Moral maze

Graham_Devon

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It also may be unfair that people have to sell their house to provide for nursing care when older - however, what sense does it make for the state to carry that responsibilty just so that persons children can have a juicy inheritance.
It was once childrens responsibility to care for parents in old age, and I appreciate that may be impossible if the children are possibly pensioers themselves - but their seems a move to "stick em in a home and how can I get the money from their house".

All this tinkering with the benefits system seems to try and address the growing resentment that there seem to be people who will hardly work a day of their lives get get cradle to grave state pay outs.

Perhaps politicians should address the causes rather than treat the symptons

It comes to something when 2 pensioners can sit next to each other in a nursing home, and one knows that he's paying for BOTH of them because one either didnt work, or blew all their money having a nice time.

No doubt it would grate further that you know you are paying for both of you through sales of your assets, but to pay for this bloke next to you who hasn't paid a bean into the system, your own children will have less.

Disgusting system. Care should either be free, or charged. End of. No special treatment for those who have worked hard all their lives (and by special treatment, I mean sale of assets and dignity stripped).

kennyboy66_2

nearlynew wrote: »

You are right of course when talking about the present government..

But my previous post refers to "government" in general and the fact that the introduction of NI in 1946 (coincidentally by a labour government) was sold to the people as "insurance" not a tax.

National Insurance started in 1911 (Liberal govt at the time) and when introduced was a real insurance scheme with benefits based on contributions.

Just a form of income tax now, which happens only to be levied on people working. It helps keep down the tax rate on savings and investments and BTL speculators.

kennyboy66_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It comes to something when 2 pensioners can sit next to each other in a nursing home, and one knows that he's paying for BOTH of them because one either didnt work, or blew all their money having a nice time.

No doubt it would grate further that you know you are paying for both of you through sales of your assets, but to pay for this bloke next to you who hasn't paid a bean into the system, your own children will have less.

Disgusting system. Care should either be free, or charged. End of. No special treatment for those who have worked hard all their lives (and by special treatment, I mean sale of assets and dignity stripped).

Not only that - he is paying free nursing care for people who live in Scotland who don't get charged!

The problem with "making it fair", is that you get an ever expanding welfare state.

I think universal benefits like child benefit, pensioner heating allowance, nursery vouchers, and proposed changes on nursing care are just there to placate the silent majority so that they think they are getting something from all their tax & NI pounds.

It's addressing the wrong problem.
It is the army of people who don't and won't work and have no real inclination to. There probably needs to be some compulsion - I guess the problem is that it is an expensive problem to address.

nearlynew

kennyboy66 wrote: »

National Insurance started in 1911 (Liberal govt at the time) and when introduced was a real insurance scheme with benefits based on contributions.

Just a form of income tax now, which happens only to be levied on people working. It helps keep down the tax rate on savings and investments and BTL speculators.

Yes, sorry.

I meant its current, expanded format.

The_White_Horse

This is the lefty way. The person who sacrifises their income all their life to save for when they are old, has to spend out of that. Meanwhile the !!!!less, who spent it all on holidays and fags n' booze get the freebie handouts.

This is the lefty way. Punish the hardworking and reward the !!!!less. It is how they operate and always will.

fedupfreda

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It's addressing the wrong problem.
It is the army of people who don't and won't work and have no real inclination to. There probably needs to be some compulsion - I guess the problem is that it is an expensive problem to address.

Hit the nail bang on the head. But how do you encourage the workshy when the only jobs that are available to them are low paid, dead end, boring entry level jobs where the wages don't cover the cost of living? Of course there is no compulsion to work when you can get a better standard of living by living a completely reckless life and not bothering at all. IMO they have just seen the writing on the wall - and realised its not worth the effort.

If the Govt took the bull by the horns and increased the minimum wage to somewhere halfway decent, I reckon you would find a lot more people willing to take the jobs they would never have considered earlier. (Of course - this assumes that the jobs are there in the first place - but that's an entirely different question )

SingleSue

Sometimes the system does seem rather unjust, especially when you have worked for many many years and been careful with your money.

It happened to me too when hubby left and my savings had to be almost completely depleted before I could also get any financial help. It was most frustrating especially seeing other people having children straight from school and never working a day in their life, where as I had worked very hard for very long hours (but had also been very well recompensed for it) for many years, had had children during the time of my marriage and had saved for any treats we wanted and not spent willy nilly on silly items.

And then you get lumped in with every other benefit claimant.