Ringfence funds from a 'care tax'

A national care service , as proposed by Andy Burnham on these pages , is a great idea. But after 13 years of a Labour government, it should already be a well-established part of our welfare state – not a proposal to be mulled over by yet another royal commission. The government may not be in "utter retreat" over its social care plans but it, along with the Conservatives, is guilty of sleight of hand, hypocrisy and the infantilisation of the electorate. Yes, we need to look after our older people, and yes it will cost money – more so for the rich, less for the poor. The free care in Scotland and Wales already available is now vulnerable as the public sector is required to make deep cuts. So how do we create and protect a pot to finance what lies ahead – a challenge that isn't just a financial necessity, but also a mark of the kind of society we are? I'm no financial expert, as is about to become clear, but why can't we have a "death" tax – and also increase the tax bill slightly of each individual for all those earning more than, say, £20,000? (Let's say by 1 or 2%). Ringfence that money; put into a (preferably secure) fund so interest can accrue and every taxpayer knows that it's the care tax and it won't be poured into an unnecessary war or used to bail out bankers. It's tally money for our future. There, is that so difficult? Cruelly, Andy Burnham , the health secretary in promising much, is incarcerating more carers into a life of exhaustion, guilt and frustration. The personal care at home bill promises free care at home for up to 400,000 of the most seriously ill and disabled at a cost of £670m. Mike Parsons of Barchester healthcare – which offers premium care for dementia sufferers that rightly doesn't come cheap – says that amounts to £31.25 per person a week. Without doubt, there won't be the funds to ensure the quality of life of both those in need of care and those who give it. "Free" care from government will come at huge personal expense. Capping the cost after two years of residential care is cost-efficient for government, since many older people don't live much longer than two years in a home – but it hardly adds up to a national care service. A "death" tax is a good idea in the name of mutuality. We all look after each other – those with more, make a greater contribution. A royal commission simply passes the parcel to another generation of politicians who will be equally bashful when boldness is required. Blair tried the same trick in 1997: the result, two years later , was largely ignored. An £8,000 voluntary tax suggested by the Conservatives discriminates against those who have little while – yet again – the feckless and affluent get someone else to pay their bills. Creating a national anything is tough. Nye Bevan found himself with few friends as he fought to establish the national health service . He fought because he believed that it was the anchor of a decent society. Sometimes a politician, if he or she has a vision – and a national care service with standards that matches its name – needs to say to the electorate: this is what we need, this is how we will pay for it; this is why I believe it's right. And then risk his or her political future on the response. That's how history is made – and that's how so called "Broken Britain" can step a little closer to becoming a compassionate society . • After a mistake introduced in the editing process, the £3,125 figure given as the weekly cost of care for dementia sufferers has been changed to its correct amount, £31.25.