Social care costs to be capped? What's the logic of that?

[singlecoil]

The Dilnot report is recommending that social care costs should be capped at £35K, so it would seem that people who own valuable houses should only have to pay £35K towards their care costs, we pay the rest, and then they leave the rest of their money to their children? Am I reading this right?

It does seem likely that this report will be shelved though, thank goodness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13980493

[Zaxxon]

Yes it is right and it should have been in place years ago.

[zcacogp]

Zaxxon said:

Yes it is right and it should have been in place years ago.

Quite agree. In fact, why should we be paying at all? That's £35k too much, IMHO.


Oli.

[Laughingman21]

Sounds like a good idea. Why should those that hard worked hard all their lives then have it taken away by the government, yet those that have contributed very little (in the way of taxes) or even just taken from the state (those on benefits) get free care?

[Shuvi Tupya]

A mates elderly mum recently fell ill and needed to go into a care home.

I coul dnot believe how they got ripped off! She was not staying anywhere fancy but it was £600 a week. She then got worse and had to go to hospital. The family breathed a financial sigh of relief but then found out they still had to pay the £600 every week if they wanted her bed kept open at the nursing home.

It cost the family approx £15k for an empty bed in the care home that year as she was in and out of hospital until she died.

The family home ended up getting sold to pay for it and now my mates dad has lost his wife and the house they spent their lives in

[RemainAllHoof]

I think the issue is one of punishing hard working savers; the "problem" with the modern "benefits" system is that if you want "help" (because of your old age or your need for income), you're best off working out when you want it, then getting rid of savings, property etc and buying a few brand new Lamborghinis, a couple of Pateks (the ones with loads of complications) etc and accidentally losing them while visiting your children. In other words, you're better off spending everything you have on holidays, cars, champagne, clothes, etc instead of saving carefully for a rainy day and then relying on the state to pick up the tab for your indulgent lifestyle.

[singlecoil]

So this life of hard work and thrift that all the house-owning people have led, how many years of taxpayer-funded care should they get (and still get to pass on the house to their children) for that. 20 years? 30?

[Cuchillo]

singlecoil said:

So this life of hard work and thrift that all the house-owning people have led, how many years of taxpayer-funded care should they get (and still get to pass on the house to their children) for that. 20 years? 30?

As many years as it takes! ... After all, its not as if you only need to pay into the system for a few years and then get to keep all that you earn after that. If you have to pay into the system during your entire earning life then it is only just that the system pays out during your remaining life.

[singlecoil]

Cuchillo said:

singlecoil said:

So this life of hard work and thrift that all the house-owning people have led, how many years of taxpayer-funded care should they get (and still get to pass on the house to their children) for that. 20 years? 30?

As many years as it takes! ... After all, its not as if you only need to pay into the system for a few years and then get to keep all that you earn after that. If you have to pay into the system during your entire earning life then it is only just that the system pays out during your remaining life.

So you would be OK with, for instance, a bank manager retired at 60, and who went a bit gaga at the age of 67, being paid for out of your and my pockets for the next 30 years, and his kids divide the £450K house between them?

[Derek Smith]

There is a time-bomb ticking. The post war baby boom is now of retirement age. In 5, 10, 15 years the demands on the social welfare system will increase to the extent that we will not be able to afford it. So how will it be funded?

What option is there? Taxing all and sundry to enable the children to get a lump sum? Sounds a bit wierd to me. In essence it is taxesd paying for some kid to inherit.

My grandparents were looked after by their kids and grandkids until they went into hospital for the final countdown. Now, it seems, this is not an option. So these kids want it all it seems.

I have no problems with that but I don't see why I should fund the kid's lifestyle when the parents have money. Getting old happens only to the lucky ones. It is not an illness as such, it is life, or rather a part of the exit procedure.

We are being told on a daily basis that the country has no money. So why should my taxes pay for the lifestyle of someone who has money or at least assets.

If my kids don't want to look after me and my wife when we're infirm then they will have to accept the financial consequences.

[Du1point8]

singlecoil said:

Cuchillo said:

singlecoil said:

So this life of hard work and thrift that all the house-owning people have led, how many years of taxpayer-funded care should they get (and still get to pass on the house to their children) for that. 20 years? 30?

As many years as it takes! ... After all, its not as if you only need to pay into the system for a few years and then get to keep all that you earn after that. If you have to pay into the system during your entire earning life then it is only just that the system pays out during your remaining life.

So you would be OK with, for instance, a bank manager retired at 60, and who went a bit gaga at the age of 67, being paid for out of your and my pockets for the next 30 years, and his kids divide the £450K house between them?

Why not just cull those who cant afford to go instead?

This kind of thing pisses me off where when my folks need to have care they will have to pay for it themselves but the local dole scum who have never had a job get it for free...

Its almost as bad as the saving up for a rainy day and then being made redundant, but if you have any savings you are screwed, yet if you pissed all your savings away before being made redundant then you get all the help you need.

Basically if you save and be sensible = penalised all your life.

[AirThis]

But what do we do with the spendthrift who has spent all their money on holidays and made no provision for themselves? Hardly seems fair that one person has to sell the family home but someone less careful gets care for free.

[hornetrider]

singlecoil said:

Cuchillo said:

singlecoil said:

So this life of hard work and thrift that all the house-owning people have led, how many years of taxpayer-funded care should they get (and still get to pass on the house to their children) for that. 20 years? 30?

As many years as it takes! ... After all, its not as if you only need to pay into the system for a few years and then get to keep all that you earn after that. If you have to pay into the system during your entire earning life then it is only just that the system pays out during your remaining life.

So you would be OK with, for instance, a bank manager retired at 60, and who went a bit gaga at the age of 67, being paid for out of your and my pockets for the next 30 years, and his kids divide the £450K house between them?

This bank manager has paid into the welfare system all his/her life, why should they not receive from the system thay have paid into? How much do you think they have contributed in tax over the years?

[singlecoil]

Du1point8 said:

singlecoil said:

Cuchillo said:

singlecoil said:

So this life of hard work and thrift that all the house-owning people have led, how many years of taxpayer-funded care should they get (and still get to pass on the house to their children) for that. 20 years? 30?

As many years as it takes! ... After all, its not as if you only need to pay into the system for a few years and then get to keep all that you earn after that. If you have to pay into the system during your entire earning life then it is only just that the system pays out during your remaining life.

So you would be OK with, for instance, a bank manager retired at 60, and who went a bit gaga at the age of 67, being paid for out of your and my pockets for the next 30 years, and his kids divide the £450K house between them?

Why not just cull those who cant afford to go instead?

This kind of thing pisses me off where when my folks need to have care they will have to pay for it themselves but the local dole scum who have never had a job get it for free...

Its almost as bad as the saving up for a rainy day and then being made redundant, but if you have any savings you are screwed, yet if you pissed all your savings away before being made redundant then you get all the help you need.

Basically if you save and be sensible = penalised all your life.

So how did you feel about my retired bank manager example then? Who, by the way, enjoyed quite a decent lifestyle while he was working, it didn't all go into the house (and his children went through higher education free).

[hornetrider]

singlecoil said:

So how did you feel about my retired bank manager example then? Who, by the way, enjoyed quite a decent lifestyle while he was working, it didn't all go into the house (and his children went through higher education free).

Answer my post above you raving loony left leaning socialist.

[singlecoil]

hornetrider said:

This bank manager has paid into the welfare system all his/her life, why should they not receive from the system thay have paid into? How much do you think they have contributed in tax over the years?

Because he's already had all that he paid in for, or certainly would have by the time he's been in a home for five years. BAck when he was working everything was pretty good for everybody. Free university for his children was just one of many benefits he's already had.

[hornetrider]

singlecoil said:

hornetrider said:

This bank manager has paid into the welfare system all his/her life, why should they not receive from the system thay have paid into? How much do you think they have contributed in tax over the years?

Because he's already had all that he paid in for, or certainly would have by the time he's been in a home for five years. BAck when he was working everything was pretty good for everybody. Free university for his children was just one of many benefits he's already had.

Tell you what, why don't we all go on the fking dole. Who pays then?

[singlecoil]

hornetrider said:

singlecoil said:

hornetrider said:

This bank manager has paid into the welfare system all his/her life, why should they not receive from the system thay have paid into? How much do you think they have contributed in tax over the years?

Because he's already had all that he paid in for, or certainly would have by the time he's been in a home for five years. BAck when he was working everything was pretty good for everybody. Free university for his children was just one of many benefits he's already had.

Tell you what, why don't we all go on the fking dole. Who pays then?

Well, if we did it would be the same people who are going to pay for the retired bank manager, I suppose, in other words, nobody.


BTW, how is the idea of people paying for their own social care in any way a socialist policy? I thought the idea of the state taxpayers paying for everything was a socialist idea.

[hornetrider]

singlecoil said:

Well, if we did it would be the same people who are going to pay for the retired bank manager, I suppose, in other words, nobody.

Are you really that stupid, or just being deliberately obtuse?

[BliarOut]

Any money I choose to pay into a pension now will be clawed back by the state when I need long term health care. Where is the incentive for paying into a pension?

As I see it there are two choices.

A) Save and spend it on paying someone to wipe my arse when I'm older under means testing.
B) Spend it now and let the state pay them when the need arises.

B seems eminently more sensible to me