We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Talk of raising the cap on care home fees
Comments
-
Over the years fewer and fewer people are in residential care, despite increasing numbers living longer.
The direction of travel is to keep people in their own homes with appropriate human and telemetry support. Why? Because it's cheaper and people fare better.
This move is being made because it's cheaper - not necessarily because it's better for people.
It's going to lead to a lot of very lonely older people. People with mobility and continence problems will be left sitting in their dirty nappies until a carer rushes in for a half hour visit during which they're meant to provide a meal. A carer will be off sick and someone will be left sitting all night in a chair because a replacement wasn't sent. These things are happening now and they will become more frequent as more people are "cared" for at home.0 -
Over the years fewer and fewer people are in residential care, despite increasing numbers living longer.
The direction of travel is to keep people in their own homes with appropriate human and telemetry support. Why? Because it's cheaper and people fare better.
IME the number of people that actually spend any time in a home is low.
For those few that do go in the cost is relatively high to the whoever pays it.
That is one of the reasons an efficient governement run scheme should be the cheapest arrangement. The cap at say £30K or whatever would iron out and pay for the short stay occupants too.
I can understand why hard working prudent families get vexed about wealth been "raided" yet agin by the state, after a lifetime of paying taxes, when those that are profligate get it for nicks."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I can understand why hard working prudent families get vexed about wealth been "raided" yet agin by the state, after a lifetime of paying taxes, when those that are profligate get it for nicks.
I can understand it too. But I think the premise is that it's not usually the person concerned who is affected, but their heirs in terms of reduced or zero inheritance. In the case of those paid for by the state there is presumably no inheritance of any significance. The issue is should taxpayers subsidise the protection of people's inheritances ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I can understand it too. But I think the premise is that it's not usually the person concerned who is affected, but their heirs in terms of reduced or zero inheritance. In the case of those paid for by the state there is presumably no inheritance of any significance. The issue is should taxpayers subsidise the protection of people's inheritances ?
Person A has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but led a fairly frugal life and has S in savings/home.
Person B has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but blown the lot and has negligible savings.
Person B will be kept in basic accommodation/care if needed by the state. Under current law person A could lose all of S before the state will assist.
Is that fair and equitable?
The rich have been planning their inheritances for years to avoid IHT why is this much different?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Person A has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but led a fairly frugal life and has S in savings/home.
Person B has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but blown the lot and has negligible savings.
Person B will be kept in basic accommodation/care if needed by the state. Under current law person A could lose all of S before the state will assist.
Is that fair and equitable?
The rich have been planning their inheritances for years to avoid IHT why is this much different?
Person A has the money to pay for the care of their choice until the money runs out. At that point they will have to make do with the same basic care as person B.
Don't forget that Person B, in spending their money rather than saving it, has probably benefitted the economy far more than Person B who stuck his money in a savings account. He has provided profits for the businesses where he has spent his money, and in turn the owners of those businesses have paid tax on those profits and spent the rest. Accumulating savings, whilst beneficial to the individual, does not grow the economy, hence the low base rate and savings rates currently as the government wants us all to spend, spend, spend."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
Not quite true, until the recent "casino" style banking of borrowing short term from the wholesale markets and lending long term, a large part of money lent to businesses for expansion and homebuyers was from savers deposits.MacMickster wrote: »Person A has the money to pay for the care of their choice until the money runs out. At that point they will have to make do with the same basic care as person B.
Don't forget that Person B, in spending their money rather than saving it, has probably benefitted the economy far more than Person B who stuck his money in a savings account. He has provided profits for the businesses where he has spent his money, and in turn the owners of those businesses have paid tax on those profits and spent the rest. Accumulating savings, whilst beneficial to the individual, does not grow the economy, hence the low base rate and savings rates currently as the government wants us all to spend, spend, spend.
It actually worked pretty well and would have saved a lot of grief if it had continued.0 -
MacMickster wrote: »Person A has the money to pay for the care of their choice until the money runs out. At that point they will have to make do with the same basic care as person B.
Don't forget that Person B, in spending their money rather than saving it, has probably benefitted the economy far more than Person B who stuck his money in a savings account. He has provided profits for the businesses where he has spent his money, and in turn the owners of those businesses have paid tax on those profits and spent the rest. Accumulating savings, whilst beneficial to the individual, does not grow the economy, hence the low base rate and savings rates currently as the government wants us all to spend, spend, spend.
So the moral is do not save a penny and we will all be fine, the state will provide everything we may need?
I know that seems like the message but can that really be true?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »So the moral is do not save a penny and we will all be fine, the state will provide everything we may need?
I know that seems like the message but can that really be true?
Just puts the problem off for a bit. Passes the problem on to the next generation.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Person A has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but led a fairly frugal life and has S in savings/home.
Person B has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but blown the lot and has negligible savings.
Person B will be kept in basic accommodation/care if needed by the state. Under current law person A could lose all of S before the state will assist.
Is that fair and equitable?
The rich have been planning their inheritances for years to avoid IHT why is this much different?
Why does it need to be fair and equitable?
I don't receive housing benefit because I have a job. I don't expect the state to pay housing benefit to me as I can afford to pay my rent myself. If I lose my job I will be expected to use my savings to pay my rent, and the govt will only step in when my savings are depleted. This is exactly how benefits are supposed to work.0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »Why does it need to be fair and equitable?
I don't receive housing benefit because I have a job. I don't expect the state to pay housing benefit to me as I can afford to pay my rent myself. If I lose my job I will be expected to use my savings to pay my rent, and the govt will only step in when my savings are depleted. This is exactly how benefits are supposed to work.
Person A pays £200,000 in national insurance in their lifetime.
Person B pays £10,000 in national insurance in their lifetime.
Why is it right for the state to expect person A to pay another £200,000 for aged care, while person B has to pay nothing?
(and if you want to get pedantic about NI being just another form of general taxation, then governments should rename it so as to avoid misleading the masses)
Looking after people with dementia, or failing health, should not be recategorised as non-medical/non-NHS care just to save the government some money and let them steal people's life savings and houses.
It's absolute b0ll0cks.
We pay some of the highest taxes in the world, and the one thing that most people would think makes it remotely worthwhile is the philosophy of cradle to grave health and social care, free at the point of service.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards