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?

‘ Some politicians want to get shot of the triple lock. I feel it’s as simple as this. Rather than be up
front , it’s now ‘ oh , you can have free care in your home instead or maybe reduced care home fees It’s a bit of a cynical

Posted too soon.. a cynical move.

Burnham has linked these things though and this is is what I believe is hugely disingenuous and politically risky. I have literally read posts on this thread where people have suggested that losing the triple lock is a small price to pay in order to fund a fit for purpose social care model. Yes, it would be an incredibly small price to pay and this is why it's clearly nonsense and unrealistic.

It's like people suggesting that a millennial in a load of debt should give you eating avocado on toast and they will be able to afford their dream house. It's too good to be true! When people realise this then I think an awful lot of trust will be lost.

Absolutely don't, they'd be delighted! Take vitamins, and lots of exercise, see the doctor for every small ailment. I intend to live to be 105 and be a serious burden on society as a punishment for the general feeling that seems to prevail now that pensioners are a burden. (Except when they want us to look after their children, or leave our life savings and houses to them)

What makes you think that we all can't take that attitude? Lets pump out loads of children we can't afford and all refuse to work. What do you think would happen? An IMF bailout. Who loses out in these the most? Vulnerable people reliant on the state like you will be. Be very careful what you wish for and don't assume you won't be the one that loses out in all of this.

The triple lock will not be funding care. Ending it won't raise enough on its own, which rather begs the question - where is the rest of the money coming from?

I stand by the “alignment” point. PR 101. Politicians/ speakers use personal history to establish a connection/ authenticity with the people and problems they are talking about. Each person will evaluates how authentic they found it. It doesn't matter whether I am cynical, the technique exists and is heavily used by many trying to galvanise support.

I’d also object to the idea that investing in public infrastructure is “free stuff”.

I am all for investment and growth. That wasn't my point. The internet, including this thread, is full of people who, following the speech, excitedly thought care homes would now be “free”, only to have their bubbles popped. Services and benefits aren't free simply because the person receiving them isn't paying at the point of use. Someone still has to fund them and the council/ state is only an intermediary...

And talking about ending the triple lock isn't, on its own, being transparent about the cost of the wider vision. If it doesn't raise enough to fund the care proposals, what else is being taxed or cut to make up the difference? He has ruled out borrowing to fund it, so the money has to come from somewhere.

What I didn't hear was much about tackling waste, inefficiency or the cost of government before asking taxpayers for more. Instead, when talking about reducing the welfare bill, we got: “Not through crude cuts. That should never be the Labour way.” Spending and investment are presented as sophisticated solutions, while cutting expenditure is “crude”. What happens when the sums don't add up? "Who can we tax..." Pat McFadden.

Tim Stanley from the Telegraph...
Like many, I am politically homeless, so even if I did read something in the Telegraph, I’m unlikely to take it at face value. Nor does one Telegraph columnist being impressed really answer any of the many, many questions.

And if you want to think I’m lying about not having made up my mind before the speech - weird, but okay.
Funny how it wasn't “weird” when you levelled the same accusation at me...

Look, you’re fully entitled to your own opinion
Umm... thanks for the heads up. Weird, but okay.

You many not like how I have presented it, but the sums do not add up. And recent history shows that tax revenue collected does not always go where it is intended.

I can't for the life of me see where I've said I would pump out children and refuse to work? Could you quote where I've said that?
I have two adult children. They are both higher rate taxpayers and net contributors. I am retired, having worked for 35 years and been a taxpayer. In retirement I am still a higher rate taxpayer. All I meant is that I will continue to claim my state pension and will use every bit of expensive healthcare I need.
Happily I am not vulnerable nor reliant on the state. I am also lucky to have been well educated by the state and still compos mentis enough not to jump to ridiculous conclusions like you.

Where did I imply that you stated that you would have loads of children and not work? You are the one coming to strange conclusions.

I suggested that all of us could have your attitude and attempt to be the biggest possible burden on the state as some kind of punishment for perceived intergenerational unfairness or attitudes. Young people could have lots of children they can't afford and anyone if working age could refuse to work. We can all be terrible burdens if we want to be. So what happens if we all look to milk the state like you state that you want to then where does this lead us? Best case scenario would be a pretty rapid IMF bailout.

You absolutely will be reliant on the state when you're 100 plus. Do you really think you won't need the NHS or any other state providers service like having your bins emptied or a fire and police service?

I’m under no illusions that getting rid of the triple lock will fund my later care. But I still think it’s time for it to be retired and replaced by an alternative uplift mechanism which is fairer on the younger generations - probably just an inflation linkage. I’m a retired 65yo not yet getting state pension by the way - I’ve noticed on this thread quite a lot of comments from people of my age agreeing that the triple lock should go now as it’s done its job. Afaik the political parties all know it should go, just none of them have had the balls to do it but honestly, in electoral terms I think they’re pushing at an open door.

35 years of work out of the 105 you intend to live for really isn't that much. So I wouldn't gloat too much. I think the entitlement of early retirees is one of the biggest burdens we face. A generation granted the enormous luck of free uni education, low cost secure housing they could buy for a song, generous pensions and a functional NHS until the last 20 years. Yet somehow still feel victimised and entitled to take as much as they can.

That's why it's funny seeing them get enraged at youngsters on benefits. They see their own entitlement mirrored back without the accompanying advantages their generation had. It triggers the fk out of them 😂

I'm another pensioner who thinks the triple lock has done it's job and needs to go. I'm also not unhappy about selling my home to pay for a care home if needs be. Great if I don't but if I move into a care home I won't need it anymore.
Currently selling my mum's home to pay for her care.

Not sure about that. This poll was carried out yesterday just before Andy Burnham's announcement.

https://share.google/7lk7vfOx13CTPCLtY

I think most pensioners would only ditch the triple lock if they thought they were getting free at the point of use or massively improved care. They wouldn't be in favour of relinquishing it without getting something back.

A generation granted the enormous luck of

free uni education available to less than 10%

low cost secure housing they could buy for a song It wasn’t secure for those who found themselves in negative equity/repossessed

generous pensions The only generous pensions are those paid for by contributions over decades

a functional NHS The NHS was functional for about a decade at the beginning of this century. Everyone aged over 26 benefited from it.

@mids2019
i suggest you use chat gpt and ask how many millionaire pensioners there are and its not a lot of the million is money only. Lots may benefit from having a house worth a fair bit plus income to make the million (22% according to chat across both) but why should some one asset rich be forced to sell a property they have lived in all their life?

at the other end of the scale apparently it’s about 12% who only rely on SP only. So should everyone in between also not claim?

and let’s not forget that those with large salaries have,whilst working, paid far more than most in tax’s and NI. Why should they be penalised in old age having worked hard?

the system is what it is we should not penalise one group of people just because they worked hard and have good. On state pensions

as as a pensioner I agree the triple lock should go we can’t afford it and my work pension doesn’t have a triple lock! I think all pensions should get rises the same way

I agree @Vaxtable. I’m happy for the triple lock to go and I expect nothing in return.

Putting an age against it doesn’t make sense. Some people remain very fit and well into their 80s/90s, others are frail and generally very unwell a lot younger. I do think if someone has advanced dementia the default should lean towards not treating unless there is an advance directive they want to be treated. For those with capacity but other issues it should very much be a choice they make and as far as I’m aware largely already is.

I’m sorry if you felt I was levelling an accusation at you in my initial reply - from your references to things Andy Burnham had said in the past, I felt that the Prime Minister was unlikely to have ever won you round with his conference speech. Maybe I misjudged that - apologies if so.

Of course I don’t think anyone has to agree with Tim Stanley - my point was a more general one, that I don’t think it was just “typical lefties” who were impressed by Andy Burnham yesterday.

And I agree with you that modifying the triple lock alone won’t pay for social care reform. I don’t actually think the Prime Minister claimed it would…? Of course, the rest of the money will need to come from somewhere, and the Prime Minister is going to have to make that case. I just felt like this was much more substance and detail than we’ve been used to seeing from any party leader’s conference speech over the past few years.

You're totally right, though, in the end, the proof will be in the pudding. What I would say, though, is for the first time in a long time, I’m actually excited to see a politician get out there and make the case for a genuine big vision. The phrase “conviction politics” that another poster used in the thread, really resonated with me.

Nail on the head.

But also much lower/fewer indirect taxes. MIRAS income tax relief on mortgage interest, windfalls from endowments, privatisations and demutualisations, council tenants lucky enough to buy their house for a song and re-sell at huge profits, etc etc.

I think there needs to be a point in the planning of treatment where the decision making switches from the default of 'treat' to a default of 'address immediate comfort'.

This doesnt mean that treatment is denied but that treatment isnt the assumption.

Having watched my DM's decline as she was moved through the hospital system I saw a lot of siloed behaviour. The 'heart' in bed 9, the 'kidney failure' in bed 6 and so on. At no point did I see a holistic approach to DM. Many times hospital doctors were surprised to find out that she had conditions other than the one they were treating.

I dont think that DM believed that she could end up in her current condition. I think she saw dementia as something which happened to people who didnt 'try hard enough'. She had to be persuaded quite hard by the surgeon who was going to operate on her broken hip to accept a DNAR. She naively thought that resuscitation would just be a minor inconvenience. Too many inaccurate hospital dramas.

Also FFS you worked for 35 years and think that's enough to cover tme more than 35 years youre hoping to he retired for? Or you just dont care?
FWIW I've worked for 31 years ans I have another 20 to go before I reach retirement age. You haven't paid your way!

@GnomeDePlume

Having watched my DM's decline as she was moved through the hospital system I saw a lot of siloed behaviour. The 'heart' in bed 9, the 'kidney failure' in bed 6 and so on. At no point did I see a holistic approach to DM. Many times hospital doctors were surprised to find out that she had conditions other than the one they were treating.

A huge yes to all that. They definitely don't look at "the person" anymore. You're just a patient/rtx number and a condition. And yes, the only condition that matters is the one you're there for, not your other conditions. We've just experienced it with my DH who needed a pin inserted in his femur. He literally had to tell every single nurse/doctor that he also had cancer and was on long term chemotherapy, and he had to explain to literally every one of them the implications of the cancer/chemotherapy, as if they'd never heard of it before! Even down to telling them he had a severely compromised immune system - some seem surprised by that(!!). At one bedside visit, the doctor mentioned that he was surprised the operation scars didn't seem to be healing quickly and DH had to tell him it was because of the cancer/chemotherapy, something his haematologist and the orthopaedic surgeon had both flagged up before the operation!

Happened similarly with my Mother who had diabetes and needed a hip replacement. They'd decided to stop her diabetes drugs for the few days around the operation, and then a couple of days afterwards, the nurse flagged up very high blood sugar and called the ward doctor, and both were surprised when DM told them she was diabetic and hadn't been on her drugs. They almost told her off for not taking them, until she pointed out that she'd handed them in, as requested, to the ward to be put in her own personal "drug drawer" and that it was the surgeon at pre-op stage who'd decided they weren't to be taken, but it was a nursing mistake that her record hadn't shown them to be re-started the day after the op!

I don't think they're "cross trained" in different medical problems anywhere near properly enough. Conditions like cancer and diabetes should be flashing in bold red on the patient record computer screen as they can affect recovery and need properly monitoring after a traumatic event like an operation.

My DH was in a side room after his op due to him being immuno compromised, with "warning" signs on the door of infection risk and a trolley half blocking the door with gloves, masks, aprons, hand gel, etc., but several of the staff (inc doctors and nurses) ignored all that, and a couple even "joked" he was "lucky" to get a private room and needed telling that it was because of his cancer and not luck - they genuinely didn't know - fair enough for HCAs etc., but doctors and nurses shouldn't be telling a patient with cancer that he was "lucky" when they hadn't checked his notes properly and had ignored infection control protocols!

Most people die in their early eighties. Retirement age is 67. So for most they will get the pension for 15 years.

And most people my age started full time work at 16, so will have worked for 51 years when they retire.

A generation granted the enormous luck of
free uni education

available to less than 10%

The free university education was available to everyone. Only a small proportion took it up and those people ranged a lot more than others did. The rest of us took entry level training jobs and worked our way up.

Now, 50ish percent go to Uni, racking up huge debts, and most end up in entry level jobs where they have to work their way up.

If you educate everyone to degree level you will simply end up with the best educated toilet cleaners in the world.

low cost secure housing they could buy for a song

It wasn’t secure for those who found themselves in negative equity/repossessed.

And it wasn't like cheap if you couldn't afford the 15% mortgage rate.

No university places were very limited in numbers, so only the brightest could get a place.