Why would anyone move somewhere that there is no work for them?
People complaining about paying for their own care again = massive entitlement
- Thread starter Outcast440
- Start date
Why would anyone move somewhere that there is no work for them?
It's probably because we're just outside of Manchester with trams going directly there.
It's a quiet town and the 2 areas being built on are in the higher pricing bracket for houses.
I think someone worked out there will be be around 400+ additional people in the area. It's already bad enough trying to get a GP appointment as it is. School places will remain the same.
There should be new hospital facilities, new schools at least. One of the big warehouse places are recently closing down too. All this exacerbated by covid and the stagnent job market at the moment.
I'm sure my town is very similar to many other towns across the country.
If there were more people in employment then part of the adult care problem would disappear.
Well it seems like you're talking about 2 problems - not enough work to employ an increased local population to a good level, and not enough facilities to cater to them. Re the first point I stand by what I said - I don't think people are going to move to the area with no prospect of finding work (especially if the housing is on the pricey side), new housing or not. So assuming that people move to the area and are largely employed, the facilities should follow. Any private industries will want to set up where there is demand, and public services such as healthcare will get upgraded when the service becomes **** enough through scarcity of facilities that everyone moans to the local MP / council / whoever's directly responsible.
Anyway, this is probably all a bit OT, but I found your previous post odd so wanted to comment.
This is the problem I have with the left wing government policies, they encourage people to frivolously spend their wealth so other people have to pay for their care amongst other things, ultimately harming the collective.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
but how do you propose differentiating between those who are poor because of frivolity and those who are poor because of circumstances they couldn't have controlled? monitor all spending?
there will always be people who game the system and take advantage but they are the minority I would suggest. society should care for the weaker members.
I would leverage the market tbh in the way some countries such as Japan do. Everyone is forced to take out a minimum level of health insurance scheme of their choice which has some degree of price control, and their healthcare is better and cheaper than the UK. Same sort of thing should apply to social care.
I would scrap the NHS in favour of this system as well.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 682
My grandmother has dementia and my mother is her carer. Whilst my mother is paid a pittance to look after her, my grandmother must cost the NHS an absolute fortune as she has a myriad of other health conditions - diabetes (she is thin, just very old), deaf, plus other ailments.
My grandmother is far from wealthy and would likely qualify for free care if it were needed. I think it's great that the NHS exists and is free at the point of use and that nobody goes without care/treatment, but that people should face a greater responsibility for their own health.
For instance, I think that people who give themselves type 2 diabetes should have to fully fund their own treatment. I've seen many examples of people not modifying their behaviour and instead be content with increasing the number of items on their prescription.
Obviously there is a discussion to be had about where responsibility starts, i.e. injuries through sport vs. a drunk person falling over etc. but making people think about (and pay for) their actions and poor choices is the way to go. The NHS would be better funded and the population generally much healthier - living healthier into old age and therefore costing the state less.
Perhaps everyone should have an annual health check up, with the results determining how much "health tax" you pay? Big changes are needed. There are to many very old people, to many very unhealthy people, not enough young people AND the youth are being screwed by the systems that has been set up.
My grandmother is far from wealthy and would likely qualify for free care if it were needed. I think it's great that the NHS exists and is free at the point of use and that nobody goes without care/treatment, but that people should face a greater responsibility for their own health.
For instance, I think that people who give themselves type 2 diabetes should have to fully fund their own treatment. I've seen many examples of people not modifying their behaviour and instead be content with increasing the number of items on their prescription.
Obviously there is a discussion to be had about where responsibility starts, i.e. injuries through sport vs. a drunk person falling over etc. but making people think about (and pay for) their actions and poor choices is the way to go. The NHS would be better funded and the population generally much healthier - living healthier into old age and therefore costing the state less.
Perhaps everyone should have an annual health check up, with the results determining how much "health tax" you pay? Big changes are needed. There are to many very old people, to many very unhealthy people, not enough young people AND the youth are being screwed by the systems that has been set up.
America has huge rates of diabetes despite its ruinously expensive healthcare system
This story is doing the rounds again - looks like Jeremy Corbo-Hunt is banging the drum for 'free' care agin - capped at 45k max, even for those with 2million pound houses.
Now, if it's not enough for the vast majority of healthy people being locked up for 1 year, to 'help out' the old and unproductive - why should we now have to fork out for the oldies' care? What's wrong with them just getting a loan on their houses or selling them etc..? Gotta love these baby boomers overinflated sense of entitlement!
You want excessive health care, you pay! What's wrong with that?
Seriously? I hope the people around you are more caring when you reach old age.
I don't have a problem with the government making whatever rules, but I do have a problem when they are applied immediately. People need to be given time to save. You can't just suddenly change the rules and say well sorry the National Insurance you paid for forty years won't cut it and we want to sell your house. It's basically going back on the promises that were made forty years ago.
The old have paid huge sums of money in to the government in the form of taxes and National Insurance. Make no bones the only reason the costs for the elderly are a problem in this country is because the government was short sighted and didn't save any of the money they paid in, like it should have done. They can't lecture the old now, forty years too late, that they didn't save, when they didn't either.
Can you elaborate a bit on this with some examples of ailments that you would "tax" and some that you wouldn't include in the annual assessment?
Also, who pays for this annual assessment?
Careful, you will be called insensitive and transphobic making such sensible statements!!!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,365
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Where do I fit in?
I've been waiting for a full knee replacement for 5 years, over the last 18 months my operation has been cancelled 3 times and I'm now in a wheelchair.
I have paid taxes and NI since 1974 so I'd love your wisdom.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2020
- Posts
- 2,410
A note on a few points I came across on the first page, firstly regarding social housing - right to buy ruined social housing stock with everyone buying therefore removing their property from the social rented sector.
On shared ownership, housing associations maintain the right to re purchase the property first for up to 20 year after it is full staircased, and indefinitely if it is not.
There is a huge incentive not to staircase past 75% too, as after 65 you can opt for 'old person's shared ownership', which makes the last 25% free, but the housing association simply rebuy or sell your 75% share after you die.
Also one of grandparents that owned their home got care workers to their home on a scheme where the costs were repaid after they died from the sale of the house.
On the issue of 'hiding wealth', this is literally the biggest dick move as you are supposed to use up your savings first before claiming welfare. My brother lets my dad hide his money in an account in my brother's name, and offered the same to me but I refused to do any kind of 'benefit fraud'.
Also 'giving money to relatives' classifies as deprivation of capital for benefits calculations, and if they catch you lying about / denying that to claim welfare you can and should be jailed.
I was told that all the money I do get is for my living expenses and house. I can spend on fitted furniture, interior design, new flooring, new bathroom, landscaping the gardens, and basically a case of pick one thing to do each year based on how much I manage to save up to a maximum of £6000.
On shared ownership, housing associations maintain the right to re purchase the property first for up to 20 year after it is full staircased, and indefinitely if it is not.
There is a huge incentive not to staircase past 75% too, as after 65 you can opt for 'old person's shared ownership', which makes the last 25% free, but the housing association simply rebuy or sell your 75% share after you die.
Also one of grandparents that owned their home got care workers to their home on a scheme where the costs were repaid after they died from the sale of the house.
On the issue of 'hiding wealth', this is literally the biggest dick move as you are supposed to use up your savings first before claiming welfare. My brother lets my dad hide his money in an account in my brother's name, and offered the same to me but I refused to do any kind of 'benefit fraud'.
Also 'giving money to relatives' classifies as deprivation of capital for benefits calculations, and if they catch you lying about / denying that to claim welfare you can and should be jailed.
I was told that all the money I do get is for my living expenses and house. I can spend on fitted furniture, interior design, new flooring, new bathroom, landscaping the gardens, and basically a case of pick one thing to do each year based on how much I manage to save up to a maximum of £6000.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
Taking people's houses off them is stupid. There is a housing shortage. Their kids won't inherit and will end up renting.
It should be paid for out of taxation.
Dementia and alzhemers are illnesses like any other.
It should be paid for out of taxation.
Dementia and alzhemers are illnesses like any other.
What's the dilemma here??!!
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2021
- Posts
- 216
to be fair that is essentially a chronic disease.
And I think the NHS do, do this way(Labr@t) on cosmetic stuff. I tried to have an unsightly mole removed, and NHS refused and I had to go private.
The problem with all these things (and with most things in life) is that there is no "fair" answer.
I play a lot of sport and will most likely be far healthier than 90% of people on here throughout my life as I have also been lucky enough to be generally healthy and win the genetics lottery. That being said, some people would say that if I advocated people who smoke or have diabetes from poor diet and weight issues then I should also advocate for people like myself having to pay for that knee operation or sporting related injuries.
The wealthy already pay a lot of tax and plenty of people would say that they shouldn't be asked for more when it comes to care in later life or inheritance tax.
Why should someone who has been frugal and saved money have to pay for their care or not get proper support if they lose their job simply because they have saved money vs people ******* it up the wall?
Why should people who have never worked and never paid into the system get the same level of care as people who have paid massively into the system.
None of it is fair and unless we want a system that punishes some people and also spend massively on deciding who gets what then we kind of have to muddle through.
Personally I think the mega wealthy should be paying more, I think mega wealthy companies should be paying more. There comes a point where you simply cannot justify someones wealth vs the average earner. They can claim they work harder all they like but you can't tell me that someone earning 10m/year and paying a pittance in tax because they have someone who makes sure they don't pay a penny more than they have to is "earning" ~300x the average salary.
I play a lot of sport and will most likely be far healthier than 90% of people on here throughout my life as I have also been lucky enough to be generally healthy and win the genetics lottery. That being said, some people would say that if I advocated people who smoke or have diabetes from poor diet and weight issues then I should also advocate for people like myself having to pay for that knee operation or sporting related injuries.
The wealthy already pay a lot of tax and plenty of people would say that they shouldn't be asked for more when it comes to care in later life or inheritance tax.
Why should someone who has been frugal and saved money have to pay for their care or not get proper support if they lose their job simply because they have saved money vs people ******* it up the wall?
Why should people who have never worked and never paid into the system get the same level of care as people who have paid massively into the system.
None of it is fair and unless we want a system that punishes some people and also spend massively on deciding who gets what then we kind of have to muddle through.
Personally I think the mega wealthy should be paying more, I think mega wealthy companies should be paying more. There comes a point where you simply cannot justify someones wealth vs the average earner. They can claim they work harder all they like but you can't tell me that someone earning 10m/year and paying a pittance in tax because they have someone who makes sure they don't pay a penny more than they have to is "earning" ~300x the average salary.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
OP is miss informed.. My old man has been in a care home for the best part of a year.. even though he can't look after himself and needs full time medical care, his choice to go into a home was by choice, and therefore he has to pay. Now that his life time savings have gone, his care costs will be deducted from his estate on probate. If his estate can't cover the costs, then the state will pay. A full financial assessment was done at the time.
It infuriates me too. I havent read the whole thread sorry.
Probably 70% of people in the UK (100% of people born after 1995) seem to think everything should be free for the 'unfortunate' (lazy) and paid for by hard working people.
It would be interesting if all the hard workers at the same time said "F U" and resigned, then demanded their benefits. Benefits which they are rightly entitled too as have been contributing for many years.
All the hard workers would no longer pay huge sums of tax and can live off their pensions, savings, houses and investments for a few years
No doubt the government would try to tax peoples savings to pay for the lazy scrotes
Probably 70% of people in the UK (100% of people born after 1995) seem to think everything should be free for the 'unfortunate' (lazy) and paid for by hard working people.
It would be interesting if all the hard workers at the same time said "F U" and resigned, then demanded their benefits. Benefits which they are rightly entitled too as have been contributing for many years.
All the hard workers would no longer pay huge sums of tax and can live off their pensions, savings, houses and investments for a few years
No doubt the government would try to tax peoples savings to pay for the lazy scrotes