Social care spending needs 3.9% hike to ease pressures | Community Care


Social care will need an extra £8 billion a year of funding by 2033-34 if the current system is to be maintained, according to economic experts.

A joint report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Health Foundation estimated that spending is likely to have to rise by 3.9% a year over the next 15 years to meet the needs of an ageing population and an increasing number of younger adults living with disabilities.

Report authors also suggested that a centralised adult social care funding system could help to curb “considerable variation” in social care spending across different areas.

Since 2009-10, local authorities have faced sizeable cuts in funding from central government, forcing many councils to tighten their eligibility criteria and concentrate care on those with the highest needs.

The report found that these cuts were likely to have increased levels of unmet need and caused greater reliance on informal care from friends and family.

It added that reduced funds could have also led to “deterioration in the quality of care” and a reduction in the fees paid to care homes for state-funded residents.

Funding solutions

 

Source: Social care spending needs 3.9% hike to ease pressures | Community Care

‘It’s nonsense’ THIS is how much it REALLY costs the UK to remain in the EU customs union : Sunday Express


The whopping figure challenges the numbers reported in a study published earlier this week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which claimed the UK will only see a small reduction in prices after Brexit.

Macroeconomist Sir Patrick Minford, chair of the Economists for Free Trade group, dismissed the IFS numbers as “wrong” as he said they failed to consider crucial aspects related to the tariffs imposed by the EU.

Economists for Free Trade calculated the gain the UK will have from leaving the customs union will amount to four percent of the GDP – roughly £80billion.

According to Sir Patrick, the IFS report fails to consider two specific sectors with a huge impact on the British economy and UK households, the food and manufacturing industries, where the tariffs imposed are much higher, which makes the IFS assumptions “wrong”.

 

Source: ‘It’s nonsense’ THIS is how much it REALLY costs the UK to remain in the EU customs union : Sunday Express

Austerity 3: Universal Credit – another cut for many of the poorest?


Political Concern

In 2015, Welfare Weekly reported that research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that 2.6million working families on Universal Credit would lose £1,600 a year from the changes and 1.9 million would be £1,400 a year better off.

Analysis from the independent Office for Budget Responsibilitysuggested the changes to universal credit would save the chancellor close to £3bn by 2019-20 – a figure quoted byPublic Finance:.

Graph fromHouse of Commons Library blog,last November, ‘Jam Tomorrow’

In March this year a study by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the IPPR thinktank  that a series of cuts and changes have left the government’s flagship welfare overhaul failing to meet its original aims.

Families with children are the biggest losers under the cuts made to universal credit since it was first established, with some families left thousands of pounds worse off, according to a…

View original post 159 more words

Think tank warns of ‘dishonest’ Labour tax plans | Daily Mail Online


Labour will raise taxes in the UK to their highest level since just after the Second World War – and ordinary families will take a hit, economists said yesterday.

Source: Think tank warns of ‘dishonest’ Labour tax plans | Daily Mail Online

MPs will enjoy £1,000 pay hike, while average worker endures 10% real term wage drop : RT Question More.


It is one rule for those that make the laws and another for those that do not, where is that in the question of Equality for it should be the other way round. Those with less should gain more than those with more to equate to equality.

If the MPs are to receive a further pay rise then they should forego all their expenses and also their subsidised bar, for what group of employees are entitled to drink at work and with their substantial pay rises they could more afford to pay the full price for their enjoyment.