Please donate just 75p a day...

marathonic

PasturesNew wrote: »

Maybe I like to dream I'll have wealth I wish to shelter by that time

In any case, I'd like to try to assure there's money for me to be looked after when I am unable to do anything for myself.

Unless you've intentions on being admitted to a care home during the next 5 years, I wouldn't get too excited about the potential benefits of this to you as a pensioner.

The rules for this, like anything else, are likely to change before you're able to benefit. In fact, my retirement planning, as a 30 year old, is being done with the assumption that there will be no such thing as a state pension.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You sure? £23 a month directly in order to shelter others from using their own wealth?

Wouldn't it also be £23 a month to shelter you from using your wealth?

Seems not a bad deal.

Ames

What I don't understand is the argument that it's unfair to make people use their savings to pay for their care at the end of their life. What are the savings for then?

marathonic

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wouldn't it also be £23 a month to shelter you from using your wealth?

Seems not a bad deal.

Only for the rich. I suppose they could treat it like payments for an insurance policy. The poor will have to pay up but the majority of them won't gain the benefits when compared to the current system.

The oldest of the rich will benefit most because the number of years that they'll have to pay extra income tax to cover the scheme will be minimal.

mrginge

Isn't it about time we considered compulsory euthanasia.

ukcarper

Ames wrote: »

What I don't understand is the argument that it's unfair to make people use their savings to pay for their care at the end of their life. What are the savings for then?

and who does it really benefit the person receiving the care or the person in line to inherent.

StevieJ

mrginge wrote: »

Isn't it about time we considered compulsory euthanasia.

Are you volunteering to be first?

MS1950

marathonic wrote: »

Okay, so the jist of it is that a woman approaching retirement thinks it would be a good idea to take more money from people entering the workforce and trying to save a deposit to get their first step onto the property ladder so that she can keep her, probably huge, mortgage-free house when she comes to retirement.

I believe the "influential women just approaching retirement" referred to by the OP was Dot Gibson General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention - who put forward this idea on Radio 5 just before he posted?

She is 78 and lives in a sheltered scheme run by a Housing Association.

Her own account of her life are here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2008/11/12/londonpeople_dot_gibson_feature.shtml


which might be a bit of an eye-opener for those who like to peddle myths about the lives of those born just before and just after the war – ‘Baby Boomers’

chucknorris

mrginge wrote: »

Isn't it about time we considered compulsory euthanasia.

Explain to me why I would need to be compulsory euthanized?

marathonic

Now, if this scheme was forced upon us, I'd like to see an increasing cap on payments based on the number of years contributed - so a young person entering the workforce today and paying the extra 1.5% tax all his life may have a £75k cap applied but a person aged 57 now who only pays into the scheme for 10 years before retirement may have a £150k cap applied.

At least then, young people could look at it as paying towards their own care as opposed to someone elses.


Another thing, why not just make everyones contributions to automatic enrollment pension schemes higher as standard. Then, they shouldn't have to sell their homes and if their pension isn't high enough due to opting out of automatic enrollment, then their house should be sold as they brought it on themselves.