Is ending the triple lock to fund a care service fair....

[mids2019]

To me this is actually not a hugely left wing proposal as middle classes with occupational and private pensions will not notice the reduced increases in state pension significantly.

However poorer pensioners with little other pension provision may be impacted a lot to essentially fund a care service that will be disprotioanrly help the middle classes as their life expectancy is greater.

Is it fair that our poorest pensioners get less to support a care service which would mean a millionaire pensioner would not nèed to sell their assets to access it?

My mother has self funded for her care until the money got down to the threshold.
Many people that I have spoken to regarding my mother have said that they have or were going to put their assets, house etc into a trust for their children so that if they had to go into a care home then their assets would not be touched. I think that is so wrong.

No, there is also VAT on second hand goods - 20%! (although, for completeness, there is a margin scheme that some traders will use, which means it 20% on the trader's profit rather than full proceeds).

They should put up income tax by 1p in the pound say. Cut down on welfare. The state pension is already low and should be left alone.

The calibre of politicians arguably lessened when were in Europe. Westminster became less and fewer decisions there had impact. So the accountability was less. Europe decided much. And I am afraid the quality of politicians reduced.

Brexit arguably has never really been implemented. Because those same politicians went out of their way to ensure any agreement was dire. Because they did not like the result.

Take procurement. For infrastructure contracts, services etc. Brexit should have seen British firms having first dibs. To prop up our own society. Thankfully Andy Burnham has indicated he wants this.
It should have been so for years already.

It is something the NHS already does. The NHS looks at QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) to determine what care to offer: Changes to NICE’s cost-effectiveness thresholds confirmed | NICE

Yes treatment should be assessed according to the individual and their quality of life. Plenty of 90 + year olds getting a new lease of life with hip and knee replacements

They tried to cut welfare and look what happened! They just won’t have it!

Choices. With money you have choices. You don't get stuck at home with just 4 short care calls a day, bored lonely and sitting in a wet nappy, because your needs aren't deemed sufficient for a funded care home and your DC are working to pay their mortgages/moved away to get a job.

I am not always sure that the above does not happen when you pay a lot.
My mother’s last care home said in the brochure, the individual can get up when they wish etc. What a load of rot. They were made to get up when it suited the care home. They were made to go to bed when it suited the care home. And made to eat when it suited the care home. And fed what the care home decided they would eat.

This is all such absolute nonsense.

'Brexit was never implemented'. We left the European Union! That is literally what Brexit means! Now, you can argue about whether we could have gone further on deregulation etc but the Leave campaign had about 200 different versions of what Brexit meant just amongst itself, none of which were on the ballot.

The procurement point is fine, and I happen to agree with you. But plenty on the Leave side fervently do not, preferring instead buccaneering trade deals and a free market approach which would see cheap goods made abroad.

'The calibre of politicians arguably lessened when we were in Europe'. I presume you mean when we were in the EU and its predecessor names. So does that include Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Clarke, Lawson? All of them were serious, consequential leaders.

You just display an astounding ignorance of how decisions are made. Decisions at the EU level are made by the commission (appointed by national governments including ours), the Council (made up of national ministers from national parliaments) and the parliament (Elected by voters). There isn't this separate thing called 'Europe'. Westminster was, is and will be as important as ever, except where it chooses to give away its powers. And it has so chosen, but more often than not to quangos and councils, not the EU.

So will this social care be for everyone in which case I would happily give up the triple lock. I’m betting it will be means tested though and will mostly benefit those who have sat on their backsides all their lives contributing nothing.

It is mistaken too. Many local authorities are very alert to the whole ‘put into trust’ thing. I think they are largely ignored by LA’s.

I have a very modest pension and no property. I made sacrifices to put into my little pension pot.

As long as people that have not saved do not get more than me, I'm happy. That's all it comes down to.

I know loads of people who have put their parents houses into trust funds. ‘ why should we pay for other people ‘ is rolled out constantly.
I often wonder how closely the council look into this as the people are adamant that the house won’t have to sold on to pay for care.

I wonder if the same mindset was around when the NHS was set up?
The issue that people who have put money by when working (and they are not all millionaires) are having to pay and those who haven't (and they are not all low-paid) don't needs to be addressed.
Doesn't it?

It's bloody unfair to Welsh pensioners who'll lose out and not have the funded care service as it's devolved.

Yes we left ! Of course. Good grief.
But implementing what Brexit should mean and the opportunities it could have meant. Not so. I agree that nuance can be hard to grasp.
As Europe became stronger our run of the mill politicians, I felt, became less. I was not referencing just the leaders of Governments. But the paucity of talent on the backbenches in particular. Of commitment, of interest. It no longer mattered as much . And certainly in more modern times.
Thatcher was not useful for the country. Nor was Gordon Brown. Nor was Tony Blair. Nor was Lawson. John Major had the IRA sized up accurately.

The reason was the lack of need of accountability. We would like to do it but the EU….etc. So it mattered less.

I am glad at least Andy Burnham wants to bring back some gumption, a level of interest and seems bothered. Even if I don’t agree with everything he says.

And yes, I do know how the EU made decisions.

Most of the posters on MN will be positively joyous about it, given previous threads.

The poorest on pension credits will be fine as they won’t dare take anything from them. Anyone with a private pension will be fine.

Those of us in the middle who have worked all our lives but have no private pension provision will be potentially fucked though. I just hope I can continue to work until I drop as I will need to.

Few pensioners rely solely on the state pension. Most have private pensions or are tipped up by further benefits. We cannot afford pension rises at this level. In essence the rises are paid for by working people, many of whom are struggling. The balance has to be better.

They do consider it when they consider Quality Adjusted Life Years i.e. The cost of treatment spread across how many years you will benefit from the treatment. It's sensible really as how else can we calculate value for money with treatments. It sounds hard hearted but ultimately with finite resource and competing almost infinite demands, we need some way of allocating resource to those that will gain the most benefit from treatments.

12% of pensioners rely solely on the state pension. Most that benefit from the triple lock will have a higher level of income than working households when housing is accounted for.

People always say working people are struggling.
Some working people and non working people will be struggling.
But where I live most of the mid thirties and forties are driving big SUV’s, have the new build homes, and judging by airports manage to go on holiday.
So some are struggling. By no means all are.

I think ‘struggling’ is a word too readily used. So was the ‘cost of living crisis’.
There is poverty. But not on the scale suggested.

Yes, they will get probably pension credits too, which opens the gate to many other freebies eg dental care.

Retirees will just be seen as even more of a burden in the future. Paying into the system for 50+ years doesn’t seem to count.

The more venom I read on MN, the more I think they should give people the option to do away with themselves at that stage so they aren’t taking up valuable housing and being a burden on the state. I would go for it.

If you don't have the money there's a good chance you aren't going to be in a care home. Just stuck alone in a deteriorating house that that your DC are struggling to maintain as well as their own home/GC/jobs