observer Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Seems the Gov are considering a cap of £35,000 on elderly care bills for individuals, at which point the State (tax-payer) takes over - isn't this merely a means of safeguarding the inheritance of their kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Nothing wrong with an inheritance for the kids if honestly gained. Too often it seems feckless people are rewarded. This is one of the things I was musing on in the 'standards' thread. People used to look after their own in older days. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 errum, the point is - that the tax-payer (in effect) will be asked to fund that inheritance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I personally find it very distasteful that someone who decides not to save for old age, has no tangeable assets, then gets everything for free, whereas those who do decide to save and have a property and hopefully leave something to get their own kids started in life ends up paying for everyone else I don't have a problem with my assets paying for my or my families care, I do however object to them paying for someone elses. I' will have paid enough tax in my lifetime to expect a bit of "time off" The current cost to put someone in a council run old folks home is almost £700 a week..... if everyone had to pay that figure would be nearer to £200 Now if my assets are to be seized to pay for my care, the government in effect is taking those assets from my kids.... assets that I have built up to leave to them. If that is the case, those without assets but with kids, should get their kids to pay too.... that way everyone contributes in a roundabout sort of way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Just one slight problem with that Baz, the feckless, be they old or young, won't have the assets, the income to fund anything - so the choice would be to see them sleeping rough in a park or make somekind of provision, or indeed - just give 'em a needle. This latest idea is a sop to the moderately wealthy Tory voters by a Government who's philosophy advocates small Government and self sufficiency. Under the present means tested system, there are ways around it - just pass on your wealth BEFORE you begin to slaver, or just simply spend it asap - then with nowt you'll qualify for everything! :wink:What these proposals do mean however, is that those folk who do py taxes and who will never be able to afford a home of their own, will be subsidising someone else passing their home down to their kids - thus the poor subsidising the rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 By feckless do you mean all people living in council housing, who might have earned a low wage all of their lives. Yes their are people who do not give a crap and will expect the government to pay all, but their are people who will not have put away because they can not afford it. And they should not be tarred with the same brush. How you spot the difference I do not know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Well they'd hardly be feckless and living in a bought house would they (unless they were squaters) - whichever way you dress it up, you can't get blood out of stones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 So you would put people who have never worked in the same boat as people who have worked but who have not earned enough to put away Obs. How to make friends and influence people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 In the context of the topic, niether can afford to pay - so yep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Yet again we see the male version of being unmaternal and the 'I hate people who are poorer' side of you Obs When you are old and possilby senile (ooh sorry you've already got to that stage) are you happy that the government will make you pay for your own care and possibly make you sell your home or use your savings despite the fact that you have worked for most of your life (I presume you have worked) and paid all your taxes (I presume you have paid taxes) ? It actually really annoys me that a person who has worked hard for most or all of their lives.... who no doubt has possbily scrimped and saved where they can and 'done without' BUT who has also never claimed a penny in benefits or whatever should be made to fund their own care (and yes even of that does mean spending money which 'may' just be passed onto their kids if they die.) But at the same time you get certain people being looked after IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY in the same care homes or receiving the same services who have never worked or who are less 'well off' and they get it for FREE. The person who has worked all their lives has already funded the person who has not worked through the taxes they have paid so why one earth should they be made to pay again by using their hard earned assets or savings!! I'm not tarring everyone who has claimed benefits, lived in council houses, or the less well off etc with the same brush as for a lot of people there is no choice but for many there IS a choice but they choose the 'easy.. lazy.. paid for by someone else life'. So who are the fools... those of us who try to work hard, to pay our own mortgages and bills and to provide for ourselves or our families or those who could have worked but just couldn't be arsed as they know how to work the system. These sorts of people are what has ruined it for everyone. Infact if my son ever reads this... 'yer mum and dad are just about to sell the family home and move into a caravan... they will then spend spend spend until most of the money from the sale appears to have gone....we'll hide some away for you though... best do it now though rather than when we are old and need some care or help. Don't bother getting a good job lad or try to buy your own home (they will give you one but as it's not yours they cant make you sell it when you are old), you'll get money towards your bills, your council tax, free bus pass no doubt and if you have kids even more money. Definately don't save your money though or they will take that too when you are old and in need, spend and enjoy it while you can. Play the system right and you will be all right and looked after ... luv mum x x ' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 In which case, no one should pay. stop the money to pakistan, india and every other world begging bowl we contribute to. Stop the billions of wasted money we pay to the EU (apparently that bunch of crooks is after more "contributions"; about 5% a year more from each state apparently!) Once we have a world class health service and we look after our own to the best of our abilities, then once that is achieved, any spare can be handed out. NOT BEFORE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Forgive him lord, for Obs knows not what he says :!: :!: :!: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 If you which to leave your assets to your son Diz, that's entirely up to you, but I fail to see why the poorer tax-payer should fund his lift up the ladder. btw this proposed system would help the ultra rich even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 When I was paying my taxes and national insurance I was under the impression that the cover was provided 'from cradle to the grave'. That does not seem to be the case for the thrifty person. but is still true for the feckless. That surely cannot be right. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 I think it's possible to be both feckless and paying taxes and NI: where would such people fit in with your view, harry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Assuming we're not to embark on a programme of euthanasia, the cost of care is set to rise dramatically - folk are living longer (not necessarilly in good health btw)as we are being repeatedly reminded, and now we have the baby boomers swelling the ranks of the grumpies. Even this proposed scheme is estimated to cost the tax-payer over £2billion. So perhaps we need to approach it in a different way IE. to return to the principle of a universal scheme, paid from NI and taxation on the basis of "from each according to means", thus making care free at the point of need. The debate then needs to shift to the question of how we can afford it - now this whole austerity mess was caused by investment banks and bankers, so a tax on them should provide a good portion of the required funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 And our contributions to the EU and Overseas aid would help it even more so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Fugtifino, Not sure what you mean. Thought the NH service was supposed to be free from cradle to grave. Feckless people who have never worked will still enjoy that. It will still be so for feckless people who have worked, but at least they will have contibuted towards their benefit. It is only the thrifty who will have to pay, via their savings and/or house, having probably paid all their contributions earlier. Terribly difficult subject. There is a limit to the funds availsble (a la all-night care for the ballerina). Someone of course will have to pay. "Free from cradle to grave" cannot be sustained and I would favour tax increase - I still pay tax- rather than paying each time you see the doctor or visit hospital. Some brave politician perhaps should think the unthinkable, AND act on it. The problem is growing worse. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Just that I've known many people who have worked all their lives, payed tax and insurance but not much else. Not sure if these are thrifty or feckless is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Just hard working people, who have faith in the system that lets them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 As we now see from the Southern Cross fiasco, Dave's idea of privatising these services is a non-starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Southern Cross were doing OK until they decided to raise loads of dosh by selling all their properties and then renting them back. It lined the pockets of the few but crippled the company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Presume it "lined the pockets" of share holders, which is what private enterprise is all about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.