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.

📨 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!

Any Live In Carers

12357

Comments

  • whambam
    whambam Posts: 526 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    sew109 wrote: »
    I don’t get child benefit because I choose to work hard ....

    I have no problem in paying taxes for people to have professional careers, I do have an issue pay8ng for family members to do what I believe is their duty. Just as it should be the family members choice whether they are carers or not then surely I should have a choice as to whether my work (taxes) are used to pay for that but sadly I don’t.

    Here is what parliament has done in the last three years
    https://services.parliament.uk/bills/

    If people are fit and healthy they should work I left school with 5 o levels and I have worked for the last 30 plus years I have never taken a penny in benefits and other than my old age pension I never intend to. I understand that some people are no choice I know people on benefits who have full sky packages, smoke and drink and this is not how this money should be spend I have none of these

    People have in the past got family allowance for years with 1-5 kids. Do you actually believe that family members do their duties why are so many elderly in care homes its because the younger ones careers are more valuable to them than looking after the elderly ones as obviously their not getting paid and don't want to tell their friends i'm a carer looking after my old folk.

    Yes parliament has passed those bills however no difference is made to society as a whole as the money doesn't get to where its needed only minimal. I've not met one person giving praise to the government saying everything is fine and its working.

    Most people on benefits are in work that's a fact. Only 2.5% are fraudulent claimants but people assume its 95% are fraudulent claimants.

    They are claiming to make up for the incompetent companies that don't pay the living wage.

    For all i care they can spend the money on whatever they want they are entitled to that money according to the law and that's it.

    Would you rather be put in a care home or remain in your home you've worked all your life for only for it to be sold to pay for care costs or give up lifetime savings or have your family look after you and be rewarded for it because they are unable to work full time and also suffering social life loss of time?
  • suki1964
    suki1964 Posts: 14,313 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    whambam wrote: »
    Being a full time carer is a choice. I'm starting to stand up for carers as they have been ridiculed by everyone so much so the carers themselves don't tell anyone they are a carer as the get treated like their on the dole.

    Friends and family know how to care more than private agencies and the cared for are far more comfortable with friends and family than others which the state fights for more pays them more when they simply say its not my job it's not in the policy. I have heard of almost daily complaints for elderly relatives about councils cordia service that they don't even fulfill their time that they have paid for.

    Carers do get carers allowance however its way way below what they deserve for 35 sometimes 50 hours of work per week sacrificing their employment and social life in the process.

    The law has been changed recently to employ relatives and family within the same household. I'm going by the law and that's all that really matters who cares what people think they don't know anything about you.


    No its not a CHOICE


    Its what happens within families, some one needs the care, you give it

    Im a full time carer for my mother, and before her, my step dad. Right now mums care needs are changing and Im now having to look at reducing my hours in work to have the energy I need to care for her more

    I am looking to have to claim careers credit or else Im going to hit retirement without enough full years NI. Thats all down to my own ill health in the past, where family member have had to care for and support me

    I look at what the govt offer as an added extra, something to make my life a bit easier.

    I looked after the children and Grandchildren for more hours a week and haven't had a penny from the government. Jeez Ive spent a lot of my life running around after my husband without a penny extra from the government just cos he cant cope without a partner


    This is what family do for each other. We have been doing it for years. Just the benefit entitled generation have changed it all
  • sew109
    sew109 Posts: 618 Forumite
    edited 31 March 2019 at 9:32AM
    whambam wrote: »


    Most people on benefits are in work that's a fact. Only 2.5% are fraudulent claimants but people assume its 95% are fraudulent claimants.

    They are claiming to make up for the incompetent companies that don't pay the living wage.

    For all i care they can spend the money on whatever they want they are entitled to that money according to the law and that's it.


    Wow tou have a massive ship on your shoulder don’t you.

    I am guessing you don’t pay any tax therefore you can’t care as you don’t pay in, I do a have for 30 plus years I am happy to pay for necesssties but I am not happy to go to work to fund other disgusting and harmful habits and I am also not happy to pay for luxuries for others I don’t have myself.

    On the days I don’t care for my mum I pay for the carers to come I don’t take that money off anyone else, I expect if I need care or a care home in the future if I need these services I expect to pay for these myself.

    If your family decide to pay you then of course they can spend their money on what they want. I just don’t get this entitlement that you seem to think that the taxpayer should have.

    Child benefit in my opinion would be better used as a tax break or more free child care to help parents get into work and pay more money back in to society.

    You view that the £115m is enough to fund all the family carers in the UK which I pointed out made £16 per person for me sums up you ability to understand anything to do with tax, economics, benefit spending, living wage, percentages and simple maths.
    Its Vegas time -no longer :T a five year old has changed Vegas time to Orlando time
  • theoretica
    theoretica Posts: 12,691 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    I think that caring for your own children is different - it's what you sign up for when you have them. I also think arranging your care plans for old age is different as people should be able to foresee this will be needed and have a plan. I see a home paying for this as a great use of the home, whether through inheritance to relatives who did the caring or equity release/sale.


    However, the OP is talking about a brother, who is neither of these cases. If the social services are going to pay for a carer for the brother I don't agree that they should pay anyone except a relative - and how close a relative anyway? However, it would not be fair for paying a relative to end up in more care being paid for than if someone else were hired in (because jobs can expand when you are there, and social services tend towards the minimum), and I don't think any aspect of being the one to do all the housework should be paid for to a relative.
    But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,
    Had the whole of their cash in his care.
    Lewis Carroll
  • sportsarb
    sportsarb Posts: 1,069 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    Jsa is ~£73.10. Carers Premium ~£36.

    Carers who claim both Carers Allowance Plus an income related benefit will get the entitlement the law says is what they need to live on.

    Naturally the amount will reduce if there is other income or savings.
  • whambam
    whambam Posts: 526 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    sew109 wrote: »
    Wow tou have a massive ship on your shoulder don’t you.

    I am guessing you don’t pay any tax therefore you can’t care as you don’t pay in,
    sew109 wrote: »
    I've paid taxes all my life.
    sew109 wrote: »
    I do a have for 30 plus years I am happy to pay for necessities but I am not happy to go to work to fund other disgusting and harmful habits and I am also not happy to pay for luxuries for others I don’t have myself.
    sew109 wrote: »
    Well, you already do pay for others its automatic no one has an option not even voting. You and I don't dictate when our income tax or VAT ends up its the MP's unfortunately
    sew109 wrote: »
    On the days I don’t care for my mum I pay for the carers to come I don’t take that money off anyone else, I expect if I need care or a care home in the future if I need these services I expect to pay for these myself.
    sew109 wrote: »
    Thats your choice, however there is funding available for those that can't.
    sew109 wrote: »
    If your family decide to pay you then of course they can spend their money on what they want. I just don’t get this entitlement that you seem to think that the taxpayer should have.
    sew109 wrote: »
    The law has passed it and its been changed to employ family members to suit their needs.
    sew109 wrote: »
    Child benefit in my opinion would be better used as a tax break or more free child care to help parents get into work and pay more money back in to society.
    sew109 wrote: »
    You shouldn't claim child benefit if you believe you a fit and healthy and work to provide for your kids.
    sew109 wrote: »
    You view that the £115m is enough to fund all the family carers in the UK which I pointed out made £16 per person for me sums up you ability to understand anything to do with tax, economics, benefit spending, living wage, percentages and simple maths.
    sew109 wrote: »
    Again lying about me putting words into my mouth. I said there is enough money taxpayers pay already.
    theoretica wrote: »
    I think that caring for your own children is different - it's what you sign up for when you have them. I also think arranging your care plans for old age is different as people should be able to foresee this will be needed and have a plan. I see a home paying for this as a great use of the home, whether through inheritance to relatives who did the caring or equity release/sale.
    theoretica wrote: »
    So, you believe the homes equity/sale should be used to fund for care whether its family or private care?

    theoretica wrote: »
    However, the OP is talking about a brother, who is neither of these cases. If the social services are going to pay for a carer for the brother I don't agree that they should pay anyone except a relative - and how close a relative anyway? However, it would not be fair for paying a relative to end up in more care being paid for than if someone else were hired in (because jobs can expand when you are there, and social services tend towards the minimum), and I don't think any aspect of being the one to do all the housework should be paid for to a relative.
    theoretica wrote: »
    Well, the lowest cost of care is £350 per week highest is £1,500 per week on average.
    theoretica wrote: »
    Its well known its cheaper and costs the taxpayer less if they were to hire someone from the family. Think about overnight care costs they are double daytime costs it saves the state thousands.
    sportsarb wrote: »
    Jsa is ~£73.10. Carers Premium ~£36.

    Carers who claim both Carers Allowance Plus an income related benefit will get the entitlement the law says is what they need to live on.

    Naturally the amount will reduce if there is other income or savings.
    sportsarb wrote: »
    Yes, I mentioned carers allowance alone without any add ons not every carer gets carers premium.

    It's simple if people have suffered financial loss and a loss of social time they should be compensated for it be it care. Care comes at a cost that many take for granted.
  • sportsarb
    sportsarb Posts: 1,069 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    You’ve formatted that weirdly and quoted me saying your reply.

    I don’t see why you would omit that people claiming an income related benefit will get that amount (~£105) when you do quote the amount the government says a career needs to live on as ~£105 because the two things are inextricably linked.
  • theoretica
    theoretica Posts: 12,691 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    whambam wrote: »
    So, you believe the homes equity/sale should be used to fund for care whether its family or private care?



    Yes. I don't think the state should pick up the bill for care so that someone can leave more money to the family in their will. If the person has resources they should be used. My parents know I expect them to prioritise their comfort and enjoyment over any inheritance and my grandfather sold his house and spent the money on good care.


    whambam wrote: »
    Well, the lowest cost of care is £350 per week highest is £1,500 per week on average.


    Where did those come from? If this is residential care they will include all the cost of running a house too, leaving less for the 'care' element. Many people get care costing much less than this from someone coming in for a few hours a week.
    But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,
    Had the whole of their cash in his care.
    Lewis Carroll
  • sew109
    sew109 Posts: 618 Forumite
    whambam wrote: »
    It's simple if people have suffered financial loss and a loss of social time they should be compensated for it be it care. Care comes at a cost that many take for granted.

    But then other lose their social time to earn the money to pay the taxes to fund the social time that you have lost, so will you then go and work to pay the taxes to compensate the workers who have lost social time to compensate you ? Strange concept.

    I agree that assets that you hold like your house should be used to fund care that you need rather than used for anything else or left in a will.
    Its Vegas time -no longer :T a five year old has changed Vegas time to Orlando time
  • whambam
    whambam Posts: 526 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    sportsarb wrote: »
    You’ve formatted that weirdly and quoted me saying your reply.

    I don’t see why you would omit that people claiming an income related benefit will get that amount (~£105) when you do quote the amount the government says a career needs to live on as ~£105 because the two things are inextricably linked.

    You only get carers premium if you are getting certain benefits not carers allowance alone. Why should those carers on allowance alone be only paid less than what they claim the law says you need to live on.
    theoretica wrote: »
    Yes. I don't think the state should pick up the bill for care so that someone can leave more money to the family in their will. If the person has resources they should be used. My parents know I expect them to prioritise their comfort and enjoyment over any inheritance and my grandfather sold his house and spent the money on good care.






    Where did those come from? If this is residential care they will include all the cost of running a house too, leaving less for the 'care' element. Many people get care costing much less than this from someone coming in for a few hours a week.

    I disagree. I think people should keep their homes they should have the option in trading their home for care costs, however a needs assessment should be done if they choose so. It could be that someone moving into a care home doesn't work out.

    Google the average care costs.
    sew109 wrote: »
    But then other lose their social time to earn the money to pay the taxes to fund the social time that you have lost, so will you then go and work to pay the taxes to compensate the workers who have lost social time to compensate you ? Strange concept.

    I agree that assets that you hold like your house should be used to fund care that you need rather than used for anything else or left in a will.

    Listen, the government has well enough money about £800 billion per year plus massive borrowing per year to pay for this its outrage there asking elderly people to sell their homes to fund for care. I would like to see what other developed countries do.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.