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?

Because you asked why people can't just acknowledge that things today are more difficult financially for younger people. OK I've acknowledged that fact, now what? Nothing will change even if every pensioner in the land agreed to that fact.
Employment. I worked in a 365/24/7 job for the last 25 years of my working life. And I was a nightworker. I've worked over many a Christmas period and BH if my shifts fell on those times and they often did. I've never had a Christmas bonus in my life. My late husband worked those hours too because the chemical plant he worked at never closed.
So now there's another question to answer...3 of my kids will be 70 in the next 10 years and 1 will be pushing 50. Will they get a SP? Maybe or maybe not. I have no idea and neither have you. I probably won't be here. One has already retired anyway along with her husband because they've been canny and have excellent pensions. Their son , my eldest grandchild, has just bought, buying, a house with his partner. He sold his starter home and they both saved for 2 years to put a deposit on a 3 bed. in Skipton. You see some of us live up North where properties tend to be cheaper and some young ones can do it if they live frugally and save. Another grandchild working as a dental nurse is on her 3rd holiday this year and loves a good night out or a weekend festival. Her money goes on different things. Her choice.
I've given my views on the triple lock.

The top and bottom of it is there has gradually been a decline in the availability of housing and that reflects in the sky high prices, whether it’s rents or mortgages. Until the housing stock is replenished nothing will change. The contrast between the haves and the have nots will increase. As I’ve said previously, secure housing shouldn’t be a luxury.

Regarding living to north, yea property is cheaper (I’m a northerner!) but there’s a reason for that, being supply and demand. The industry that once thrived here has gone. The jobs just aren’t there in abundance. Where I live you wouldn’t be paid anywhere near as much for a similar job as you would in the South like for like so it’s all relative.

We have a nationalised train service in Scotland. It's brilliant.

I bought my house for £180k 10 years ago and it’s now worth about £240k. It’s a 4 bed detached house in a decent area in the place I live, but I realise you wouldn’t get a one bed flat for that in some areas.

I’ve not done anything to the house that would add value to it, it’s purely based on the general increase. I think how lucky I am to have bought when I did because for no other reason other than good luck, I’ve saved £60k compared to if I bought my house today. Yes wages have gone up but not enough to be able to afford £60k plus interest. I feel sorry for the people buying exactly the same hosue for so much more than what I paid for this. I know life isn’t fair but as I say, a roof over your head shouldn’t be a luxury.

Northern Rail and TPX in the North of England are back under state control, but Sundays are still optional, hence regular/frequent cancellations. Putting them back into state control for the last few years hasn't even begun to solve the severe problems.

We bought ours for £97k in 1997. It's now worth £350k!! Equivalent salaries over that time period for my industry (local accountancy practice) have only doubled over that same time period. If I was 30 years younger, doing the same job, same level of seniority, etc., we'd not be able to buy our house. It's that simple. House prices have at least doubled relative to wages. The fact that mortgage interest rates are lower doesn't even begin to touch the sides - it's still not affordable.

Absolutely agree with everything you say!

That’s just inflation. I bought mine with my ( now) husband in July 1987. It was £27500. That was the top of our budget. 3x the largest salary+1x the lower. 100% mortgage over 25 years. Endowment. No deposit. Paying only the interest. So looking back we were earning about £7000 and £6500. I was 23, he was just turned 25.

Plus it’s much smaller than yours. Maybe not in square feet as it’s a red sandstone Victorian house with big rooms, high ceilings, picture rails, ceiling roses etc. but you get the gist. Two bedrooms, one bathroom. Two reception rooms.

We weren’t “allowed” to move in to it until we got married in the October. We had Catholic parents and we did what we were told. (hard to believe it now. My youngest has been happily “living in sin” with his girlfriend for 7 years, though they are now engaged and getting married in NY next year.)

BUT. The mortgage rates went sky high. Then the whole endowment thing blew up and we weren’t going to have enough to pay it off at the end of the term.

Final straw was Gordon Brown bailed out the banks.

So we thought “fuck it”. Cashed in our endowment, started paying capital and interest, moved our mortgage to the credit union, moved every single thing we paid from our bank to other methods of paying. We still have minimal direct debits. But there was no way we paid that mortgage off in 25 years. Took 32.

A house two doors down from me went on sale in May for offers over £300k and was sold in two days. Same house as ours. We have never moved. I love my house and the street it’s in.

But, I agree that two people our age back then and with two relative salaries, would struggle to get a mortgage for it.

I don’t know the answer but I know we shouldn’t be blaming each other because we have zero say in it apart from our vote.

But I voted for John Smith and got Tony Blair.

@Differentforgirls

That’s just inflation.

You're not getting the point in that house price inflation is far higher than average wage inflation so the differentials/proportions have got worse.

But I voted for John Smith and got Tony Blair.

John Smith had died by the time Tony Blair won the general election, so what you say was impossible. Unlike Brown, Blair actually won 3 GE's rather than being annointed as leader by default without any kind of ballot.

I don’t know the answer but I know we shouldn’t be blaming each other because we have zero say in it apart from our vote.

Yes, people did vote for council house sell offs, privatisations, demutualisations, and lower income tax.

Ah, my misguided friend . Brilliant it is not

It is for me.

I have a problem calling their union great when it causes additional costs and delays to the public by preventing the replacement of fax machines to communicate with drivers in Northern Rail trains. They want more money to make the drivers job easier, which is absolutely typical of "strong" unions.

Incidentally that train company has now been in public ownership again for 6 years and has failed to produce any better performance than the private company that ran it before and lost its contract for unreliability. Unreliability now attributed to Network Rail (also in public ownership) and union restrictive practices on rostering.

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody has the answers
Although it does seem that we all voted for the wrong parties in the past now. 😯Answer one thing, agree with something and up pops another "yeah but, yeah but".

Nursing care is a small part of the cost of care, most of it is 'hotel cost'. So a person needing help with feeding, bathing, who can't live at home etc would get no help with care home fees. So pensioners would lose the 'triple lock' guarantee but not gain any help with care home fees

From what has been said so far, it is the cost of caring which would be free at point of use. Nursing is already 'covered' by an allowance (cant remember which), my DM gets £175 PW.

It's not clear yet how that would work with care homes. My DM is 'at home' in her care home, it is her address. I guess domicilary charges would go to the individual and carers would be paid by the state.

If care homes werent included I could see a big risk of individuals being forced to stay at home by family members to receive free care rather than inheritence being used to pay for care home fees. Alongside this would be individual family members (normally women) being bullied into providing all the care between carer visits.

All this already happens now but I could see state funded care at home adding more pressure in some families.

Whatever scheme is started you can absolutely guarantee that there will be people out to game it if they can.

The pensioner on a state pension only will lose out. They’re on a low amount.

They’ll lose out by £8 a month, less than the cost of an hour’s care.

We're talking about reducing a tiny increase on an already tiny state pension. Of course this money can't pay for universal social care. It will merely hurt the poorest pensioners, which seems a bizarre thing to do, even in the current choose-a-demographic-to-demonise populist politics.
2026/27 State Pension Rates

• New State Pension (Full rate): £241.30 a week (£12,548 a year)
• Basic State Pension (Old full rate): £184.90 a week (£9,614.80 a year)
• Qualifying years needed (New): 35 years
• Qualifying years needed (Old): 30

It is merely a smoke screen to justify tax rises elsewhere.

Lets not pretend otherwise.

Why did Burnham make it sound as if this change to the triple lock would go towards care home fees, by saying houses wouldn't have to be sold, assets used up etc, when it is clear that that it’s nothing to do with going into care, and nothing will change

Seize all your assets, when you die. There’s no one, easy solution, but perhaps compulsory Government insurance for care home fees is something to consider. If the person dies without having gone into care home it’s added to the estate. Too simple, I suppose. In the case of those on benefits a deduction could be made for care costs.