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

[Narj]

But also through having a father who.....


We're all products of our environment, and most of us are just trying to make our way in the world. We can never equalise everyone's opportunity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things more fair. The idea that we pay wealthy people's care to subsidise inheritance (very much unearned income on the part of the inheritee) on the backs of working people is not in any way 'fair' and really should not be supported by anyone who thinks hard work should be rewarded.

I'd possibly be in favour of some sort of means-testing but effectively wiping out everything someone has worked for to pay for care also seems somewhat unfair when others who can deliberately impoverish themselves will get it for free.

Maybe just bring care into a ring-fenced part of the budget from general taxation and done with it. Everyone pays their share then.

 

[cheesyboy]

I'd possibly be in favour of some sort of means-testing but effectively wiping out everything someone has worked for to pay for care also seems somewhat unfair when others who can deliberately impoverish themselves will get it for free.

If living poor with no assets was so great, we'd all be doing it. The truth is, it's ****. Maybe you don't have to reach into your own pocket to pay for some stuff but, also, you're poor as **** all the time, so it's crap.

It might feel like they're getting away with something but, really, they've already lost the game a long time ago.

 

[muon]

I'd possibly be in favour of some sort of means-testing but effectively wiping out everything someone has worked for to pay for care also seems somewhat unfair when others who can deliberately impoverish themselves will get it for free.

Just bring care fees into a ring-fenced part of the budget from general taxation and done with it.

Deliberately impoverished themselves. Wow.

In that case I reckon we should get rid of all social benefits. Stop deliberately impoverishing yourself.

Do you think everyone should get a job seeker's allowance and housing benefit? After all it isn't fair that lazy people get that?

The reason we dont do that is because in 90% of cases people are poor due to pure bad luck. The family they were born to, where they were born, physical or mental disabilities, when they were born.

If it is suddenly brought into general taxation, then very conveniently the generation which didn't have to pay for much their entire lives compared to the young today get another freebie. Now I obviously know a significant portion of the older generations are just on a basic state pension and have limited assets, so means testing would help them.

 

[muon]

Also to add, poorer pensioners (justifiably) get numerous other benefits. Housing benefit, council tax benefit, free tv licence and pension credits etc.

Means tested benefits already exist and works well directing funding only to those that actually need it. That is what a social safety net is supposed to do.

Not pay for everyone's costs especially by favouring one set of people over another. No where is it more poignant than when looking at how public sector pay has been reduced in real terms over the last 10+ years.

The gap between the two lines is how much public sector workers have given up in real terms so that the government budget can stay under control. It'll be tens of billions if not hundreds.

Even then the government has still had to accrue massive debts that newer generations will have to pay for. Likely by cutting all old age benefits for themselves and future generations so that the economy is more balanced.

 

[Hagar]

If it is suddenly brought into general taxation, then very conveniently the generation which didn't have to pay for much their entire lives compared to the young today get another freebie. Now I obviously know a significant portion of the older generations are just on a basic state pension and have limited assets, so means testing would help them.

The problem with means testing social care is that you are putting an individual into care but means testing a couple or a family. Yes they live in a £350,000 bungalow, all paid up but have few other savings and a small occupational pension.
Does the partner have to sell the bungalow to effect care for the other? Does he/she borrow on the property? For how long can she survive past the others incapacity. What happens when her own money runs out.
The only solution is general taxation, a service akin to the NHS free at the point of need. The only question is when and the transition to get to that point. It may be some time.

 

[muon]

The problem with means testing social care is that you are putting an individual into care but means testing a couple or a family. Yes they live in a £350,000 bungalow, all paid up but have few other savings and a small occupational pension.
Does the partner have to sell the bungalow to effect care for the other? Does he/she borrow on the property? For how long can she survive past the others incapacity. What happens when her own money runs out.
The only solution is general taxation, a service akin to the NHS free at the point of need. The only question is when and the transition to get to that point. It may be some time.

All solvable problems. Don't need to stick our head in the sand to make things much worse.

I don't believe in the scenario you've give they would be forced to sell today anyway. So its a misleading example.

Once there are no further dependents on assets and it is 100% owned by an individual then yes, it should be sold as it isn't really that different to having £350k in cash.

Other things come into play anyway. Do they have a decent private pension that is supposed to pay for their living costs anyway? What other assets exist.

Means testing will also always be on a sliding scale, so that can easily be designed so the burden increases as you go up in house price value, assets, private pension etc.

 

[Narj]

Deliberately impoverished themselves. Wow.
.

You obviously missed the part earlier in the discussion where it was mentioned that wealthy people could potentially find ways to ring-fence their assets and money and get out of paying. That is what I was alluding to.

It's twisting things somewhat to say that I think anyone on benefits is deliberately impoverishing themselves.

Calm down, dear.

 

[cheesyboy]

The problem with means testing social care is that you are putting an individual into care but means testing a couple or a family. Yes they live in a £350,000 bungalow, all paid up but have few other savings and a small occupational pension.
Does the partner have to sell the bungalow to effect care for the other? Does he/she borrow on the property? For how long can she survive past the others incapacity. What happens when her own money runs out.
The only solution is general taxation, a service akin to the NHS free at the point of need. The only question is when and the transition to get to that point. It may be some time.

It's already the defacto current regime that wealthy people pay for their own care, and I don't belive your scenario is an impediment to that - the change from the OP is just that: a change (such that wealthy pensioners wouldn't have to pay for their care)

 

[muon]

You obviously missed the part earlier in the discussion where it was mentioned that wealthy people could potentially find ways to ring-fence their assets and money and get out of paying. That is what I was alluding to.

It's twisting things somewhat to say that I think anyone on benefits is deliberately impoverishing themselves.

Calm down, dear.

In which case I apologise. However, the solution isn't to give everyone something free regardless of need.

 

[Narj]

In which case I apologise. However, the solution isn't to give everyone something free regardless of need.

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.

I've had family and friends end up in care and it's been a bloody horrible thing to witness really - it's why I'm so determined to avoid it. I also don't think it's really a service that's suitable to be run by private businesses who will cut to the bone and don't have compassion and quality of life as a priority. It's not like they care about your return custom.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

You should ask your solicitor to explain what they're doing.

If you gift an asset, but still derive benefit from the asset, that's a gift with reservation. An example would be gifting your house but reserving a right to carry on living there. In such a situation the house will still form part of your estate at the date of your death. The only way I know around this is for you to pay a full commercial market rent (with rent reviews) backed by a contract with a legal obligation to pay. Income tax would have to be paid by those receiving the rental income and Capital Gains Tax also comes into play if the house is sold.

Again I will have to trust that the Solicitor gives us genuine advice so we make a one time payment to pass the house on, if we can't then back to the drawing board to see what the alternatives are.

 

[Shoza]

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.

I probably won’t need a safety net at retirement but it would give me confidence to spend more now and live my life fuller if I knew with certainty that there was a basic safety net in place and the goals for that safety net didn’t change every few years.

It’s good that we are all now encouraged to have a contributory pension as the pension system over the last 50 years has never been suitable or sustainable.

I know far too many people who have retired in their late 50s or early 60s on unsustainable final salary pensions. The triple lock should be removed immediately and replaced with CPI increases only.

So a reasonable ring fenced increase to national insurance contributions and the removal of the triple lock should bring this mess under control. I also like the idea of scrapping private businesses running care homes - they care only about profit and it would be cheaper for Councils to run most of these services in house.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

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.

I probably won’t need a safety net at retirement but it would give me confidence to spend more now and live my life fuller if I knew with certainty that there was a basic safety net in place and the goals for that safety net didn’t change every few years.

It’s good that we are all now encouraged to have a contributory pension as the pension system over the last 50 years has never been suitable or sustainable.

I know far too many people who have retired in their late 50s or early 60s on unsustainable final salary pensions. The triple lock should be removed immediately and replaced with CPI increases only.

So a reasonable ring fenced increase to national insurance contributions and the removal of the triple lock should bring this mess under control. I also like the idea of scrapping private businesses running care homes - they care only about profit and it would be cheaper for Councils to run most of these services in house.

There is no way councils could run them cheaper or better.

Private businesses means competition which is driving efficiency obviously they need to make money too but if you opened up 100 care homes guess what they wouldn't make a profit.

Supply and demand and it should all equal itself out. Not as if there is a reason why care homes would be in short supply other than nobody wanting to run one.

 

[cheesyboy]

There is no way councils could run them cheaper or better.

Private businesses means competition which is driving efficiency obviously they need to make money too but if you opened up 100 care homes guess what they wouldn't make a profit.

Supply and demand and it should all equal itself out. Not as if there is a reason why care homes would be in short supply other than nobody wanting to run one.

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.

 

[Hagar]

My only comment really is if Aneurin Bevan and Clement Attlee were designing a national social care service today to complement the successful national health service, would they start off with the means testing premise?

In my opinion ,no, they would use a national insurance, general taxation model. The wealthy part of the population is very overstated in this discussion and not many would gain hugely and not for very long anyway. The ultimate goal surely is that anyone who needs social care gets it. Introducing a means test works against that principle and is complicated. That is why they did not use it for healthcare.

 

[cheesyboy]

The wealthy part of the population is very overstated in this discussion

Almost three quarters (74% in 2017) of over 65s own their home outright, per ONS.

That's a hefty chunk which has wealth.

 

[Dolph]

Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.

In the case of avoiding the stupidity of the last labour manifesto (and it's past equivalents such as 1983), it worked fine.

 

[danlightbulb]

Yes the person is to blame for being a sheep.

I know plenty of materialistic folk who all they talk about is money, cars, salary, etc. They even lie about their own stuff to make them look fancier. Like I can't believe how one idiot lied about how much their house was they added an extra £100k on like I couldn't easily google exactly how much they paid.

Such and such is marrying such and such and their family is even richer and valued at £60m. Like who cares?

Did you see what such and such bought their wife as a "push" present? I wonder what my husband will get me. It's a competition because of sheep and idiots tbh. 10 years ago did push presents exist? 50 years ago did eternity rings exist? 100 years ago did diamond engagement rings exist?

It's like why the majority of the market buys diamond engagement rings. Marketing is a powerful tool and social media is just that marketing for yourself and likley the brand's you are using to upmarket yourself.

If anyone is basing financial decisions and life choices based on social media then yeah it is their fault tbh. Social media isn't real life it's the person's vision of what they envision life to be like or what they want their life to be like.

I agree with you on all the above, but its not the individual's fault for being a sheep. It is drilled into them the moment they are born - and by who? Who is it that creates all these products, all this marketing, all this available credit, all this peer pressure for the younger generation to gorge on?

It is quite simple - it is the previous couple of generations who create the products, the marketing, the magazines, the you tube content, the credit lines, the fake showhome lifestyles.

You are vastly underestimating the power of marketing and societal pressure if you think children, and early adults who have been exposed to it their whole lives can just choose to walk away. It is similar to being brainwashed by a religious group hundreds of years ago (or even now, in certain parts of the world). It has always happened, its just now its focused on all these lifestyle things you mention and feeds our capitalist society instead of religious fanaticism.

 

[Dolph]

The Tyranny of the Majority is an enormous fault!

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.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I agree with you on all the above, but its not the individual's fault for being a sheep. It is drilled into them the moment they are born - and by who? Who is it that creates all these products, all this marketing, all this available credit, all this peer pressure for the younger generation to gorge on?

It is quite simple - it is the previous couple of generations who create the products, the marketing, the magazines, the you tube content, the credit lines, the fake showhome lifestyles.

You are vastly underestimating the power of marketing and societal pressure if you think children, and early adults who have been exposed to it their whole lives can just choose to walk away. It is similar to being brainwashed by a religious group hundreds of years ago (or even now, in certain parts of the world). It has always happened, its just now its focused on all these lifestyle things you mention and feeds our capitalist society instead of religious fanaticism.

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.