already sold to finance social care or have a charge placed against them by the council. And if you don't have property?

4 This already happens -see 3 above.

Id be means testing beejeesus out of every pensioner in Britain.

They've had a good run from Osborne.

Id also bring state care homes flooding back. I live next to one. Closed down 3 years ago. Now let to custodians via Ad Hoc. The building is there FFS. Use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, regprentice said:

My wife worked with adults with learning disabilities. In home car in specialist accomodation (converted city centre flats) with a room for 'care assistants' to sleep in.

The most challenging part of her job was making sure people spent enough of their money that their savings didnt exceed the benefits cap. This would result intheir benefits being stopped and needing to be reapplied for. 

Thus there was a constant procession of new digital dslr cameras, laptops, holidays etc to try to burn through the benefits before they were stopped. Staff meetings to work out what 'david' might be able to spend 1k on this month etc.

I accept that a car is a useful tool to allow adults who require assistance get around. But im aware of an 20 year old who cannot drive who was walked into a car showroom to pick the car he wanted and chose a peugot 307 soft top. Its not for him to drive, its for his 'carers' and im not sure there is any compelling reason why he would need a sports soft top model. 

As im sure you are aware most carers are on pitiful wage. Its interesting that in some european countries there is a legal cap on doing caring work of as little as 7 years because its so stressful. Its rubbing those peoples nose in it to be helping others spend money like water needlessly. 

Great post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Democorruptcy said:

He did get 215k but then it increased to 220k, which isn't bad compared to my council CEO's 16% rise.

Council pay ballooned under New Labour as they tried to buy votes with it. The Coalition were supposed to have frozen pay but some want the rises they missed. That's partly why this year there are much larger increases in council tax. Our CEO had 42k paid into his pension because as wages have risen so has the pension bill. More and more of our council tax is going into pensions. However councils won't say we need more money for our huge salaries and pension, they blame it on another excuse, like social care, to get people arguing amongst themselves instead of at the council about their remuneration. Why should the CEO of a council be paid more than the PM? Particularly as starting high at the top filters down the council scale. 

Remember the Iceland bank chaos?

Barnet Council had £18 million in one account. That was in 2007, when £18 million meant a bit more than it does now....

 

Edited by shindigger
wrongness
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, shindigger said:

Id be means testing beejeesus out of every pensioner in Britain.

They've had a good run from Osborne.

Id also bring state care homes flooding back. I live next to one. Closed down 3 years ago. Now let to custodians via Ad Hoc. The building is there FFS. Use it.

As far as social care is concerned it is already means tested and always has been; as I said you only get free social care if your assets are below £23,250.

As regards care homes I don't disagree but many would prefer care at home rather than in a home; care homes are a last, not a first, resort. Probably cheaper if carried out correctly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presuming that someone can access these services with housing equity left intact but not savings, then it is clearly wrong for younger people with zero Equity to have stump up the cost. As previously mentioned we need a social care loan that comes off the Estate. Why should poor people have keep the Estate intact of some spoilt man and woman child.

I understand that we are talking about people that have gotten confused and frail. Doesn't mean those without Equity should pay for the care and the family nothing from the eventual estate which could run over a million in Surrey.

 

So many families are picking up massive Estates from very elderly relatives who have grown their Estates via decades on retirement welfare.

Perhaps we should also start to consider State pension as a repayable loan off the Estate too. We've got to start reducing National Debt.

Edited by crashmonitor
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crouch said:

As far as social care is concerned it is already means tested and always has been; as I said you only get free social care if your assets are below £23,250.

As regards care homes I don't disagree but many would prefer care at home rather than in a home; care homes are a last, not a first, resort. Probably cheaper if carried out correctly. 

Yes. What i really should have specified was the means testing of state pensions and winter fuel payments etc.

One trip to Waitrose on any weekday will show you where the wealth lies in the country. In my part of the world the majority of pensioners cant spend it fast enough.

I can only assume in Surrey they are even wealthier.

The only people with an index linked "pay rise" every year FFS.

They've had the best that British society could offer since the war.

The time when it all worked as it should. Well it doesn't work like that anymore, and EVERYONE has to deal with that.

If the government want to redistribute some wealth, i know what demographic they need to start with. Not adding 15% to council tax. 

Who would those pensioners vote for in protest? Labour?? I dont think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

Presuming that someone can access these services with housing equity left intact but not savings, then it is clearly wrong for younger people with zero Equity to have stump up the cost. As previously mentioned we need a social care loan that comes off the Estate, not that just gets left to the spoilt man and woman child. Why should poor people have keep their Estate intact.

I understand that we are talking about people that have gotten confused and frail. Doesn't mean that the dispossessed should pay for the care and the family nothing from the eventual estate which could run over a million in Surrey.

You cannot access these services with your housing equity intact; the limit of £23,250 includes housing equity; many people have to sell their homes each year to fund care (as they should in my opinion). Furthermore there are many of the despised boomers who do not have property (not everyone lives in a five bedroom "mansion" in Surrey worth £2million) and who would themselves have to pay this surcharge; it would not just fall on the young. Also the boomers who do have property but not in care would be liable for the charge. People here seem to think this is yet another tax on the young and the "boomers" are exempt; quite wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, crouch said:

You cannot access these services with your housing equity intact; the limit of £23,250 includes housing equity; many people have to sell their homes each year to fund care (as they should in my opinion). Furthermore there are many of the despised boomers who do not have property (not everyone lives in a five bedroom "mansion" in Surrey worth £2million) and who would themselves have to pay this surcharge; it would not just fall on the young. Also the boomers who do have property but not in care would be liable for the charge. People here seem to think this is yet another tax on the young and the "boomers" are exempt; quite wrong.

Does this also apply to care in the Home which in itself can run to £20,000 per social services client pa. ? I was referring to these costs, not residential care.

I was not aware that under these circumstance there is an accruing loan on the home, but i stand to be corrected. If there isn't, there should be.

 

Edited by crashmonitor
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shindigger said:

Yes. What i really should have specified was the means testing of state pensions and winter fuel payments etc.

One trip to Waitrose on any weekday will show you where the wealth lies in the country. In my part of the world the majority of pensioners cant spend it fast enough.

I can only assume in Surrey they are even wealthier.

The only people with an index linked "pay rise" every year FFS.

They've had the best that British society could offer since the war.

The time when it all worked as it should. Well it doesn't work like that anymore, and EVERYONE has to deal with that.

If the government want to redistribute some wealth, i know what demographic they need to start with. Not adding 15% to council tax. 

Who would those pensioners vote for in protest? Labour?? I dont think so.

They have had more than an index linked pay rise for a few years now under the Triple Lock but that is unlikely to survive after 2020 and also inflation may well be more than 2.5% in the next few years so the indexing is irrelevant. The indexing also only protects the real value; if it were not indexed then you would see the rapid reappearance of pensioner poverty which was what the Triple Lock itself was meant to help with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phantominvestor said:

Please do not respond to atma's post

Why not? It's a sensible post.

By all means wish for a HPC and bemoan the high cost of housing, but don't let frustration with that and other parts of the system cloud everything.

Not all Boomers are loaded. Not all old people are sat in expensive houses. And anyway, not all of the money the council is looking for is for them. It's for learning difficulties and childrens' care. People who can't for a variety of reasons, in many cases none of which they are responsible for, look after themselves.  And we can have a society that puts them on the streets or one that looks after those in need. I know which I would rather live in.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

Does this also apply to care in the Home which in itself can run to £20,000 per social services client pa. ? I was referring to these costs, not residential care.

I was not aware that under these circumstance there is an accruing loan on the home, but i stand to be corrected. If there isn't, there should be.

This:http://www.carehome.co.uk/fees/feesadvice.cfm provides a summary. You do not have to sell your home but a charge will be taken out for the cost of care (See:"Do I have to sell my property?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, crouch said:

This:http://www.carehome.co.uk/fees/feesadvice.cfm provides a summary. You do not have to sell your home but a charge will be taken out for the cost of care (See:"Do I have to sell my property?)

Again this appears to refer to residential care, not care in the home. I am fully aware that residential care has to paid for, the mother in law paid her way til her death leaving almost nothing. I have no problem with that, I'm just wondering if the same applies to  care in your own home funding where savings thresholds are met and low income means they have to be fully funded by the LA.

I was not aware of a charge to the Estate on a possible million pound plus home in Surrey?

 

Edited by crashmonitor
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general principle if you want social care (either residential or home) you have to fund it yourself. If you want the state to pay or to contribute you are assessed and I believe the eligibility criteria are those I've already mentioned. Basically the only people who get free social care are those who can't afford it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jugador said:

Why not? It's a sensible post.

By all means wish for a HPC and bemoan the high cost of housing, but don't let frustration with that and other parts of the system cloud everything.

Not all Boomers are loaded. Not all old people are sat in expensive houses. And anyway, not all of the money the council is looking for is for them. It's for learning difficulties and childrens' care. People who can't for a variety of reasons, in many cases none of which they are responsible for, look after themselves.  And we can have a society that puts them on the streets or one that looks after those in need. I know which I would rather live in.

 

 

Nobody is suggesting that. And im certainly not suggesting the disabled are compromised in any way. Good heavens.

Im suggesting they look elsewhere for the cash.

The councils own pensions and salaries being a good place to start.

And there are more loaded, gilded path, boomers out there than any other generation. There are high ranking civil servants in this country retired on £50k upwards. Look there too. They simply dont need any further state cash/assistance.

Edited by shindigger
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, crouch said:

As a general principle if you want social care (either residential or home) you have to fund it yourself. If you want the state to pay or to contribute you are assessed and I believe the eligibility criteria are those I've already mentioned. Basically the only people who get free social care are those who can't afford it.

And its about to end, apparently.

So we need to go after the wealthier pensioners first.

Remove state pension/free prescriptions/ winter fuel, from anyone netting over £40k a year. 99% of them wouldn't even notice.

My old man lives with me, rent free, as would many pensioners as their house would be paid off years ago. Remember, when houses were dirt cheap?

He saves about £2k a year on the full state pension FFS. And i'm sure he'd be regarded as "poor". He wants for nothing.

If May is serious about equality, she should ream the wealthy grey hairs. They're not voting for anyone else are they??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the view that some elderly people do not deserve to have their care paid for because this is alleged to be unfair to people younger than them. Everyone should equally qualify for elder care in the same way that everyone equally qualifies to use the NHS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shindigger said:

Nobody is suggesting that. And im certainly not suggesting the disabled are compromised in any way. Good heavens.

Im suggesting they look elsewhere for the cash.

The councils own pensions and salaries being a good place to start.

And there are more loaded, gilded path, boomers out there than any other generation. There are high ranking civil servants in this country retired on £50k upwards. Look there too. They simply dont need any further state cash/assistance.

I happen to agree with the bit in bold.

Apparently the chief exec's on 215k + bonus.  He'll have to be on his toes though with this high calibre leader looking over him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2D1taIviyY&feature=youtu.be

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, shindigger said:

And its about to end, apparently.

So we need to go after the wealthier pensioners first.

Remove state pension/free prescriptions/ winter fuel, from anyone netting over £40k a year. 99% of them wouldn't even notice.

My old man lives with me, rent free, as would many pensioners as their house would be paid off years ago. Remember, when houses were dirt cheap?

He saves about £2k a year on the full state pension FFS. And i'm sure he'd be regarded as "poor". He wants for nothing.

If May is serious about equality, she should ream the wealthy grey hairs. They're not voting for anyone else are they??

What is about to end?

Yes the problem with taking things away is that it undermines the contributory principle: "why should I pay NI? I earn over £40K and I won't be getting a state pension so why should I pay for others.....?". You need to be careful for what you wish for.

Also why stop at "the grey hairs"? Are you saying that in a rent seeking Ponzi, debt fuelled economy we should  "go for" the wealthy grey hairs in particular? Wealthy grey hairs would be fairly low on my list for punishment beatings, not being one of them (wealthy not grey that is).

As for winter fuel et al I'd remove from anyone far below £40K. Also have you considered that these payments were not integrated with the SP precisely so that at some future date they could be removed and in any case they have been at the same level for a number of years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

I don't understand the view that some elderly people do not deserve to have their care paid for because this is alleged to be unfair to people younger than them. Everyone should equally qualify for elder care in the same way that everyone equally qualifies to use the NHS. 

The NHS cares for people who are ill; people who require care are not ill; they are in fact in need of a service which most have to fund themselves but which in any case is insurable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.