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?

The po and I might not agree on other stuff but any young person doing well is great stuff. I’d like more of that, I don’t think Labour are good in that way but hats off to the pp’s Ds.

It’s called deprivation of assets and local authorities go back years to evidence it. It would be a spectacularly stupid thing to do.

Read the small print, won't fund homes, just care element! Big speech giveth, policy small print shows what is taketh away. Care needs to be back in non profit hands, the issue is running it for profit!

There isn’t any small print to read yet.

But what could do,, if that happened ?
refuse to put you in a care home

Thank you.

If the money is gone it is gone - they can go back to see if you have made any huge gifts and undo that, but money spent on rent/living costs isn't there to be recovered

Technically they have power to pursue whoever you gave it to. They can go back a long way is my understanding. Not sure they ever have, it's a good question for AI.

I would like to hope that most people will make some contribution for their care. There is no free care, somebody is paying for it somewhere.

Just pointing out that interest rates being high for a short period of time wasn't the ONLY factor why some people got repossessed!

I agree. My only point was that it isn't fair if those people who require care are effectively burdened with also part funding the care of those who can't afford it

Because those who pay privately are massively subsidising those who the local authority are paying for with a huge discount.

😉

The graph shows they were much higher than now for over 20 years, ie most of the term of some people’s mortgages. I’m old but even for me 20 years isn’t a short period of time.

My DM is in the nursing wing of a private CH. 24 hour care, all food & drinks, heat, light, sound. DM is bedbound, doubly incontinent so all personal care has to be done. She has to be fed by a carer.

She has been there for nearly 2 years. In that time she has steadily declined. With each decline whatever new equipment she has needed has been provided

It costs her £1400 PW (she gets £175 PW higher rate allowance) so full rate is just shy of £1600 PW. When I think of what she gets I think it is a very good deal.

But housing costs were far lower in proportion to wages. So even with relatively low interest rates at the moment, people are still paying more, as a proportion of earnings, than they were a few decades ago when interest rates were higher but house prices were much lower in proportion to wages. Not to mention that older people also benefitted from MIRAS income tax relief on their mortgage interest which brought down the real cost of the interest by around 25% depending on the year.

Whereas DB's DFIL was self funding at 2k per week from the proceeds of his house + his state pension - he didn't have a private pension. It consumed all bar less than £20k and then he died. His care needs were light compared to many. Not good value. Two sides of the same coin.

My mum's care cost myself & sis about 120K.

A poster once actually did the maths on this and I saved it. This is what she posted.

In 1970, average gross weekly wages for men and over 21 were £28 and £14, respectively. Even if a household had two earners, which was rarer, the average weekly wage was £42 for a gross annual wage of £2184 or £182/month. Before taxes.

The average house cost about £11,500 and required a 5% deposit. Even with a big deposit you would have around a £10,000 mortgage. A 15% interest rate means annual payments of £1500 or monthly payments of £125. That mortgage payment is 68.6% of the gross household pay.

Now a modern example: Numerous online banking guides inform me that usually you can only get a mortgage for five times household salary, let’s make it six to be fair.

In the example of a £300k mortgage, then, gross salary is at least £50K, monthly salary is at least £4167. At 5%, payments are approximately £15,000 per year or £1,250 per month.

Mortgage payments are just under 30% of gross household pay. Less than half the 1970 example.

Now bear in mind that there were no fixed term mortgages and if the bank rate went up your mortgage followed the next day.

Not sure how you come to the conclusion I want validation for my posts for having a different opinion to some but hey ho.

Secure housing shouldn’t be a luxury in a civilised society and for many that’s what is happening due to the lack of affordable homes. I know Jo, Jim and Johnny all managed to buy buy their own housing it woudk seem but that’s not a reflection for the majority.

Another thing this generation don’t get is the perks of employment. Triple and double time for bank holidays and weekends, significant Christmas bonus… now you’re expected to work 24/7. Unles it’s office based, many jobs are are evenings and at least one weekend so even family time is more difficult now

I’m mid 40’s and can see the difference in the changes how difficult it is now compared to when I was in my later teens phoning up the estate agent saying I’d like to rent a property then being given the keys. Even that is difficult now such is the lack of availability of all housing, not just mortgaged properties.

Even if we drew a line under everything previously and agreed to say it’s been equal so far, the question still remains, do you honestly think that by the time out kids are 70 there will be a state pension for everyone? I highly highly doubt it. That’s why the push to keep the Tripple lock becase ‘they paid in to it’ is laughable becase it won’t even exist for many and that’s the irony.

What about rental properties though? both availability and cost back then I’m comparison to now?

It’s not only about home ownership. It’s almost impossible to find rental properties now.

I agree with a lot of what you posted. But the demonisation of Trade Unions allowed employers to treat staff like cattle.

There is a reason why train drivers have great wages and conditions. They have a great TU.

I don't know how you haven't seen the flaws in the example you have posted.

The median wage in 1970 was around £1k and it's now £39k. The average house price was 4x the median income in 1970 whereas the same average house is now 9x the median income. This is why in the examples you have quoted they have used the median earner in 1970 buying an average house and had to use a higher earner today to even have a chance of securing a mortgage for an average house. This should set alarm bells off already.

In the 1970s inflation was riding high alongside interest rates. It actually reached 25% by 1975 which would have a significant impact on a person's ability to pay a mortgage off that they had taken out in 1970. To give you an idea by 1976 earnings had more than doubled compared to 1970 and interest rates were increasing at a much lower rate hence a lot of people that bought in the early 1970s found it very easy to pay off their mortgages despite the high interest rates.

Again you're ignoring MIRAS.

You're also ignoring the fact that house price ratio to average wages has gone increased.

Just reposting someone else's figures don't mean they're factually correct.

Some facts...

Decade-by-Decade Ratios

• 1970s–1980s:
• Ratio: ~3.5x to 4.5x average earnings.
• Context: Single incomes easily secured mortgages.
• 1990s:
• Ratio: Stable at ~4.0x average earnings.
• Context: Post-recession price corrections provided temporary relief.
• 2000s:
• Ratio: Surged to ~6.4x during the credit boom.
• Context: Pre-financial crisis lending fueled rapid inflation.
• 2010s–2020s:
• Ratio: Rose to ~8x–9x average earnings.
• Context: Wage stagnation clashed with soaring property values.

But also caused a crap train service, such as regular cancellations on Sundays as in many areas, working on Sundays is optional!