Various organisations have risen up to criticize the Conservatives' proposals about changes to the funding of social care. Some have said that this is some sort of tax, a suggestion which is, frankly, nonsensical. What it is, is a restoration of freedom of choice.
Everything provided by the government is a 'benefit'; every aspect of health and social care that is funded by the government is a 'benefit', however it is dressed up. Altering the terms of a 'benefit' is not a tax and never can be. All benefits are funded by taxing all of us; therefore, how can the reduction of a benefit be seen as anything but a potential reduction in taxes ?
This is akin to the attempts of the left to claim that the restrictions of housing benefit introduced a couple of years ago were a 'bedroom tax'; this change did no more than equalise the treatment of tenants whether they were under public or private landlords and had nothing to do with tax.
Social care never was a state responsibility other than for those who were seriously incapacitated. In the past, families looked after their own elderly relatives and, mostly, that was that. It is only in more recent times that selfish and self-serving generations have sought, and become accustomed to, state support for their parents' generation. The idea that the wealth of parents is a right to be inherited has taken hold, and the suggestion that the accumulated wealth of a life should be applied to caring for a person in old age has become anathema.
Of course, parents want the best for their children and of course they want them to benefit from their achievements. However, we are all responsible for ourselves and it is fundamentally wrong for children to expect, automatically, to benefit from their parents' efforts and frugality; most people talk about 'saving for their old age', which is exactly what they do by buying a house or putting money in the bank. They don't, and never have, saved for the specific purpose of passing money over to their children. If that has been possible, all well and good, but if it hasn't, so be it.
The Conservatives proposal regarding the funding of social care is not only logical, it is right. Anyone who has been cautious with their money may have a little nest egg which they might like to pass on to family or a favourite charity; that is good. However, if they are unfortunate and find that they require an element of care as they grow older, their nest egg is also available for that too. Which did they really save for - their family or their own future ?
The Conservatives' proposal won't actually affect many people in a negative way. Under the current system, anyone with more than £23,000 in savings pays for themselves; under the new proposals, this is lifted to £100,000 but includes the recipient's home. Perhaps this may actually encourage more younger people to think about other ways of looking after their aging parents and not simply dump them in a home, paid for by the state and safe in the knowledge that they'll still inherit the old family home worth £500,000.
Unexpectedly, Theresa May's initiative may actually result in a rekindling of genuine family feelings and relationships which have been so eroded by the increasingly left wing, state orientated policies of the last 30 or 40 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment