Grandmother losing EVERYTHING!

Gadfium

Steve_xx wrote: »

I propose that taxpayers stop being shafted too. I propose that Child Benefit is NOT paid to couples who earn up to 50k each. I think that the state ought not to be funding peoples kids in any way shape or form when each member of a couple can earn anything up to 50K.

Darn tooting!
What about having parents pay much more in tax as they are a greater drain on the NHS and the welfare state overall? Surely somebody like me (single, no kids, has used the NHS 4 times in 45 years) should be getting a massive tax deduction?
Perhaps we should also raise taxes for women, as they are much more likely to require expensive medical care through their lives. maybe a sliding scale where the taxes increase as they have more children?

See how messy it can get???

Marker_2

Gadfium wrote: »

So, in effect, what you are proposing is a system where everyone looks after themselves and their family. in fact, why not go further and just look after yourself and let your offspring fend for themselves? in the meantime, I presume that you will not be taking advantage of hard-working taxpayers (like me, for example) that don't have kids and who's tax £s are being used to pay for the NHS and other social services. So you won't be collecting any Family Allowance? You'll never, ever darken the door of a NHS hospital or casualty department? No? Thought not. Funny how people righteous indignation disappears when they are being cut out of a car after an accident, or having a sick child treated free-of-charge in an Emergency room, isn't?

What you are proposing is a system that is what the Republicans in the US seem to desire. I for one, have no desire to have a system that has resulted in one of the lowest life expectancies n the developed world.

Finally, what you also seem to be doing is trying to argue your way out of the social contract that we all undertake as part of living in a civilised country. one where the most able to pay, pay more. It is a mark of our sophistication, in comparison to backwaters like the US, that we are measured by how we treat the least able in our society and not the richest.

Gadfium - If you are quite happy to work hard, pay into 'the system' and subsidise the workshy, so much so that in your old decrepid state they have exactly the same quality of care as you courtesy of your hardwork then crack on.

Me on the other. I'm not so keen.

You seem to not understand how illogical and moraly wrong the 'system' is to those that contribute towards it. Please look at my examples, they are basic and the figures are finger in the airs!

Couple 1: Works in 35k job, have one child, no tax credits as over threshold. Own house they pay £800pm on - and takes them 30 years to pay off. They both pay into work based pensions, and their retirement age has been increased to 67.

Couple 2: Neither works both on income support, have one child, received child tax credit, full housing benefit, council tax benefit and other misc 'free entitlements'. They don't own their house. Neither has a personal pension.

Fast forward post retirement (for some)

Couple 1: Receive state pension and work pension, however both require residential care home due to dementia. As their income is over the threshold they have to pay the full weekly fees. Which depending on where you are could be in excess of £1000pw for the both of them. High figure puts their home at risk to be used as capital towards care home fees.

Couple 2: Receive state pension, however both require residential care home due to dementia. As their income is under the threshold their care is free.

Couple 1 worked hard to afford the life and paid into a work pension to have luxuries or spare money, and now it is used completely to pay care home fees and the home is at risk. Couple 2 never worked and have nothing to lose or risk.

You tell me, make me understand what is the point of working hard to own your own home or have savings when it could be taken away, when you could do nothing in life and still have the same care in later life without losing anything?

Marker_2

colsten wrote: »

You can use it just as you like now, after age 55 (going up with pension age). Meanwhile, your employer pays extra into it, and you get tax breaks. That's a brilliant deal, as you can take responsibility yourself for how you want to spend it or you can just buy an annuity, or a combination of the two etc etc. What's not to like about it?

Both my grandparents paid in extra, when establishing who would pay for their care fees that extra they had put in was included. Had they not put the extra in they would not have had to pay that portion.

there will be many who agree with you, and people have a simple choice in the next election if they want further reforms to the benefits system. It's not as if the current government hasn't already significantly addressed the problem.

I don't think the main three parties adequatly tackle any issues. There will come a time where neither of the three main parties get into power, and who knows whether that will be better or worse for the country.

There are care homes and there are care homes. You don't have to live in one of the free ones if you can afford to live in one of your choice. It's great to know though that even if you find yourself penniless, you won't be left to rot in the street.

From what I have read even those that are 'entitled' to free care homes get a choice as to where they go. Obviously the Gold plated care homes will be out of the question, but then even for your average full paying resident choices are limited to budget.

Gadfium

Marker wrote: »

You tell me, make me understand what is the point of working hard to own your own home or have savings when it could be taken away, when you could do nothing in life and still have the same care in later life without losing anything?

OK, let me take a slightly different perspective on your examples:
Couple 1:
Work hard all their lives and enjoy the benefits. They have a choice in where to live. They have an active social circle, meet people through their work. They probably go on holiday at least once per year. They probably have a certain amount of "nice" stuff in their house. They have some choice over where their kids are educated and to what standard. They enjoy a decent quality of life. They may have private healthcare which allows them more choice in treatments. In retirement, they have some pensions coming in, which means that they can probably still do things like own cars, go on holidays, pursue pastimes. When they get older and need more care they then have substantial assets that means they and their children have choices in how the last years of their lives are played out. They will probably have a longer life expectancy.

Couple 2:
Have little or no choice on where they live (restricted to council properties, see). Have very little money spare, and as such probably have a much poorer diet. They have little or no choice over how their kids are educated. They will rarely go on foreign holidays and certainly nowhere near the higher end holidays. They will have limitations on what they can do with "their" property. Healthcare will be taken care of by the NHS, which means that many conditions will be treated only when the symptoms escalate. When they get older they will be forced to live off a state pension, which means that they will be barely able to feed themselves and heat their homes. Holidays abroad, car ownership, being able to pursue past-times will all be much less likely. At the end of life, they will have no choice in their care. Their life expectancy will be shorter.

The central fallacy in your argument is that you seem to think that the purpose in wealth and life is to pass an inheritance down or to have to be forced to have the same care in later life. It's not.

AlanP_2

Marker wrote: »

You tell me, make me understand what is the point of working hard to own your own home or have savings when it could be taken away, when you could do nothing in life and still have the same care in later life without losing anything?

PRIDE, SELF RESPECT and the RESPECT of my CHILD

Gadfium

(I should have put this in my other post)

Marker wrote: »

You tell me, make me understand what is the point of working hard to own your own home or have savings when it could be taken away, when you could do nothing in life and still have the same care in later life without losing anything?

You are begging the question here. If you have assets then you won't have the same care in later life.

AlanP_2

Does anybody know how the new Pension Rules will interact with the care cost system?

Obviously anything being paid out from a DB or Annuity as regular income will go into the pot but what about Personal Pensions under the new arrangements?

For example if you had a PP pot of £40k that you were not drawing down in any way would that count as an asset that you would be forced to draw on before the state element kicks in?

Not having been involved in anything like this I have no idea how it all works but would assume that it would count and need to be drawn on.

redmalc

I had a similar issue with both of my parents,they both required care later in life which completely drained most of their hard worked cash from the bank.
My parents both worked all their lives,my mother got a part time job after retiring,both saved into pensions,bank accounts,shares,isa,s and all the normal things,but it proved a waste of time.
I am the only child,i inherited very little but i am lucky enough to be in a position were i did not need it,but their wish was always to look after their only Grandchild in life,it did not work.
I have to say i have completely changed my view in life after they passed away a few years ago,i have looked after my son with his house and done a number of things for my only Granddaughter already.
when my parents were in the care home i was paying £1100 per week and i managed to find out only 14 people were actually paying out of the 38 residents the rest were paid for by the state.
Enjoy life and scrounge like the rest is now my theory,If Red ED gets into power i will stop work and join the rest because benefits will rise and the rest will get stuffed

Gadfium

redmalc wrote: »

Enjoy life and scrounge like the rest is now my theory,If Red ED gets into power i will stop work and join the rest because benefits will rise and the rest will get stuffed

When I read stuff like this I really despair of my fellow mankind.

Marker_2

Gadfium wrote: »

OK, let me take a slightly different perspective on your examples:
Couple 1:
Work hard all their lives and enjoy the benefits. They have a choice in where to live. They have an active social circle, meet people through their work. They probably go on holiday at least once per year. They probably have a certain amount of "nice" stuff in their house. They have some choice over where their kids are educated and to what standard. They enjoy a decent quality of life. They may have private healthcare which allows them more choice in treatments. In retirement, they have some pensions coming in, which means that they can probably still do things like own cars, go on holidays, pursue pastimes. When they get older and need more care they then have substantial assets that means they and their children have choices in how the last years of their lives are played out. They will probably have a longer life expectancy.

Unless you have a particuarly well paid job and are far above the threshold then the above, all inclusive, would just not happen for your average worker.

Couple 2:
Have little or no choice on where they live (restricted to council properties, see). Have very little money spare, and as such probably have a much poorer diet. They have little or no choice over how their kids are educated. They will rarely go on foreign holidays and certainly nowhere near the higher end holidays. They will have limitations on what they can do with "their" property. Healthcare will be taken care of by the NHS, which means that many conditions will be treated only when the symptoms escalate. When they get older they will be forced to live off a state pension, which means that they will be barely able to feed themselves and heat their homes. Holidays abroad, car ownership, being able to pursue past-times will all be much less likely. At the end of life, they will have no choice in their care. Their life expectancy will be shorter.

The central fallacy in your argument is that you seem to think that the purpose in wealth and life is to pass an inheritance down or to have to be forced to have the same care in later life. It's not.

Most normal people that work and have children work hard so their children have something to inherit and generally to make their lives easier. If the initial intention of their lifes choices are taken away in later life, then it was all for nothing.