Here’s a couple of examples of where to find the money to pay for the essential social care the nation needs:

Starbucks paid zero corporation tax in 2025 while receiving £13.7 million in tax credits.

Amazon handed a £7.6 million tax credit despite profits of over £350 million.

Amazon issues statements in tax paid that lumps all taxes, including VAT and employee PAYE + employee National Insurance contributions.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/10/starbucks-retail-tax-credit-despite-sales-rise

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/09/amazon-uk-arm-tax-credit-profits-tech-company

Just now, sammieuk1 said:

But it's what you said so it's bound to be directed at you

A common misconception is that an ad hominem attack is synonymous with an insult. This is not true, although some ad hominem arguments may be considered insulting by the recipient. ie you🤔

Have you tried addressing the topic of the thread?

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s have a figure for the cost of welfare fraud by immigrants.

For comparison the tax gap is £59 Billion.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary

The UKs tax gap is 6.4% and is just about optimal compared to other countries. Attempting to further reduce it is folly. You may want to educate yourself as to why this is.

https://www.bishopfleming.co.uk/insights/tax-gap-folly-are-we-going-too-far

"The UK’s tax gap is well-defined, closely measured, and relatively low by international standards. At around 5%, it reflects a high level of compliance and effective administration. While further reductions are desirable, they are likely to be incremental and costly. The “3–7%” range often cited in literature appears to be a realistic structural floor, and the UK is already operating within it."

So as mentioned, social care is a nice idea but is completely unfunded. There is no £59bn waiting to be obtained. So where is the money coming from? Would you cut the NHS budget to pay for this?

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s a couple of examples of where to find the money to pay for the essential social care the nation needs:

Starbucks paid zero corporation tax in 2025 while receiving £13.7 million in tax credits.

Amazon handed a £7.6 million tax credit despite profits of over £350 million.

Amazon issues statements in tax paid that lumps all taxes, including VAT and employee PAYE + employee National Insurance contributions.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/10/starbucks-retail-tax-credit-despite-sales-rise

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/09/amazon-uk-arm-tax-credit-profits-tech-company

Don’t worry about the NHS. We’ve identified the real solution: Starbucks’ royalty-fee accounting tricks and Amazon’s investment reliefs. Once we seize those tiny tax credits, every A&E will be fully staffed and the cancer backlog will vanish overnight. Who needs serious reform when you have Twitter outrage and Guardian headlines?

38 minutes ago, James105 said:

Even if that money did exist it would be more difficult to legally obtain than (for example) deporting a foreign born convicted rapist from the UK whose kid does not like the taste of chicken nuggets in his home country.

Ah, well done. Another one who just reads hysterical Daily Mail headlines for his "news".

14 minutes ago, James105 said:

The UKs tax gap is 6.4% and is just about optimal compared to other countries. Attempting to further reduce it is folly. You may want to educate yourself as to why this is.

https://www.bishopfleming.co.uk/insights/tax-gap-folly-are-we-going-too-far

"The UK’s tax gap is well-defined, closely measured, and relatively low by international standards. At around 5%, it reflects a high level of compliance and effective administration. While further reductions are desirable, they are likely to be incremental and costly. The “3–7%” range often cited in literature appears to be a realistic structural floor, and the UK is already operating within it."

So as mentioned, social care is a nice idea but is completely unfunded. There is no £59bn waiting to be obtained. So where is the money coming from? Would you cut the NHS budget to pay for this?

Attempting to reduce the tax gap is follow while attempting to reduce welfare fraud, a much smaller number, is an absolute necessity?

Troll post removed @FinChin67

20 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah, well done. Another one who just reads hysterical Daily Mail headlines for his "news".

Are you a bot? I presume you must be as you only ever make comments about the same thing and never about the actual topic. Odd behavior if you are a human. Maybe have a word with your programmer to see if he (or she) can give you a wider repertoire of responses so you can mix it up a bit.

1 minute ago, James105 said:

Are you a bot? I presume you must be as you only ever make comments about the same thing and never about the actual topic. Odd behavior if you are a human. Maybe have a word with your programmer to see if he (or she) can give you a wider repertoire of responses so you can mix it up a bit.

It needed calling out as it was a stupid comment which rather devalues all your other arguments. If you actually believe things like that it explains a lot about your sources. Either that or - being generous - you just like to exaggerate, which again devalues everything you say.

Maybe have a word with your handler to see if he (or she) can give you a wider repertoire of news sources so you can mix it up a bit.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Attempting to reduce the tax gap is follow while attempting to reduce welfare fraud, a much smaller number, is an absolute necessity?

The tax gap cannot be realistically reduced and is already considered optimal - there is no money there. Welfare fraud would be equally difficult I presume and far bigger cuts are needed to fund social care. So what would you want to see cut to pay for this?

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

It needed calling out as it was a stupid comment which rather devalues all your other arguments. If you actually believe things like that it explains a lot about your sources. Either that or - being generous - you just like to exaggerate, which again devalues everything you say.

Maybe have a word with your handler to see if he (or she) can give you a wider repertoire of news sources so you can mix it up a bit.

You don't really have any arguments though, this is the point I was making. You selectively quote one or 2 lines and then say "Daily Mail" reader alert or something equally pointless on literally everything. You are just white noise, kind of annoying but harmless enough. You keep doing you if that makes you happy.

1 hour ago, FinChin67 said:

Don’t worry about the NHS. We’ve identified the real solution: Starbucks’ royalty-fee accounting tricks and Amazon’s investment reliefs. Once we seize those tiny tax credits, every A&E will be fully staffed and the cancer backlog will vanish overnight. Who needs serious reform when you have Twitter outrage and Guardian headlines?

Yet more strawmen, this bunch stuffed with non sequiteurs and false assertions.

1 hour ago, James105 said:

The tax gap cannot be realistically reduced and is already considered optimal - there is no money there. Welfare fraud would be equally difficult I presume and far bigger cuts are needed to fund social care. So what would you want to see cut to pay for this?

Who says the tax gap cannot be reduced?

Who says the tax gap is optimal?

HMRC’s own data demonstrates the tax gap can and has been reduced.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary

I think he might take on the Labour left, unlike Starmer.

Get the under-25's off welfare is a vote winner all round, though it will clearly take time to implement. Other areas like the special needs budget need trimming, kids going to school and back in taxis.

AI Mode conversation: when was social care for the elderly privatized in the uk and what are the benefits and drawbacks?

Adult social care for the elderly in the UK was privatised through a phased process during the 1980s and early 1990s, culminating in the implementation of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 in April 1993.

Under Margaret Thatcher's government, changes to social security rules in 1980 accidentally created a loophole where the state paid uncapped benefit entitlements for individuals moving into private care homes. This sparked a rapid, massive expansion of private care providers. To curb this surging central government expenditure, the 1990 Act officially shifted the responsibility and budgets to local authorities. This legally forced councils to become "commissioners" rather than "providers" of care, mandating that the vast majority of public funding be directed toward the independent (private and voluntary) sector. Today, almost the entire adult social care landscape in England is outsourced to private, for-profit companies.

---

🟢 Benefits of Privatisation

Proponents of the market-led system championed several key theoretical and practical benefits:

• Expanded Choice and Personalisation: Moving away from a "one-size-fits-all" bureaucratic system allowed individuals to use personal budgets to choose specific care providers, locations, and tailored services that best fit their lifestyles.

• Rapid Capacity Growth: The initial introduction of private investment in the 1980s caused a massive spike in available care home beds and nursing facilities, quickly absorbing the growing demand from an ageing population that state-run services lacked the capital to build.

• Encouragement of Independent Living: The market shift helped move care away from institutionalised, hospital-style settings toward domiciliary (at-home) care agencies, allowing elderly individuals to remain in their own homes for longer.

• State Expenditure Capping: Privatisation allowed the central government to transfer financial risk and cap its exposure to soaring costs by creating an internal market, shifting local councils to a cash-limited budget model.

---

🔴 Drawbacks of Privatisation

Critics, health academics, and care bodies highlight severe structural deficiencies in the privatised model:

• Worse Quality of Care: Research published by institutions like Oxford University has linked intensive outsourcing with a decline in care standards, noting that a vast majority of care homes shut down by regulators for substandard performance belong to for-profit companies.

• High Financial Fragility: The sector has become highly financialised, with several large private equity-backed provider chains collapsing (such as Southern Cross in 2011), leaving vulnerable residents at sudden risk of losing their homes.

• Workforce Exploitation and Shortages: To turn a profit under tight local authority budgets, private providers frequently squeeze staff costs. This has resulted in low pay (often minimum wage), zero-hours contracts, high vacancy rates, and severe staff turnover.

• Widening Inequalities and Complex Means-Testing: Unlike the NHS, which is free at the point of use, privatised social care is heavily means-tested. This forces individuals with moderate assets to sell their homes or pay exorbitant out-of-pocket fees, while those relying on state funding face severely restricted access to care. ,

---

As Burnham's popularity is on a surge, he should say to the Left, if illegal immigration is not sorted, plus the rules for legal migration not implemented , then Reform will win and those Labour MPs will be out of a job.

If they still kick up then threaten to withdraw the whip, or in the last resort call a general election, though he has already said he's going to stay in power down the wire to the final election date.

what are Mahmood's new rules for migration UK and has the level of legal migration fall under labour? - Google Search

Yes, legal and net migration levels have fallen significantly under the Labour government, dropping to their lowest level since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Following her appointment as Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood introduced major immigration restrictions and the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 to shift the UK toward a highly restrictive, skills-based system.

---

3 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

At the core of this is too many time wasters at hospital. Kid's have a runny nose go to a pharmacy and pay for runny nose medicine.

I like the Dutch system where there is a small non-refundable fee to see a doctor that discourages time wasters.

If you ailment is not worth paying a small fee to get looked at / cured then...

That's the model used throughout most of Europe. The Belgian system is similar and - unless it has changed greatly for the worse since I lived there - imo it works much better than the current NHS model.

Firstly, there is a focus of prevention; annual blood tests are available on request - you don't have to convince the GP of a need for a PSA test for example - and reminders to test for various cancers e.g. cervix, colon are sent to individuals bi-annually. Secondly, waiting times were almost non-existant; I could get a GP's appointment within 2 days max: I needed a small, non-urgent operation which, nevertheless was starting to affect my quality of life. It took 3 weeks from me requesting the op to it happening. The same op on the NHS had an average waiting time of 18 months. Privately, it would have cost upwards of £5k.

As you say, the first port of call for minor ailments e.g. runny nose, sore throat is not the GP but the pharmacist.

By way of comparison, Belgium and the Netherlands currently spend +/-10.5% of their GDPs on Health; the UK spends 11.1%; France and Germany spend 11.5% and 11.7%.

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who says the tax gap cannot be reduced?

Who says the tax gap is optimal?

HMRC’s own data demonstrates the tax gap can and has been reduced.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary

I gave you a link already along with the conclusion:

https://www.bishopfleming.co.uk/insights/tax-gap-folly-are-we-going-too-far

"The UK’s tax gap is well-defined, closely measured, and relatively low by international standards. At around 5%, it reflects a high level of compliance and effective administration. While further reductions are desirable, they are likely to be incremental and costly. The “3–7%” range often cited in literature appears to be a realistic structural floor, and the UK is already operating within it."

The tax gap exists (as it does for every country) and the UK is already doing better than most.

So now you have (once again) been educated on the fact there is no £59bn, where would you like to see spending cuts made to pay for this social care? Maybe take £20bn from the NHS to pay for it? Could be easily done by removing some of the middle managers and 100% of diversity departments I would think and nobody would notice any difference.

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

That's the model used throughout most of Europe. The Belgian system is similar and - unless it has changed greatly for the worse since I lived there - imo it works much better than the current NHS model.

Firstly, there is a focus of prevention; annual blood tests are available on request - you don't have to convince the GP of a need for a PSA test for example - and reminders to test for various cancers e.g. cervix, colon are sent to individuals bi-annually. Secondly, waiting times were almost non-existant; I could get a GP's appointment within 2 days max: I needed a small, non-urgent operation which, nevertheless was starting to affect my quality of life. It took 3 weeks from me requesting the op to it happening. The same op on the NHS had an average waiting time of 18 months. Privately, it would have cost upwards of £5k.

As you say, the first port of call for minor ailments e.g. runny nose, sore throat is not the GP but the pharmacist.

By way of comparison, Belgium and the Netherlands currently spend +/-10.5% of their GDPs on Health; the UK spends 11.1%; France and Germany spend 11.5% and 11.7%.

A lot of that happens in the NHS now. Pharmacies first for minor ailments. For bumps on the head, Health Centres send you to A&E, not a GP.

3 hours ago, James105 said:

Even this sensible suggestion would never be approved by Labour MPs. The NHS is a religion to them and anything other than "free at the point of contact" is considered blasphemous.

No doubt some Labour MPs would vote against any reforms which meant that NHS services were not free at the point of delivery, but the removal of the whip and/or threat of deselection can be a persuasive argument (Note: This coercion is not limited to the Labour Party; Badenoch is implementing something similar with the selection of Tory parliamentary candidates).

The bigger problem will be convincing the British public, many of whom do still regard the NHS as a religion, and those of us who dare criticise it as heretics. As you say, "no other country copies the UK model of the NHS and most have better health outcomes". I agree; imo there is no doubt that radical reform is necessary.

How can it be financed? Scrapping the triple lock would go a long way to solving the problem. The OECD and others estimate that moving to an earnings only link, could save £19 billion a year by the mid-2030s, rising to £38 billion a year by 2045, and up to £60 billion a year over the long term.

Unfortunately, imo the chances of success are slim. For all the talk of cross-party cooperation, there little chance of cross-party agreement. Political opportunism will see to that.

19 minutes ago, bannork said:

A lot of that happens in the NHS now. Pharmacies first for minor ailments. For bumps on the head, Health Centres send you to A&E, not a GP.

Waiting times are still unacceptable. Prevention e.g. (bi) annual testing, is not a priority and very much at the whim of the GP.

As @James105 says, "no other country copies the UK model of the NHS and most have better health outcomes."

The facts speak for themselves.

41 minutes ago, James105 said:

I gave you a link already along with the conclusion:

https://www.bishopfleming.co.uk/insights/tax-gap-folly-are-we-going-too-far

"The UK’s tax gap is well-defined, closely measured, and relatively low by international standards. At around 5%, it reflects a high level of compliance and effective administration. While further reductions are desirable, they are likely to be incremental and costly. The “3–7%” range often cited in literature appears to be a realistic structural floor, and the UK is already operating within it."

The tax gap exists (as it does for every country) and the UK is already doing better than most.

So now you have (once again) been educated on the fact there is no £59bn, where would you like to see spending cuts made to pay for this social care? Maybe take £20bn from the NHS to pay for it? Could be easily done by removing some of the middle managers and 100% of diversity departments I would think and nobody would notice any difference.

The tax gap is not uniform, from the report I linked above:

“In 2024 to 2025 small businesses accounted for 62% of the tax gap, up from 58% in 2020 to 2021.

Large businesses accounted for around 12% of the tax gap over the period, while mid-sized businesses accounted for a smaller share, decreasing from 9% to 7%.”

There’s plenty of room for improvement.

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

No doubt some Labour MPs would vote against any reforms which meant that NHS services were not free at the point of delivery, but the removal of the whip and/or threat of deselection can be a persuasive argument (Note: This coercion is not limited to the Labour Party; Badenoch is implementing something similar with the selection of Tory parliamentary candidates).

The bigger problem will be convincing the British public, many of whom do still regard the NHS as a religion, and those of us who dare criticise it as heretics. As you say, "no other country copies the UK model of the NHS and most have better health outcomes". I agree; imo there is no doubt that radical reform is necessary.

How can it be financed? Scrapping the triple lock would go a long way to solving the problem. The OECD and others estimate that moving to an earnings only link, could save £19 billion a year by the mid-2030s, rising to £38 billion a year by 2045, and up to £60 billion a year over the long term.

Unfortunately, imo the chances of success are slim. For all the talk of cross-party cooperation, there little chance of cross-party agreement. Political opportunism will see to that.

I’m less pessimistic.

Burnham has launched this issue into the public discourse, millions of families dealing with social care issues will be paying attention.

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

Waiting times are still unacceptable. Prevention e.g. (bi) annual testing, is not a priority and very much at the whim of the GP.

As @James105 says, "no other country copies the UK model of the NHS and most have better health outcomes."

The facts speak for themselves.

Why the NHS has not been copied. Spoiler Alert, it has.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/why-has-the-nhs-not-been-copied-spoiler-it-has

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m less pessimistic.

Burnham has launched this issue into the public discourse, millions of families dealing with social care issues will be paying attention.

I hope that you are right but remain skeptical. For a start, I doubt that any cross-party agreement would last.

More importantly the electorate are hypocrites. Tell pensioners that the savings from breaking the triple lock will be used to help fund the NHS and they will be all in favour of it until it is time to vote. The Lib Dems found this out the hard way in 2014 when they proposed increasing tax by 2% to fund the NHS. Opinion polls showed public support; the poll that counted showed electoral annihilation.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

I hope that you are right but remain skeptical. For a start, I doubt that any cross-party agreement would last.

More importantly the electorate are hypocrites. Tell pensioners that the savings from breaking the triple lock will be used to help fund the NHS and they will be all in favour of it until it is time to vote. The Lib Dems found this out the hard way in 2014 when they proposed increasing tax by 2% to fund the NHS. Opinion polls showed public support; the poll that counted showed electoral annihilation.

Which is precisely why leaders should lead.

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why the NHS has not been copied. Spoiler Alert, it has.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/why-has-the-nhs-not-been-copied-spoiler-it-has

That article is meant to be a rebuttal of

the premise that, "The NHS model has not been copied"?

Most of it actually supports the premise!

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which is precisely why leaders should lead.

They should but they also need to get elected in order to do so.

23 minutes ago, RayC said:

That article is meant to be a rebuttal of

the premise that, "The NHS model has not been copied"?

Most of it actually supports the premise!

It nevertheless demonstrates the UK’s NHS model has been successfully copied.

The NHS itself has not failed.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It nevertheless demonstrates the UK’s NHS model has been successfully copied.

The NHS itself has not failed.

If copying means simply a recognition that health provision needs public funding then, yes, the NHS model has been copied.

However, the social insurance models used in most of Europe bear little resemblance to the NHS model. The author claims that the Portuguese and Spanish models are similar to the NHS model and then goes on to describe how different they are in their implementation!

The foundation of the NHS in 1948 should be celebrated. Its introduction benefitted the vast majority of the population. However, unfortunately, it is no longer fit for purpose. Is the existing model better than nothing? Undoubtedly. Is there room for vast improvement? Imo again undoubtedly.

3 hours ago, RayC said:

No doubt some Labour MPs would vote against any reforms which meant that NHS services were not free at the point of delivery, but the removal of the whip and/or threat of deselection can be a persuasive argument (Note: This coercion is not limited to the Labour Party; Badenoch is implementing something similar with the selection of Tory parliamentary candidates).

The bigger problem will be convincing the British public, many of whom do still regard the NHS as a religion, and those of us who dare criticise it as heretics. As you say, "no other country copies the UK model of the NHS and most have better health outcomes". I agree; imo there is no doubt that radical reform is necessary.

How can it be financed? Scrapping the triple lock would go a long way to solving the problem. The OECD and others estimate that moving to an earnings only link, could save £19 billion a year by the mid-2030s, rising to £38 billion a year by 2045, and up to £60 billion a year over the long term.

Unfortunately, imo the chances of success are slim. For all the talk of cross-party cooperation, there little chance of cross-party agreement. Political opportunism will see to that.

Scrapping the triple lock may be appealing for its apparent medium term gains as its easy to argue that the people in receipt of it now have paid off their £20,000 mortgages for their 3 bedroom houses and do not need it, but when the generation that cannot afford to buy property gets to state pension age then a non triple lock protected pension will not even cover rent let alone whatever energy costs they will face.

By the way the state pension is currently £12,547 and the average public sector pension is £18,500. Why does the public sector pension always get a free pass?

There are plenty of savings that could be made or plenty of ways to grow the economy (tax cuts, remove regulation, scrap net zero etc). Unfortunately the current government are simply incapable of doing either.

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

Scrapping the triple lock may be appealing for its apparent medium term gains as its easy to argue that the people in receipt of it now have paid off their £20,000 mortgages for their 3 bedroom houses and do not need it, but when the generation that cannot afford to buy property gets to state pension age then a non triple lock protected pension will not even cover rent let alone whatever energy costs they will face.

The purpose of the state pension is not to pay off the mortgage, it is to provide a sufficient income to enable an individual to have a decent standard of living and quality of life in retirement.

What are you suggesting then? Keep the triple lock? That will not help future generations.

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

By the way the state pension is currently £12,547 and the average public sector pension is £18,500. Why does the public sector pension always get a free pass?

Because it is a work-place pension and a completely separate entity to the state pension.

Public sector pensions e.g. Civil Service pensions are no different to those offered by private sector employers e.g. banks in that they form part of the contract of employment. Therefore, there is a moral - and probably a legal obligation - on the employer to fulfil their side of the contract. The terms and conditions of employment, including pension entitlement, can obviously be changed for prospective new employees.

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

There are plenty of savings that could be made or plenty of ways to grow the economy (tax cuts, remove regulation, scrap net zero etc). Unfortunately the current government are simply incapable of doing either.

Cutting taxes now would almost certainly have the same effect as when Truss proposed it i.e. send the bond markets into a tail spin and make the situation a whole lot worse than it is already. Removing regulation might be an option but it depends on the regulation in question. For example, reducing food standards and animal welfare laws would probably result in lower food prices, but it is not something that I would be in favour of. Scrapping net zero may result in short-term financial savings but might also cause immeasurable long term problems.

You seem determined to lay the fault for all the UK's problems at the feet of this government, when the truth is that these problems have been decades in the making and no government this century has got even close to solving them.