Not Seeing The Wood For The Trees

 Not Seeing The Wood For The Trees

by Les May

THE juxtaposition of my article There’s No Pockets In A Shroud with articles dealing with the iniquities of local councils might be taken to mean that I think that this is the main issue to be solved with regard to the social care of those who require it due to age, infirmity or accident. That is not my view and I have some sympathy with local councils who have to implement a social care system they did not establish and are expected to do so without the necessary funding, by cutting their budget in other areas of operation. That some will resort to dodgy practices tells us more about the integrity of the officers and councillors involved than about how the flaws in the present system can be remedied.

As I tried to stress we have a system of social care in England which has a strong resemblance to the health system we had in the 1930s and which was found wanting. In other words our social care system is funded partially by central government, partially by local government, partially by individuals who are unfortunate as to need to make use of it, and partially by those who work in it via poor pay and poor conditions of service.

The 1930s health care system was swept away by the coming of the National Health Service in 1948. This was (and is) both universal and comprehensive. It is based upon the principle of shared risk and shared funding. In other words we acknowledge that we can all become ill or have an accident, and so all of us should pay our share to fund it. ‘Our share’ means not that we all pay the same amount, but that those who earn more, pay more. In other words it is redistributive. Some fortunate people will be able to boast they ‘never had a day’s illness in their life’ and some unfortunate people will have child born with chronic condition.

It is unrealistic to expect to fund a similar universal and comprehensive system of social care via further taxes on income so we must look towards implementing taxes on wealth, specifically taxes on inherited wealth. In this context the term universal means free at source to everyone regardless of income or wealth, and comprehensive means both residential and non-residential support. Universal means the rich, the poor and everyone in between.

For most of us our ‘wealth’ is tied up in the house we live in. House price inflation comfortably outstrips the general rate of inflation of the cost of other goods and services, and has done for many years. Hence those fortunate enough to be a house owner have had to do absolutely nothing as the cash value of their house increases, nor have their beneficiaries after they die, so I see little moral objection to a tax on inherited wealth. Unless that is you think personal greed is a virtue.

*****************************