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?

Haha - the glorious 70s. Not quite the rose tinted utopia that Burnham wants us all to remember.

The scheme is still in place! Thanks x

It’s not just Burnham, it’s posters here who were still in nappies.

There have been a lot of very 'black and white' statements on this thread and I dont think that is helpful at all.

It isnt true that no young people can afford to buy houses now. Two of my DCs in their mid 20s have bought. Neither have benefited from inheritance or cash input from parents. Neither benefited from extended living with parents.

What they have done is bought in affordable areas. Just as DH and I did 35 years ago.

Maybe there should be tax rises to make all care homes fully funded by local authorities without the need for old people to sell their houses ? Then the state pension could be means tested ,,

Same as mine!

I think that's a key difference. As you said, the past was a different country.
When i was 18-23 it was entirely normal to (assuming you were in the majority and did not go to university) stay at home and save for the deposit on a small house in an affordable area. Completely normal.
Yet it is spoken of on here as if it the most unimaginable hardship and renting (so unable to save a deposit) is the better route.
The small home in the affordable area seems to be dying a death too.
Expectations are higher. Things are different. But you can't come on here shouting about how unfair it all is when you chose a more expensive way to do things in the first place.
1980s: Start work, stay at home, save hard. Buy small house at 20ish, get married, move to bigger house, have children
2020s: Go to uni. Rent flat, have children, rent bigger flat/house, get married, decide you want to buy then wonder why you can't afford the family home in a good area your parents had.
It's like apples and pears.

You just seem to want validation of your posts. Nobody is saying it's easy for young ones today and no, I wouldn't want to swap places with them and they probably wouldn't want to swap places with what we had, or didn't have, in our youth. It's a hypothetical scenario anyway so rather pointless for you to ask it. If we all agree that times are harder today than in the past what will it change? These type of threads always descend to this level....it's groundhog day again. FWIW you can remove the triple lock for me. It's a few quid a week but I'll be surprised if removing it will support Burnham's policy but it remains to be seen.

But how many places are available??

It's the everybody/nobody school of thinking I take issue with. I also dont like scapegoating of generations. People born in the baby boom years didnt have a meeting and decide to screw over future generations.

People work with what they are given and can make for themselves, then as now.

But you're still not getting it that youngsters often can't "stay at home and get a job" because most of the decent jobs have been sucked in by London and a few other big cities. That's brilliant if your family home is close enough to commute, but not much good if you're out in the regions.

Back in the day, you could get good jobs after leaving school with a few decent O levels and a professional training job with a few A levels. Opportunities to do that in the local banks (proper banks with full back office, not just counters), tax offices, regional offices of insurance firms, local utility firms, etc etc. plus the usual professional offices such as solicitors, accountants, architects, surveyors etc. With the drive by politicians and employers for university education, those opportunities are now severely limited.

Only a quarter of kids who leave their home town to go to University return to their home town to work. That's usually because there are no decent jobs in their chosen career/profession if they live in the forgotten regions.

It's not the youngsters "choosing" the different path as you infer - it's society that has changed and caused them to follow the different path. Slow hand clap for politicians and employers who have caused this!

Don't know. They get advertised every two years. Maybe 3? Starting salary is about £32k. Every year they get an increment when exams are passed. Think final one takes them to about £45k. It's most LAs in Scotland and some in England.

So 3, when there are tens of thousands of students looking for work? That says it all really.

So now you have retreated to the splitting-hairs part of the debate, as though losing your home is somehow less devastating if it happens because you lost your job rather than because your mortgage became unaffordable.

Unfortunately for you, you cannot neatly separate unemployment, insanely high interest rates and negative equity from the recession in which they occurred. They were interconnected pressures that pushed households into difficulty in a very short period of time. I appreciate that is an inconvenient truth when you want to cast it all as the "good old days of honey and nectar", when life was apparently a breeze compared with what poor young people face today.

Something also needs to be done about the exorbitant costs that nursing home companies charge-over £1,500 a week is ridiculous

He was a modern apprentice with another council before that.

They take young people every year, like the old YTS schemes. All Scottish Councils. About 25 young people per year for admin jobs. More for youth learning. More as TAs and yet more for the trades etc.

Difference is that they pay them the basic grade 1 salary rather than the pittance that the YTS paid them. Then they get slotted into basic grade jobs as they come up. Basic grade is way above minimum wage.

None of the above need a degree. Just 3/4 basic 4th year exam passes. Like English GCSE's.

As has been pointed out to you before, not all jobs require a degree.

My son wasn't a "student".

Do you think access to accounting qualifications are some a middle-class / Gen X/ Millennial, closed circle?

Accounting apprenticeships and training contracts, fully or partially funded by employers, are common non-university routes because of the regard in which the qualifications are held and the opportunities they open up. There is no modern-day Arthur Daley whispering, “Psst, wanna buy an accounting qualification?” to those with the money.

Sadly for you, the Bank of Mum and Dad can’t be levelled as an leg up/ advantage here either.

In most LAs

Efficiency for payers or services users does appear to be a high priority for any of the parties. As long as someone can be taxed to pay for it, it's all good.

A big problem with the current system is that private payers pay far more than local authorities for the same provision. So the private payer may be paying £2k/week for their place and the LA funding £900 for someone else. The private payer isn't receiving anything more than the other resident, so essentially is part funding their care as well. The care home prices the fees of the private funders to make up for the shortfall from the public funded spaces. It would be fairer to spread the cost to the population generally so that both pay £1450 per week than to essentially put the cost on those unfortunate enough to need care.

And there it is. Rock. Bottom.

It is clearly all @Differentforgirls DS’s fault for taking that job from tens of thousands of other students looking for work. Following that logic, anyone in employment should feel shame for taking a job from all the other people who could also have performed their role...

The past is a different country, and apparently a different planet too...

Its usually the sale of their own home that actually funds those care fees. So the idea that homeowners are somehow being protected while everyone else burns misses the point.

It's as if I got him it. He earns far more than I ever did. Considering he nearly died, he has overcome adversity and still managed to have a great career and has a great life.

But it must be bank of mum and dad or some other privileged position he was in.

Well done to him. He deserves it.

Honestly! The desperation to find some chink they can exploit to weaponise any perceived privilege is unbelievable. That kind of perseverance and commitment to due diligence would be unstoppable if it were paired with critical thinking rather than being so blinded by envy.

I have often wondered if everyone sold their houses when they are old and spent the money / lived in rented apartment what would cars homes do ? It needs an overhaul of the present system