iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Except there’s a slightly weird situation in that, if we tax via income, we actually won’t end up necessarily taxing those who have the most assets to pay for it. Because those assets are mainly in a non-working population at the moment. (But I do agree this needs to be resolved and soon).

000

… I think that has a lot of coherence to it as an argument. If dementia is an illness and cancer is an illness why is one’s costs covered and the other isn’t? That is also a good question.

100

We don’t socialise all risks though. We don’t socialise the risk of you not having a parent to leave you anything. One of the strong arguments in the thread is that by socialising medical risk we’ve effectively established a duty to socialise care risk because it’s difficult to separate the two…

100

So I’d say what we’re doing here is grappling with the complexity of what it means for the state to take a decision to insure an activity or provide a public service and then consider if, how and why it should be paid for.

Well there is car tax. And fuel tax. And congestion charges. And tolls. All of us were able to attend school. And a main reason for shoplifting changes (ie you have to steal a LOT before police get involved) was precisely so the police spent less time looking after private policy.

200

Teacher Tapp @teachertapp.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Quite a lot of state provision is means-tested! It is a question we do ask.

000

Reposted by Laura McInerney

Can wearing PE kit all day boost participation, especially among girls? Research suggests it might — so how common is the policy? 🟢 Primary: 77% of teachers say yes, students can wear PE kit all day 🟢 Secondary: just 17% say the same

022

Given the area and the demographic I think it’s the most likely explanation for not having £300 disposable - though, yes, others are available!

000

And hospices, of course, are not NHS.

000

We don’t. While dementia is largest chunk it’s not the only reason for being in care.

200

Indeed, we could have that debate!

100

It’s not, but the question is why we resolve that unfairness when there’s lots of unfairnesses. I think your position is that it’s basically the same as medical care and therefore should be treated the same?

100

So, to get this clear as it’s useful, your argument is that the cost of care should never be personalised - in the same way that medical care isn’t. That is, you should only ever pay in via a means-related way (be that income or estate % IHT etc). And that’s for equity reasons?

100

I think this is why, having heard lots of arguments here today, the only coherent position ends up being that all estates end up paying a flat (though quite high) inheritance tax rate.

100

No, the state will pay for your social care too if you don’t have the means.

210

So while I totally understand the unfairness of the situation, the question is why we think *insuring* against it is fair given it will mean some people pay for a protection they have no chance of ever needing.

100

Normally we insure the right to the service - so if we were insuring the ability to *get* care, that makes sense. But there’s already access to care (quality is a separate debate). We don’t usually insure against your savings - indeed, other benefits also require you to use them up.

No I’m genuinely trying to understand the concept - it’s why I put the first message out. It’s a genuinely good question: why are we insuring people’s right to inheritance? We don’t generally nationally insure something that’s so unequal.

200

I think the only way out of this circle is that IHT goes on every estate and ends up being quite high.

I think this ends up being a reasonable and coherent position if, as I think you’re saying, your end point is that every estate should pay an amount of IHT - and it may need to be fairly high to cover all the social care costs.

As in a flat 40% on every estate?

100

No: some people pay IHT and some people don’t even as things stand.

101

Why are we resolving the unfairness of some people losing their inheritance to care costs but not the unfairness of some people not getting any inheritance at all?

100

What about the unfairness of people without parents who own property?

100

Where I would differ is that, if it were politically possible, I’d put every estate into it.

120

I think doing it through broader IHT is the only way it makes sense.

200

Yes I think this is the only logical way. If you do via any other tax it doesn’t make sense.

100

Yes, we insure your health, not your house. But also the liver point is a good one. Every person who needs one can access a liver. We all get the same end cover. But that’s not the same for this, as not everyone has a house to protect.

001

My point is that we all have health so it needs protecting for everyone. It is a clear and sensible national insurance. Not everyone owns their home and the case for protecting it once you leave it is less clear. (And it will likely be diminishing %s in years to come).

120

I have. My point is that insuring some people’s right to inheritance is strange once you think of it that way.

231

Except that’s for everyone. We all have health. We will all be old. We all may be unemployed. Not everyone has a parent with property. And we don’t nationally insure against, say, your parent losing their property due to alcoholism?

130

Ben Newmark @bennewmark.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Someone recently said a thing that’s really made me think: Why should everyone pay so that some people can inherit more? It’s a fair and challenging question.

11254

Reposted by Laura McInerney

What do we think would happen if we screened all children for all SEND conditions at, say, age 8?

1392

Laura McInerney @missmc.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

I’ve been looking for exactly this sort of thing, huzzah.

010

Laura McInerney @missmc.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Biggest applause in Labour conference fringe by education unions today was when @pepediiasio.bsky.social suggested bringing back Every Child Matters so we could go full circle!

171

Laura McInerney @missmc.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

The next message in that thread gives an example.

010

… so if I learn what I need to do, but it makes lesson planning 5 times longer, and I don’t have extra time in which to do that lesson planning, all the training is going to do is make me painfully aware of my inadequate lessons.

3110

If you look at revealed preferences, and proper trade off questions, they don’t actually show much appetite for SEND training. We have warned about this! (Also true for behaviour). A big reason seems to be that they won’t get the time to implement it…

210

“Ohhhh we’re supposed to be doing explicit teaching and positive relationships? There was me thinking that being vague and having crappy relationships was the way forward” said no one ever.

140