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?

They are in both.
People can be cared for at home, both paying and not paying until someone decides home is too unsafe even with people calling in. So then ( usually someone in the NHS) decides a care home it is. And they have to follow clear guidelines when deciding.

Most of us will end up paying into a system for 50 years. It's the norm. We know that the current financial model is unsustainable and that those that are old haven't paid enough into the system for the pensions and care they now want. They are relying on a much smaller generation of workers to fund this, knowing that these same workers won't get a state pension or the same care as them as the money will have almost certainly ran out by then. It's a terrible pyramid scheme for young people.

Emotional blackmail isn't helpful. Today's young people will be old people in the future and we need to think what kind of an old age they will have. It is unconscionable to allow this generation of pensioners to have something that is infinitely better than we can deliver for future generations of old people.

They are often ignored entirely. If someone runs out of money and needs the LA to help. It is not a guarantee of keeping hold of an asset at all.

Did you do the maths on what I actually wrote?

The man is 90 now and holds the 10k world record. 20 years ago ie at 70 he had bowel cancer and survived it.
That treatment wouldn't have been cheap, but has giving him at least 20 years of good health.
I also know someone who had a triple bypass at 70 who made it to 90 (nowhere near as fit as this guy but still 20 years of quality life)

We definitely can't decide what to or not to treat based on age and age alone.

Who is using emotional blackmail? If I am not poor enough for pension credits but not rich enough to support myself without relying on the state pension (which I’m guessing will be next to nothing by the time I get to retirement age (am mid 50s now) , what do you suggest? It’s a practical solution for some people.

It is great that people are concerned for when today’s youth get old but there are a couple of generations who will get there first and that is the issue.

But for funded care that's a big hurdle to get to a care home. There are thousands of families struggling because their parents needs are not deemed high enough for a care home, just 4 rushed visits a day. We've had parent in funded and self funded at home and care home. Thank god mum is self funded because she wouldn't be funded yet and was utterly lonely and miserable while we struggled to care from a distance. Now she is safe, has put on weight, I don't dread the hour drive to her house not knowing what I'll find because she had stopped answering the phone. The best the LA would have done for her would have been 3 visits a day.

Well it doesn't look at age and age alone but practically age will play a large role.

Also one swallow does not make a summer. Most 90 year olds aren't walking 10k. Studies suggest it's 1.5-3 km a day on average. This man is not representative of the average 90 year old.

A 90 year old will have an average of 4 years of life left before they die. 70% of 90 year olds are disabled or report poor health.

I think it's great. A complete own goal from AB.

There is no way in hell they'll get the pensioner vote at the next election. All 13.3 million of them.

I am one of those generations that will get there first too but I understand that we have to be sustainable and fair. You can't just make sure pensioners now or in the near future are fine and screw everyone else. Our social security system is working like an enforced pyramid scheme. Young people paying their NI now must know that they have a very slim chance of recieving a state pension in its current format because it will become unaffordable before then. Why are we amassing ever more debt paying for pensions etc now when we know they are the poor buggers that will end up paying it off?

They’re not even considering it until 2030, and they may well be out at the next election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c6x2zrv774gvt

When I started work I was due to retire at 60, then they came along and said ah 65, ok equality

tjen they changed it to 66

then they changed it again to 67

so now instead if getting my oap next year I shall have to wait another 7 years

ok but it’s not too bad

but no now they are going to change the fucking goal posts again, and take away the triple lock

I’ve stayed fit, gym cycling slim to have a comfortable body to live in and I’ve overpaid into my own pension. So I’m ok

but social care will benefit my children not me directly

I don’t agree that it’s an own goal.
If someone is debating about a care home and it comes to pass that it’ll be all paid for ( in the future ) then many more people will send their parents / relatives or whatever to one rather than hold off or just have carers that visit them at home. It’s a no brainer and more care homes will have to be built too..
I can’t see it ever happening to be honest. The logistics , the cost of it all is eye watering. With an aging population, it’s only going to spiral too and many more people going into one. Especially if assets won’t be touched which is one reason people hold off going into one. It’s only my opinion though, maybe pensioners would rather keep the triple lock and so on.

Long term it is unsustainable. What needs to happen is for there to be a change and everyone has to pay into a private pension scheme in order to retire at the age they prefer, and retirement with a state pension is on medical grounds rather than age.

Obviously this change will be for people under, say, 30 so they have enough time to plan for their retirement. If you are 60 now and tomorrow you get told that the retirement age is scrapped and you need to get a pension pot together plus have medical grounds to retire to trigger your state pension that is clearly unfair.

But as a system I think it's reasonable.

Clearly hes fair from average, average people don't hold World Records for doing 10k runs,

But my post is really you can't say we shouldn't treat people over the age of 75, which is what someone else suggested.

It 100% has to be a decision based on the individual person

To look after yourself in old age.

What the hell do people want? A magic money tree? Britain is heading for the rocks. Hospitals are stuffed to the gills with elderly people who have no medical need to be there. I would fucking love to live in a country full of adults who understand the dire financial situation we are facing. Adults who can have difficult conversations without expecting miracles. Having had the misfortune to be in hospital in recent years, I watched the staff trying to cope with dementia patients roaring all night in between very sick patients. They were elderly people with no family and nowhere to go. We either sort this out or we accept that elderly people will no longer be offered medical care once they have cognitive decline.

It is time for politicians to put aside their own egos and work for the good of the country. Really disappointed with all the other parties today. At least Burnham is trying to grasp the nettle in a country full of delusional nitwits voting for grifters who promise unicorns by stopping small boats. We heard all that bullshit before under the tories and instead left our largest trading partner making ourselves poorer and more isolated at a perilous time.

Honestly, fuck this country. If I was younger I would move overseas. I cannot believe how stupid the British population has become in my lifetime. A car full of idiots with George's cross flags driving straight towards a wall. And then on the other extreme the fantasists of a different persuasion in their rainbow bus demanding legal drugs and bags of money for all.

Exactly. Yet many on here are so bitter about 'greedy boomers' they can't see what's staring them in the face.
The younger generations are the ones who stand to benefit the most from this.

Squirrel, I agree that the young people I’ve heard about are off to work elsewhere. I don’t blame them, but it’s not something that is often discussed. There is definitely a brain drain going on.

And neither will any other Party if they suggest it or put it on their manifesto.

They won’t. The state pension is the maximum anyone can have unless they have a private pension. You try living on a state pension and see how you get on. I couldn’t do it.

We either sort this out or we accept that elderly people will no longer be offered medical care once they have cognitive decline.

So leave them to die in pain with no medical care at all? is that what you're suggesting? and who gets to decide elderly and what cognitive decline is? I mean, I can't see that being abused at all...and why just elderly people? what about other people with incurable conditions?

Must have been real pisser for you when the AD bill failed.

As ever, Devil’s in the detail.
It’s ONLY for care in your own home and doesn’t cover being in a care home.
So, those less well off will be stuck with carers of dubious quality coming in with no choices. Male carers coming in to do intimate care on elderly vulnerable Women unless you can pay for better care, just like now, in fact.
His utter lies about people no longer having to sell their homes for dementia care have been laid bare. He’s just another Shyster.

Ahh, it’s not for a care home then. I thought it sounded too good to be true. Care homes are thousands a month.

I thought I knew what the triple lock was but until I looked it up this morning, I was wrong. It means that the state pension will always increase to the tune of whichever is highest out of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. (I thought it had meant it was just tied to these things - like an average.) This means if inflation goes nuts due to external circumstances (or Liz Truss) then so does pension spending - in 2023 it increased by 10.1%.

Also it only came in in 2011 under the coalition.

What Burnham said today (still at least a double-lock!) actually doesn't sound that controversial to me. It does sound like a spending commitment that made more sense in a pre-Brexit, pre-Trump world.

I'd like to see actual costings of a care home given that older people tend to eat very little and staff are paid minimum wage usually.

They should never have privatised them in the first place because yet again it's just another private business raking it in and giving very little back.

My Granny was in a home that cost £1500 a week and it was fucking awful and supposed to be one of the better ones.

How does it actually cost so much a week?