Jump to content

Think it through.


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Tories have come up with a political policy initiative: IE. that folk cough up ?8,000 on retirement to pay for "free" elderly care when they start dribbling and forgetting things. Errm, but what if - folk can't afford or refuse to pay ?8 grand? Will they be totally abandoned to some kind of 19th Century existance by the State; tripping over begging OAPs in the streets? Somehow, I don't think so: no modern Western Nation wishing to call itself "civilised" could do it. So, yet again, we have political ideas, generated on the hoof, without any thought as to public reaction and social consequence. At a minimum, the feckless non-payers will fall on the charitable nature of the State and start taking up bed space in Hospitals, or dying of neglect and hypothermia at home (if they have one). So perhaps Dave and Co need to get back to the drawing board? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I presume it's residental care and the selling of the family home to pay care costs that they are referring to ?), Certainly more needs to be done for the care of the elderly but I'm not sure this is the answer.

 

Anway..............

 

1) Its NOT FREE if they are paying ?8000 in advance should they ever need residential care.

 

2) Where will all the paid money be invested... is it like an insurance policy which matures with age ?

 

3) Can a person get a refund if they actually never need care... guess not as they will be dead :oops:

 

4) As thankfully the majority of elderly people do not ever need residential care they would just be paying for other people's care....... or more worryingly would more people want to go into care or indeed be pushed into it by families just because it had already been 'paid' :?

 

3) For a husband and wife (or partners living together :P ) retiring at a similar time would they expect ?16000 to be paid :?:shock:

 

I certainly think care should be provided after all most of the elderly today have worked since they were teenagers and paid their stamp (paye/NHI etc) to the Government for many many years so they should be more than entitiled to the care they need in their later years.

 

Maybe that's the problem and the Tories etc etc are looking ahead and realising that with so many people now out of work due to either the failings of the current system or just because SOME people are just completely bone idle and happy to live off the state :roll: that there is a need for everyone (who is willing) to cough up more to cover the lazy sods :evil:

 

Anyway I've not read what it's all about yet so I could just be babbling for the sake of it :lol::? I'll out the cheque in the post :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big difference is that if currently you have nothing, you get free care. If you have assets you have to sell them to get care thereby subsidising the ones who haven't saved for their old age (whether they could afford to or not)

 

With the Tories idea, if you have saved all your life for a pension and old age, it will only cost you 8 grand instead of your house and savings. Those with nowt will continue to get free care as they do now.

 

Where is the problem with that or are people saying it is right to asset strip an old person to pay for their (and others) care?

 

If the current system is continued, I would take it one stage further and make the families of those who don't currently have to pay, pay for their parents care. Means testing and all that. It isn't fair that someone with assets has to bail out those who have none

 

In my opinion of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baz, so your saying that folk with nowt, will still get the care? Errm, so isn't that the same incentive as now, be feckless or just spend your assets asap (timing is crucial of course!), then fall on the State to pay for your bum being wiped?! Would it not be easier just to fund the whole package from birth till death via National Insurance, paid according to means, and with the current glass contributions ceiling removed. If of course, the Tories want to repeat Maggie's mass euthanasia by hypothermia at home fine, as long as they are up front about it. They could of course go all the way and give us all a needle at the first signs of dementia! As for protecting assets - Quo Bono? - a load of relations hanging on to divi up the will; to go on a spending spree rather than CARE for dear old Mom and Dad. The baby boomers should become members of the SKI generation and Spend the Kids Inheritance - also saves on Inheritance Tax! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will some of you lefty types please explain to me why it is fair (that is the buzz word for your wonderful Labour lot isn't it?) that someone who works all their lives and saves and puts away has to fund someone (by selling their house or using their savings) who pi**es all their money up the wall and has no intentions of helping themselves

 

Why shouldn't the burden be placed on that persons family rather than the back of some other old person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baz good point but, What about people who work al their life but do not get paid enough to save :?::?::?::?::?:

 

I remember a few "policies" that my mum and dad had when I was growing up with the Royal London. They paid a pound a week or two pounds and when they cashed them in after 15 years, got paid a few thousand pounds. It doesn't cost much to get 8 grand off an insurance policy when you have 40 years to save for it. The problem is that the feckless ones want the state to pay for it all and have no intentioon of even trying to make provision for their old age

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?8000 a bargin :shock::shock::shock: only if you have the money, it just buys the middle and upper class vote :!:

 

Surely that's the point!! If you can afford the ?8000 all well and good. If you can't afford the ?8000 then you are covered by the state as is the situation now. I don't expect people with tunnel vision to understand that because, of course, it's all Maggie's plan anyway :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you mean is, think disposable income after the fags, booze, sky and holidays abroad have been taken into account?

 

Why should they have priority over your future just because times are a bit hard? It is all about priorities Kije. The ones who don't save for their old age, don't save because they don't want to; not because they can't.

 

Things aren't always going to be tough financially you know.... in the big scheme of things, this recession will just be a blip in someones entire working lives. There is ample opportunity to put aside ?8000 by means of a pension, a policy or even by just sticking a few quid a month into a bank account.

 

The ones who say they can't mean they don't want to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no one's denied that "the State will pay for those who don't cough up the ?8,000" so what's the point of coughing it up - get it spent. Or is there more to this idea than we know about? :?

 

Spoken like a true Labour man Obs...... "spend it and be damned.... the wonderful health service that we invented will pay for it all"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all - I've no time for feckless Chavs either - I pay taxes: but I recognise that in a modern "civilised" democracy, it is no longer possible to return to the social values of the 19th century - and I certainly don't want to be tripping over OAPs begging in the streets or retreat to living in a castled estate. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whats the difference Asperity the people with money are subsidizing the people without now, are you advercating that they should not :?:

 

If you mean advocating no I'm not. I'm well aware that there are many people in our society who live hand to mouth. There are also many people who earn decent wages but choose not to put anything away for their old age and many who do. The ones who don't save anything then rely on the state to look after them in their retirement, and the ones who have saved find all their savings taken off them. What is needed is a system where those who can afford to save something towards their old age care are expected to do so, and those who already saving are only liable up to some fixed amount (e.g. ?8000). There will always be hard working people who, through circumstances beyond their control, will need assistance in their old age. At the same time there will always be people who don't give a toss and who expect the rest of society to look after them. We need to find a way of sorting this out to make sure that those who can save are encouraged to do so. Unfortunately Socialism doesn't do what it says on the tin, it encourages the feckless and discourages the prudent, and this has been demonstrated with bells on by the last 12 years of idiocy. :roll::roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence my suggestion that it should be paid via NI contributions - sorted. :roll:

 

I know you aren't so naive as to believe that NI contributions are anything but part of a giant Ponzi scheme Obs so I can't believe you just posted that stupid suggestion :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...