Elderly care
04 July 2011, 06:22 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elderly care
Looks like the Gov are being pressure to raise the cap to even £100 k.
Personally I don't see a problem with the current cap of 23k? is it. Why should the taxpayer pay for the care of people who have significant wealth at their disposal to self-fund?
Especially as the baby-boomer generation - who are going to be in care homes over the next decade or two, have profited massively from the housing market, the stock market etc, also many have final salery pension schemes.
Funny that talk of raising the cap coincidences with them retiring...everything seems to go their way. What a selfish generation?
Personally I don't see a problem with the current cap of 23k? is it. Why should the taxpayer pay for the care of people who have significant wealth at their disposal to self-fund?
Especially as the baby-boomer generation - who are going to be in care homes over the next decade or two, have profited massively from the housing market, the stock market etc, also many have final salery pension schemes.
Funny that talk of raising the cap coincidences with them retiring...everything seems to go their way. What a selfish generation?
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 04 July 2011 at 06:54 PM.
04 July 2011, 06:39 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Because ... why should those who saved be penalised when those who pi55ed all their money away get care free?
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
04 July 2011, 06:43 PM
#3
Because ... why should those who saved be penalised when those who pi55ed all their money away get care free?
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
04 July 2011, 06:59 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because ... why should those who saved be penalised when those who pi55ed all their money away get care free?
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
The older generation have profited massively from say the house price boom....not because of their intelligence but historical happenstance. So the younger generation get shafted by the housing market, having to work longer for less pension....and then have to PAY for the richer older generation to have free care....after paying for their earlier retirement on an excellent final salary pension! How fair is that? Answer: not very!
Anyway it's only £900 a week in a southern cross care home, surely peanuts to a man of your considerable wealth?
04 July 2011, 07:05 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
You need to look at it from their end ..... it was thought that they would all be dead at 70 - but, we are alive and kicking.
That's not their fault .. that Medical advancement has lengthened life and also they care for themselves more than those before (or after).
Just as the elderly paid for the elderly when they were young - so should you kids pay for us now that we are elderly. It is how our system is built.
The only fly in the ointment is that we are living longer than bugeted for.
You will also go looking for care paid for by the youngsters when you hit 80 ..... and you stop work to collect your Pension.
That's not their fault .. that Medical advancement has lengthened life and also they care for themselves more than those before (or after).
Just as the elderly paid for the elderly when they were young - so should you kids pay for us now that we are elderly. It is how our system is built.
The only fly in the ointment is that we are living longer than bugeted for.
You will also go looking for care paid for by the youngsters when you hit 80 ..... and you stop work to collect your Pension.
04 July 2011, 07:10 PM
#7
What about people who have worked hard all their lives on a poor wage so have no savings? can't penalise them
Why can't we look after our elderly after all we can afford to keep givind billions to other countries to look after their people
I do find it annoying when some people leave school, start breeding, never have a job (yet can afford big TVs, holidays, beer, cigs, etc) get their stamp paid so get a full pension!
And don't mention immigrants who come over, never learn to speak english but get a house given along with benefits, healthcare and then get a pension without putting a penny into the pot!
Why can't we look after our elderly after all we can afford to keep givind billions to other countries to look after their people
I do find it annoying when some people leave school, start breeding, never have a job (yet can afford big TVs, holidays, beer, cigs, etc) get their stamp paid so get a full pension!
And don't mention immigrants who come over, never learn to speak english but get a house given along with benefits, healthcare and then get a pension without putting a penny into the pot!
Trending Topics
04 July 2011, 07:14 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to look at it from their end ..... it was thought that they would all be dead at 70 - but, we are alive and kicking.
That's not their fault .. that Medical advancement has lengthened life and also they care for themselves more than those before (or after).
Just as the elderly paid for the elderly when they were young - so should you kids pay for us now that we are elderly. It is how our system is built.
The only fly in the ointment is that we are living longer than bugeted for.
You will also go looking for care paid for by the youngsters when you hit 80 ..... and you stop work to collect your Pension.
That's not their fault .. that Medical advancement has lengthened life and also they care for themselves more than those before (or after).
Just as the elderly paid for the elderly when they were young - so should you kids pay for us now that we are elderly. It is how our system is built.
The only fly in the ointment is that we are living longer than bugeted for.
You will also go looking for care paid for by the youngsters when you hit 80 ..... and you stop work to collect your Pension.
If the houses are sold to pay for the care, then the younger generation loses out down the line.
If the younger generation pay up front for the care then they lose as well.
Anyway the older generation has profited massively from favorable circumstances....maybe they should give something back?
04 July 2011, 08:06 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
The houses would only be inherited anyway by the younger generation anyway - if they were not used to fund the care.
If the houses are sold to pay for the care, then the younger generation loses out down the line.
If the younger generation pay up front for the care then they lose as well.
Anyway the older generation has profited massively from favorable circumstances....maybe they should give something back?
If the houses are sold to pay for the care, then the younger generation loses out down the line.
If the younger generation pay up front for the care then they lose as well.
Anyway the older generation has profited massively from favorable circumstances....maybe they should give something back?
Dave
04 July 2011, 09:34 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
04 July 2011, 09:53 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might agree if we were on an even keel but we are not. The Baby Boomers retire just as our national debt is racing to all time highs, these people have led a charmed life of government spending (on them) from credit leaving the younger generation with more debt!
04 July 2011, 09:56 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although put in a very arrogant way, I sort of agree with this. It is the ultimate 'slap in the face' for those who have worked all their life and saved and (probably, hopefully) contributed so much in tax. Even in the throws of death they are subsidising those less well off.
Put it this way, why should the taxes of a minimum wage worker at Tesco, pay for the care of a billionaire?
04 July 2011, 09:59 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny BELFAST
Posts: 19,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because ... why should those who saved be penalised when those who pi55ed all their money away get care free?
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
Raise the limit to £1million I say!
I mean, £23k is pathetic ... my current account has more than that in it! £100k is equally pathetic - thats less than most older peoples savings account levels!
Add a £500k house, a £250k holiday home and it needs to be £1million IMO.
It's fair that those who have built up wealth by their intelligence and hard work are allowed to dispose of it as they wish .... and those who have not progressed are left behind! These old people have contributed to society all their lives, haven't taken anything and now should be able to collect on the debt we owe them.
04 July 2011, 10:11 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Although put in a very arrogant way, I sort of agree with this. It is the ultimate 'slap in the face' for those who have worked all their life and saved and (probably, hopefully) contributed so much in tax. Even in the throws of death they are subsidising those less well off.
My grandma worked up until her health stopped her doing so. She owned her home, payed all her bills etc, never any help with 'subsidies' or such like.
Yet when she got cancer, and started to die, my mother was told she would have to sell her home to pay her way in a nursing home.
YET.... Her sister who had lived in a council house all her life, who's husband has suffered with 'back problems' throughout adulthood, gets a free pass!!! WTF??
How is that fair?
All because my grandmother has assests that exceeded the minimum amount allowable by the government.
I have nothing but respect for my elders, they are older, and generally wiser, (with some exceptions) and they deserve more than having the rug pulled out from under them when they need to get something back, after all the giving!
04 July 2011, 10:22 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, and I agree with Pete's sentiment.
My grandma worked up until her health stopped her doing so. She owned her home, payed all her bills etc, never any help with 'subsidies' or such like.
Yet when she got cancer, and started to die, my mother was told she would have to sell her home to pay her way in a nursing home.
YET.... Her sister who had lived in a council house all her life, who's husband has suffered with 'back problems' throughout adulthood, gets a free pass!!! WTF??
How is that fair?
All because my grandmother has assests that exceeded the minimum amount allowable by the government.
I have nothing but respect for my elders, they are older, and generally wiser, (with some exceptions) and they deserve more than having the rug pulled out from under them when they need to get something back, after all the giving!
My grandma worked up until her health stopped her doing so. She owned her home, payed all her bills etc, never any help with 'subsidies' or such like.
Yet when she got cancer, and started to die, my mother was told she would have to sell her home to pay her way in a nursing home.
YET.... Her sister who had lived in a council house all her life, who's husband has suffered with 'back problems' throughout adulthood, gets a free pass!!! WTF??
How is that fair?
All because my grandmother has assests that exceeded the minimum amount allowable by the government.
I have nothing but respect for my elders, they are older, and generally wiser, (with some exceptions) and they deserve more than having the rug pulled out from under them when they need to get something back, after all the giving!
I thought a care home was subsidised for conditions such as cancer but not Alzheimers?
I don't understand how you equate owning a house with 'giving'? These people have benefited massively from the liberalisation of credit in the 80's which let to house prices rocketing massively. In many cases the inflation of housing assets has allowed them to enjoy a lifestyle way beyond what the 'deserve'.
Now you want young taxpayers to pay for their care?
The Baby Boomers have profited massively from housing, they enjoyed early retirement on generous pensions, they left us with loads of national debt, they enjoyed historically abnormal returns on the stock market.
But you want minimum wage workers at Tesco to pay for their care?
A worker who will probably not be able to retire until 75 and will get a pittance.
04 July 2011, 10:27 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
I thought a care home was subsidised for conditions such as cancer but not Alzheimers?
I don't understand how you equate owning a house with 'giving'? These people have benefited massively from the liberalisation of credit in the 80's which let to house prices rocketing massively. In many cases the inflation of housing assets has allowed them to enjoy a lifestyle way beyond what the 'deserve'.
Now you want young taxpayers to pay for their care?
The Baby Boomers have profited massively from housing, they enjoyed early retirement on generous pensions, they left us with loads of national debt, they enjoyed historically abnormal returns on the stock market.
But you want minimum wage workers at Tesco to pay for their care?
A worker who will probably not be able to retire until 75 and will get a pittance.
I don't understand how you equate owning a house with 'giving'? These people have benefited massively from the liberalisation of credit in the 80's which let to house prices rocketing massively. In many cases the inflation of housing assets has allowed them to enjoy a lifestyle way beyond what the 'deserve'.
Now you want young taxpayers to pay for their care?
The Baby Boomers have profited massively from housing, they enjoyed early retirement on generous pensions, they left us with loads of national debt, they enjoyed historically abnormal returns on the stock market.
But you want minimum wage workers at Tesco to pay for their care?
A worker who will probably not be able to retire until 75 and will get a pittance.
I have a son with strep tgroat and I have had two nose bleeds today, all I care about is getting some sleep.
05 July 2011, 01:28 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought a care home was subsidised for conditions such as cancer but not Alzheimers?
I don't understand how you equate owning a house with 'giving'? These people have benefited massively from the liberalisation of credit in the 80's which let to house prices rocketing massively. In many cases the inflation of housing assets has allowed them to enjoy a lifestyle way beyond what the 'deserve'.
Now you want young taxpayers to pay for their care?
The Baby Boomers have profited massively from housing, they enjoyed early retirement on generous pensions, they left us with loads of national debt, they enjoyed historically abnormal returns on the stock market.
But you want minimum wage workers at Tesco to pay for their care?
A worker who will probably not be able to retire until 75 and will get a pittance.
I don't understand how you equate owning a house with 'giving'? These people have benefited massively from the liberalisation of credit in the 80's which let to house prices rocketing massively. In many cases the inflation of housing assets has allowed them to enjoy a lifestyle way beyond what the 'deserve'.
Now you want young taxpayers to pay for their care?
The Baby Boomers have profited massively from housing, they enjoyed early retirement on generous pensions, they left us with loads of national debt, they enjoyed historically abnormal returns on the stock market.
But you want minimum wage workers at Tesco to pay for their care?
A worker who will probably not be able to retire until 75 and will get a pittance.
All the elderly should be entitled to care even if they do own a nice house etc. which they have paid for out of their own efforts as well as paying their national insurance ticket, supporting the country with their hard work and their taxes.
A country has a responsibility to its elderly people, that has always been the case.
You should consider that you personally may well need health care in about 20 years time. I think you are likely to change your tune when you find yourself in that particular boat.
Les
05 July 2011, 01:42 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are suffering from a lack of judgement.
All the elderly should be entitled to care even if they do own a nice house etc. which they have paid for out of their own efforts as well as paying their national insurance ticket, supporting the country with their hard work and their taxes.
A country has a responsibility to its elderly people, that has always been the case.
You should consider that you personally may well need health care in about 20 years time. I think you are likely to change your tune when you find yourself in that particular boat.
Les
All the elderly should be entitled to care even if they do own a nice house etc. which they have paid for out of their own efforts as well as paying their national insurance ticket, supporting the country with their hard work and their taxes.
A country has a responsibility to its elderly people, that has always been the case.
You should consider that you personally may well need health care in about 20 years time. I think you are likely to change your tune when you find yourself in that particular boat.
Les
05 July 2011, 08:56 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Question.
My dad is a bit short of cash, and i have offered to buy 25% of his house off him. If he ever went into care, could the council force him to sell it, bearing in mind he would only be able to sell 75% of it.
My dad is a bit short of cash, and i have offered to buy 25% of his house off him. If he ever went into care, could the council force him to sell it, bearing in mind he would only be able to sell 75% of it.
05 July 2011, 09:10 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 July 2011, 09:58 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 July 2011, 10:08 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Most of the elderly have paid taxes on what they earned, paid NI as they went along, were mostly fully employed all their lives, were expected to die before age 70 ..... they are living longer, and that is the problem.
The young of today are benefiting from the Technological and Medical advancements made by the Elderly .... they will live until 100 - they should pay for those who have delivered this utopia to them.
The young of today are benefiting from the Technological and Medical advancements made by the Elderly .... they will live until 100 - they should pay for those who have delivered this utopia to them.
05 July 2011, 10:16 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 July 2011, 10:25 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the elderly have paid taxes on what they earned, paid NI as they went along, were mostly fully employed all their lives, were expected to die before age 70 ..... they are living longer, and that is the problem.
The young of today are benefiting from the Technological and Medical advancements made by the Elderly .... they will live until 100 - they should pay for those who have delivered this utopia to them.
The young of today are benefiting from the Technological and Medical advancements made by the Elderly .... they will live until 100 - they should pay for those who have delivered this utopia to them.
06 July 2011, 03:09 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of the elderly have had a full working life, paid their NI and their taxes as well as helping the country maintain the GDP.
While they were working, their taxes were also paying the pensions of those who were elderly while they were working as well as the unemployment pay and other benefits.
That is the way it was calculated to work and the reason the country is in its present state is not their fault but as we well know, the grossly excessive overborrowing by NL and using the borrowed cash to spend like water and to gain votes.
You are completely in the wrong to blame today's pensioners for the state of this country's economy, nothing to do with them at all.
NL inherited a very strong economy when they came to power and they managed to squander it all away in a couple of years or so.
Les
While they were working, their taxes were also paying the pensions of those who were elderly while they were working as well as the unemployment pay and other benefits.
That is the way it was calculated to work and the reason the country is in its present state is not their fault but as we well know, the grossly excessive overborrowing by NL and using the borrowed cash to spend like water and to gain votes.
You are completely in the wrong to blame today's pensioners for the state of this country's economy, nothing to do with them at all.
NL inherited a very strong economy when they came to power and they managed to squander it all away in a couple of years or so.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post