.png)
6 hours ago
10
I write as someone whose disabilities mean that I will be in receipt of social care support my whole life (Andy Burnham seeks cross-party agreement on future of social care, 27 July). For too long, people like me have been cannon fodder for politicians who routinely forget that their highest duty in providing social care is to protect those less able, or unable, to care for themselves. Investing in the right support for us unlocks our often-forgotten abilities. When we are successful, it is often because we have had opportunity to be because of that support, and when we aren’t, as so often happens, it is because society writes us off.
Andy Burnham’s intervention is welcome news as it shows that he considers us a priority. Reform of the social care system has to be taken hand in hand with disability groups and people with lived experience of being disabled. Too often the system traps people into dependency on temporary accommodation rather than providing them with the means to receive support in their own home.
Six years ago, this was the case for me, but not any more. I am now studying at university and have settled into a life that is light years better than what I had before.
The prime minister’s own experience of dealing with this issue is also helpful in this. In his first five years as the mayor of Greater Manchester, rough sleeping was reduced by two-thirds. If he wants to be bold, he only needs to look north and to his prior success in delivering this for Manchester.
Robbie Bentley
Bristol
Despite economists saying that it is too hard to tax wealth rather than income, there is already a wealth tax in place paying for social care in this country. The trouble is that it’s only levied on those who have the misfortune to need it. As your explainer points out, disabled and elderly people in England with assets over £23,250 have to pay the full cost of their social care.
Why shouldn’t the super-rich be taxed on a similar basis – all assets over a threshold – and then they can pay for a functional and decent social care system for all the people who they made their money from by charging extortionate profits and paying sub-living wages?
If the working class isn’t allowed to pass down generational wealth, why should anyone else be?
Rachel Powild
Manchester
Rightwing politicians and newspapers screaming about inheritance grabs and new taxes to fund social care are missing the point, probably deliberately. Socialising the cost of social care does not increase the cost, but spreads it more fairly. At present it is a lottery: if you get a losing ticket and you or a family member needs long-term care for dementia, all your savings, and the capital tied up in your house, could disappear. If you are lucky and die quickly, your children get a windfall.
It is clearly fairer that everyone gives up a share of their wealth rather than some all and some none. Not only that, it removes the stress about whether a lifetime’s savings will suffice. A properly designed national care service will share risk, which is what a civilised society should value.
Mike Cushman
London
Any attempt to pay for the broken social care system should start with the abolition of the triple lock on pensions. I welcome the moves towards achieving a cross-party consensus, but fear that political point-scoring and manoeuvring will defeat them, as they have done in the past.
Michael Lee
Stockton on Tees, County Durham
In the debate on how to fund care costs, can all parties drop “no one should have to sell their home” mantra? If you are the sole occupant and need residential care, why shouldn’t you sell it to pay the costs? After all, you’re not using it. Is it fair to receive financial support and still be able to pass your biggest asset on to your children?
John Trayner
London
