People complaining about paying for their own care again = massive entitlement

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,510
Location
Gloucestershire
What's your suggested alternative, with a working real world example implementation?

Remember, most western liberal democracies such as ours already have substantial protection in place against the abuse of minority rights by the majority.
If 1 in 100,000 plane journeys end in a catastrophic crash, then I'll call it out as a problem, even though I know not how to improve it, nor whether it is even possible to improve.

I'll not glibly just shrug and say '1 in 100,000 isn't a lot and it's in the acceptable margin'.

Which is to say, I don't know how to fix, and it might not even be fixable, the problem of Tyranny of the Majority, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem and a weakness, rather than "all good, working as it's supposed to".

Regarding giving young people representation: introduce PR, and heavily restrict corporate lobbying.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jul 2005
Posts
8,404
Location
Birmingham
You have to blame parents then it's nothing to do with older generations. Parents not teaching their kids financial wisdom from their own mistakes. I don't think you can blame old Mary down the road for the fact Apple spend billions on marketing. You can only blame the person, their upbringing, education and parents. I know someone who comes from a wealthy background, went to private school, had a nanny, walked into a grad scheme earning £50k a year straight after uni and he buys cheap Chinese crap off Amazon. MPow headphones when he could easily afford apple, Bose, beats, etc. So how come he knows a £30 of headphones is the smart option and not £400 airpods?

Parents taking the easy option of shoving a tablet, TV, phone in their kids hands Vs having to spend quality time with them. I've seen it myself the difference between households. I have nephews which play musical instruments and are part of an orchestra, one that plays for 2 football teams and others that just sit glued to a screen all day.

What's the difference? The parents. I'm sorry you can't blame the older generations for people being sheep.

No you're not understanding.

A child now is influenced by the actions of the generation in front of it. Its the 20 year olds now who are creating all the you tube contents, running the marketing in companies creating the intrinsic need to buy things, be perfect etc.

In turn, their parents, the 40-50 year olds, are the ones who are benefiting most from all the products which are bought by the 20 year olds. Its their companies that make them. Its their companies which provide the credit for the 20 year olds to buy them etc. Its their companies and the technologies they developed that enable all these outlets for marketing these days.

In turn, their parents, now 70-90, were the ones who created the societal enablers that let those 40-50 year olds make all those products and give all that credit. They were the ones that voted in the monetary and political enablers for it all. They were the ones creating the technological revolution. They also were the ones that most benefited from excessive pensions and cheap houses.

Why did any of those generations do what they did? For money and personal success of course. It is all a chain of events that goes back to post war which was a big reset and time of change in society. None of it was vindictive, all those people along the chain believed they were doing the right thing and they were. They were creating success for themselves, adding value and making money for their companies and the country.

The issue now, as with all things eventually, is that it becomes unsustainable and exploitative. Our economy relies on ever increasing growth, but there isn't enough money to fuel it forever. So ever more dangerous mechanisms are created to keep it going. That's where we are now.

So coming back to the point, you are saying that its the fault of kids or their parents why many people have this materialistic view of the world but it isn't. It is a cycle that has taken hold over decades and multiple generations. A set of desires is ever marketed, going hand in hand with technological improvement, and we are under immense pressure to live up to those ideals we see on the TV or everywhere in our lives.

Our economy would fall apart if these desires immediately disappeared because our 'growth' is reliant on it. Tax income, jobs and whole industries, the NHS - all reliant on people spending money this way.

Your friend who buys Chinese knock offs instead of Apple air pods, well fine. These things dont apply universally to everyone nor in equal measure. Perhaps your friend doesn't buy airpods but perhaps he owns a nice car, or perhaps he buys a lot of high end products for his showhome. Or, perhaps your friend is the one actually sitting near the top of the pyramid scheme, the one making the money from all the crap bought by the plebs. We are all trapped by this whether you like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,259
Location
7th Level of Hell...
Almost three quarters (74% in 2017) of over 65s own their home outright, per ONS.

That's a hefty chunk which has wealth

I'd expect they would given the longest mortgage available to them would be 25 years so even buying at 40 would result in them owning their own home.

And I wonder if @Hagar was referring to proper wealth in his comment. You infer that any over 65 that own their own home is wealthy when, in fact, its tied up in their home. I'm not sure how that counts if accessing this wealth makes them homeless.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jul 2008
Posts
2,542
Location
Birmingham
To those suggesting that they can hide their wealth to prevent it being used for care costs you might be surprised at how much power councils have to get payment out of your assets. Stories of money that has been gifted to children being investigated and payed back as well.

.

Its fairly easy to do, IF you do it early enough - assets move primarily.

Unfortunately, some have done it too late and have been stung.

Fair enough. :)

Well if the sums add up then everyone paying a percentage in general taxation would be fairer then in my opinion. I'm sure people would moan about paying more than they feel they have to but it's just one of those things that needs to be argued along the lines of public infrastructure, education etc. It benefits you, even if it's indirectly. Raising taxes is hugely unpopular though.

Im sure i saw something recently that said raising taxes isnt as unpopular as you would expect.

For me, i would be happy to pay more tax. Assuming it went to the "right" things ;)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Posts
6,573
I used to be involved in producing accounts for some private nursing homes. Given the amount of cash taken out of them all by the owners, as well as the escalating values of the properties, there's a lot of scope for councils to be able to run them at prices lower than the private sector, whilst still breaking even.

And I can tell you: I didn't see huge amounts of efficiency other than in how little they paid their, mostly Polish, staff.

I think anybody who has actually had any experience of the sharp end of the government outsourcing services like that would, if you argued some ideological reasoning about using private companies to drive efficiency, and therefore value for money, laugh in your face.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
1,616
I’m 37 and have no problem with an increase to national insurance contributions to help fund old age care. An increase of 2-4% of every working person but those funds are ring fenced for retirement care and to provide a safety net for those that need it would be a good start. We don’t pay enough social taxes in the UK and rarely have. I’d also agree to a 1% tax increase if those funds entirely went to the NHS.

How would this address the imbalance that those currently benefiting from inheritance, and would benefit the most from care being state funded, also being a group that are retired and pay less income tax and no NI. Do you think it fair that workers that struggle to buy houses allow Nigel to inherit an extra 400,000 as his mother’s care was purely state funded?

I’m not saying that it is wrong to make a change to the system, but this suggestion would entirely place the funding at the feet of the current workforce and not at those set to benefit the most in the next 10-15 years.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jul 2005
Posts
8,404
Location
Birmingham
The fundamental problem is that of un-sustainability.

There are too many old people as a result of technological advancement in healthcare and medicine, and because of general improvement in living conditions compared to one hundred years ago for example. Those old people get to a stage in their lives where their lives are artificially extended. Things that would have killed someone a hundred years ago no longer do, but that last few years where you are not dead but requiring a lot of looking after costs a lot of money.

A higher number of people are in this position and there is no-one to pay for it. Children of these old people don't want to lose their inheritance. The old people themselves don't want to see their houses being sold off to pay for their care. I mean, who can blame them, they don't often have a lot of cash (some do) but their wealth is tied up in the house they got for cheap in the 70's and is now worth half a million quid.

Younger people don't want to pay extra tax to support these people. Who can blame them either, they struggle to get on the ladder with salaries that would have got you a very nice house fifty years ago.

It is a massive dilemma, because of course we all want to live longer healthier lives.

But no-one wants to be the one to lose out, and for equally good individual reasons from both sides. This is going to get worse before it gets better, only in future, a lot of people won't have any property wealth at all.

Then something comes along like covid, that potentially could have reset the problem a little and a hundred years ago would have done and been put down as a natural event. Yet we do everything we can to ensure the older people survive, again at great cost to the younger generations particularly.

It makes you ask what possible outcome there is to all this. Its a stalemate scenario and I feel its being kicked to the long grass all the time. Lets deal with it in five years, let successive governments deal with it.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,380
Location
5 degrees starboard
Just saw this, which seemed incredibly relevant:
20 per cent of over 65s have a wealth of £1million or more in real terms
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...illionaires-wealth-nearly-doubled-decade.html
OK there are 12 million 65 or over in the UK. Your 20% makes 2.4 million real terms millionaires including the property they live in. 2.4 million probably includes couples however that is not stated let's say 50% may be married or living with someone. So maybe 1.5 to 1.8 million households.
Out of that how many will need publically funded social care provision certainly less that half. Probably much less, in 2018/19 it was 840,000 in the whole sector (12 million), millionaires or not.

I think that my argument still stands that provision should eventually be from taxation similar to the way the NHS is funded. They deal with a few millionaires free of charge at the point of need as well without means testing.

Further research is needed, I will look into this.
 
Caporegime
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Posts
25,572
The house next door to me has been empty of years, the lady who has no children was taken into care and (apparently) I'm told that the government will just keep picking up the cheque rather than sell the house... Which I think is strange.

Government won't get it though and some random nephew probably will.

There may be a deferred payment agreement and the house will be sold in the future to pay the bill.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,075
There may be a deferred payment agreement and the house will be sold in the future to pay the bill.
Yeah that's my point in a way. They could do it now and she's have 300k to pay her bill and someone else would have a house to live in, rather than it sit empty.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,279
Location
Aranyaprathet, Thailand
If I have my own house and get cancer, the NHS will provide free treatment
If I have my own house and need psychiatric help, the NHS will provide free treatment

Why then if I have my own house and get dementia do I now get means tested and have to sell my house to pay for my own treatment?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,158
If I have my own house and get cancer, the NHS will provide free treatment
If I have my own house and need psychiatric help, the NHS will provide free treatment

Why then if I have my own house and get dementia do I now get means tested and have to sell my house to pay for my own treatment?
Because care homes aren't nationalised?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,779
Location
Oldham
I think a lot of this is due to the lack of investment by the government.

My town as too many houses already. There are more housing projects about to be built, by private companies.

But we're not getting more schools, doctors surgeries, shops etc to cope with the increased demand of the area. So there is more people entering the local area but yet the amount of available jobs hasn't increased.

So the amount of people in the area employed as stayed the same, so of course years later this is going to cause a problem. There just isn't enough people working, or paying tax. Because of a lack of investment by the government.

I think blaming certain groups of people in society is akin to blaming the immigrants for all of our problems. The answer is the same, a lack of government investment in local facilities/amenities.
 
Back
Top Bottom