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?

No probs. You can't answer. All the best.

No probs you’re mixing questions. I did answer below. All the best.

Creating a safety net matters, but we have gone beyond that. There is a non financial burden to many people who are working and trying to support themselves feel increasingly insecure despite doing the right thing as they are forced to pick up more and more of an ever increasing untouchable welfare bill. I suspect the narrative of greedy selfish workers is not helping either. I suspect, but could be wrong, that is where that other poster's frustration comes from.

I’ve heard that old chestnut about the 14% mortgages deals but what you’re clearly factoring in is that the hair is were about £30,000, where for same house it would be about 3 x that and more so I’m more expensive areas!

You’re delusional to think things are going to get much better for this generation. We all know money doenst grown on trees so until it doesn things look ever grimmer and I don’t a crystal ball to tell me that. No one does!

You believe what you want but the evidence is there and one final things that was available up until the late 1990’s was uni education free. Not now, you can’t even get full loans to cover your living expenses.

Is this a joke? Surely it's obvious?

Higher work participation would both reduce the working-age welfare bill and increase tax receipts.

This could be used to increase the availability and quality of state-funded services I use and reduce tax I pay.

The improvements in state-funded services I'd like are:

1.Better availability and quality of NHS care. Stop all the corridor care; reduce waiting lists for operations and treatment; survival rates (especially maternal and neonatal outcomes) which match other advanced countries like France and Switzerland

2.Proper availability of specialist provision for SEN so that children (both those with and without SEN) can actually learn. This would hugely frequency of drills where children routinely have to evacuate their classrooms whilst a classmate is violently out of control

3.More specialist teachers in secondary, and sufficient support that they're not off ill with stress all the time. All secondary children to actually have science and MFL teachers through their exam years

4.Universal provision of care for age-related disability such as alzheimers and physical disability, either in the home or in residential care as needed

5.Sufficient policing resources to stop the high levels of shoplifting: including the swarms of several hundred teenage shoplifters who went through Clapham Junction recently, the car boot sales full of stolen goods, and the blatant grabbing from shelves. Also sufficient policing resource that when you report a crime it's actually investigated. Even muggings are now just given a crime number and no attempt to stop the mugger (and so prevent further muggings) in London these days, as my family recently discovered.

6.Defence spending in line with NATO obligations, so that our defences against our many international enemies don't crumble. This may seem abstract now, but sabotage is already happening and worse to come as our weakness continues

7.More frequent street cleaning and graffiti removal. Our streets are a mess these days, and it's purely down to reduced council spending. Almost all out council spending is now on adult and child social care, with nothing left for actual civic services for everyone else. Remember when councils used to actually plant displays of flowers? In richer countries they still do.

8 Likewise, better provision of well-stocked libraries and modern, clean playgrounds and parks. Remember the beautifully tended Victorian parks we used to have? They might pretend the weeds are left to encourage wildlife, but it's no coincidence that not maintaining them is cheaper.

Reducing the tax I pay would leave me more disposable income to buy things I like, go on more holidays, and even work fewer hours to have more time with my DD.

Reducing tax on businesses would have a second-level improvement for me by making shops, businesses and cafes more profitable so my high Street would be more thriving, more goods would be available for me to buy (from businesses which currently aren't viable with high taxes), would give my DD opportunities for weekend work, which I think is good for teenagers.

The extra employment available from thriving business would become a virtuous circle... allowing even more of these benefits to flow.

Basically we'd be a far richer country, with a far better quality of life.

And there would also be an appealing future in the UK for our children, which would be nice.

And please don't pretend that this Nirvana exists in Scotland... all thanks to the extra £300 per head raised from your devolved extra taxes.

For a start, the point is that the improved services would come from decreased welfare spending rather than by reducing my disposable income yet further.

And also, I do know what Scotland is like. It's not Nirvana.

You might well also not realise quite how the UK has declined.

Perhaps it would have been better to do a little research before dismissing it as the “old chestnut”. Sure, houses cost less in cash terms, but people also earned considerably less. Mortgage rates went from 8.5% to 15% in less than two years. Some repayments increased by as much as 130%. Many people lost their homes or handed back the keys and had to live with the damage to their credit record for years.

Yes, there is a much higher house price to income obstacle to home ownership today. It isn't a competition, the difficulties facing buyers today don't diminish the financial and emotional trauma experienced by people who lost their homes back then. Have a bit of decency.

And as for “free university”, you might want to educate yourself. University tuition may have been free, but you actually had to get to university to benefit from it. There were many more working class and poorer families back then. Only around 6-7% of young people from those groups went to university in 1980. Even less than than from the school in my areas.

Young people today face disadvantages that the older generations didn't. But the older generations also faced many disadvantages and a higher level of poverty than most young people today. It won't kill anyone to acknowledge that fact.

As for your crystal ball, I wouldn't worry about getting one. You are too blinded by irrational hate and envy to see anything clearly.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

Firstly, I never said they didn’t have it difficult and whilst some may have lost their homes, they fact they were able to get homes with mortgages on pretty basic salaries is testament to the times back then. There are always wonders and losers when times are hard and that’s no different now.

Secondly, most didn’t need a degree back then because you didn’t need mega wages to able to afford a roof over your head. The right to by enabled people to buy their homes and the the losers are this generation becase there is barley any social housing so that’s pushed up private rents to astronomical prices.

Thirdly, there is no way a single person on a minimum wage role would be abel to afford a house now, yet about 40 years ago my sister managed to by herself her first little home whisky working in a fruit and veg shop! And guess what, there was no deposit needed, that woudk never ever happen now.

Lastly, you appear to think you’re the voice of reason and your opinion is the correct one when factually it’s wrong. This thread was asking if the tripple lock should be removed and I agreed and have given my reasoning and for some reason you don’t like the facts as they clearly don’t align with your reality, so you’ve taken to being condescending. If you don’t have any grasp of how difficult it is for this generation then you should be the one to educate yourself.

If you’re old enough to have a sister who bought a house 40 years ago you know perfectly well that @NorthXNorthWest’s post is correct.

I was a baby but we’ve had these conversations and correct about what? I never said the older generation had a it great, I said the younger generation have it worse financially. They’ve been shafted by various governments for years and years and there is no end in sight

Not that old chestnut about uni fees again. Jesus, how many more times do you have to be told....only the brightest and best went to uni. It's not too difficult to get your head round. As for the high interest rates, many lost their homes. It may not relate to today but it certainly mattered then to those people.

Most didn’t go because they didn’t need to! They could afford a decent standard of living without it and that’s the point! The younger ones now have got no chance of buying a house unless they have financial support from parents or a decent wage, significant more than the minimum wage.

We know people lost their homes and it was a difficult time for some. Why can’t people acknowledge that and also the fact it’s more difficult for the younger generation financially? Utterly bizarre the constant pushback with the but but but, but nothing, it’s soul destroying for a significant number of younger people these days. I bet they wouldn’t swap places with them! Even since I was in my early 20’s I can see how much more difficult things are for them compared to when I was that age. Most have to live at home well in to their 20 becase they can’t afford to move out or can’t secure a rental property. It’s not that hard to be understanding towards their circumstances.

Most didn’t go because they didn’t need to!

Most didn’t go because there were limited places and it was available only to the brightest. Within my memory you didn’t get a place on a humanities course unless you had “O” level Latin. That was a real barrier. It wasn’t a question of need, a degree really meant something in those days.

Actually many didn't go because it wasn't an option. There weren't as many places available. So even if 50% wanted to go and had the required grades the vast majority would not get a place. There were less universities and course sizes were smaller.

Interest rates were so high for a very short period of time. Homeowners used to get miras income tax relief making the interest roughly 25% cheaper too!

Most lost their homes due to losing their jobs not the very short period of high interest rates.

Exactly, now everyone has a degree because we were sold a dream and the reality was tens of thousands of debt for nothing ultimately. They seemed to close the technical colleges and get rid of the likes of the YTS schemes to push for 50% of the population to go to uni which was sounded good in theory but in practice another one of the governments mistakes along with selling off the social housing stock and not replacing it. Again at the time it sounded wonderful but in reality it’s made life harder

Interest rates didn’t fall below 8% for quite a long period of time.

My son didn’t go and earns £97.5k and bought his first home 7 years ago when he was 23.

I was responding to a poster mentioning 14% not 8%.

Understanding? We understand. I have three children, youngest 19, so they are right in the thick of it.
However I have also seen enough over the years to realise every generation has its struggles, it's not unique to today's young people.
I might be more inclined to show 'understanding' if you didn't brush aside OUR struggles as if they are irrelevant. I don't suppose you have given any thought to what it was like to see your mortgage payment hike up literally every month because you are not interested in anyone's life but your own.
My first house was £30,000 and i earned £6k and my ex £8k so a joint salary of £14k. That house is currently up for sale for £115k so you would need a joint salary of £56k on the same multiple today.
Buying a house is completely doable today if you are prepared to buy a smaller house in a cheap area initially. But many aren't.
We don't all live in London and the SE, which has always been a problem in my lifetime. The problem is young people are being brainwashed into thinking they can't afford a house and the attitude is taking hold. Being a victim is so prevelent nowadays - we all need to snap out of it!

@Katypp

Funny how you don’t mention the migration of jobs from the regions into London and a few other big cities, where housing costs are huge. A few decades ago there were good jobs everywhere. Try being an actuary in Cumbria today for example- there used to be a big insurance firm but of course it relocated to London and staff either relocated or were made redundant. Same with banks, tax offices, etc - not only redundancies for those who didn’t relocate but no jobs for youngsters wanting to stay local to friends/family now pressurised to go to uni and most never return to work in their home towns if in the regions. I hope Burnham’s plans will address this and stop London sucking everything in.

Well fantastic for you son but do you think that’s the norm? Obviously it’s absolutely not!

I can’t see how free home care benefits the poorest pensioners, who only have the state pension to live on? If they have less than £14,250 in capital like savings (and their house is disregarded), then home care is free as local authorities must leave them with the Minimum Income Guarantee to live on, which is virtually the same as the full state pension. There is a sliding scale of charges of £1 by local authorities towards care for every £250 in savings between £14,250 and £23,250. People with savings over £23,250 pay for their home care in full.

So, the poorest pensioners will lose out on uplifts in the state pension from increases in earnings from the triple lock (which contributed the most to increasing the pension from 17% of earnings in 2012 to 30% today), and yet they get free home care anyway? The people who will benefit are those with savings between £14,250 and £23,250; and most of all those with savings above £23,250 - most likely the middle classes?

The triple lock cost c £16 billion and higher rate tax relief on pension contributions net c £19 billion, yet you are all happy rather to subsidise people, earning say £200,000 pa, who can afford to put £60,000 pa in their pension; or £55 billion pa subsidising public sector pensions (except local government)?

This thread seems to be turning into an inverted 4 Yorkshiremen sketch 'you tell that to old people today.....'

Looking at mine and DH's family there is only one person who had the full 'baby boomer' benefits: council house purchase, generous redundancy paid out of the pension fund. They rode the wave. Now they are staring down the barrel of old age with cancer diagnoses and dementia same as everyone else.

Everybody else had more of the negatives with business failures, poorer healthcare, limited educational and information opportunities.

With no internet you either had to go to the library and look things up or trust that whoever was advising you whether it was a solicitor, doctor or careers teacher was giving you the best (or at least not wrong) advice.

The past really was another country and we did things differently there.