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?

Point a) in your post is such a strange assumption. Do you really think they're so stupid that they don't realise that they will be 70 at some point in the future if they're lucky? I can only guess that you must only ever vote in your own self interest if you assume that people can't support policies that ultimately might detrimental to them but are still the right thing in principle.

I always see the same when anyone suggests a cut to old people's confessions and benefits. 'Remember you will be old too one day!'. Oh I know, and I still think cuts need to be made to reflect the relative wealth of the older generations. Yes, I know it will one day impact me but I still think it's the right thing to do in principle.

How about making care home fees equitable throughout the uk as a start.

A broken clock is right twice a day! Its not frank conversations which are the issue. It's substance.

I agree but I took her post at face value. She said:

Beyond a certain age (say 75) or when the elderly patient no longer has capacity the default should be to not treat. Immediate comfort should be the overriding consideration.

My parents both lived to their late 90s and my dad played his last round of golf when he was 98. He’d have been condemned to blindness without cataract surgery at 85 or died in pain without the removal of his gallbladder at 83. He was sharp as a tack when he died. My mum’s dementia didn’t exhibit until she was 93. There’s no way that cut off for treatment should ever be linked to age.

The triple lock was introduced because the state pension was falling in real terms and was designed to help pensions catch up the losses in value. The state pension was meant to be an amount you can live on I'm not sure many people think £12k a year is a liveable 'wage'.

The savings to the government would just disappear into the general spending pot, not ring fenced for say care home or hospice provision to help the elderly.

But your parents had capacity despite their good ages. The poster was referring to those without capacity or that was how I read it.

I think you have wonky logic Op. The triple lock was poorly thought through when it was introduced by a government that saddled us with a ludicrous burden; it was NEVER a good idea.

And before you say people in other countries get a higher pension … they pay in a LOT more.

Poor people have to appreciate the fact that benefits are there to stop them dying or starving or living on the streets. Beyond that they have to take responsibility for their own circumstances.

She didn’t say that. She said

Beyond a certain age (say 75) or when the elderly patient no longer has capacity.

Or not and.

Euthanasia at retirement age would solve the problem completely.

Not all or even most pensioners are relatively wealthy, many live in poverty on the 'generous' £12k a year they get. It's really the next generation that may be wealthy in retirement having had the option of private pensions, which barely existed for current pensioners.

But people with considerable assets don’t want them swallowed up in care costs, understandably.

This. If Kemi decries getting rid of the lock she will be stuck with that. Farage has mentioned getting rid of the lock but it won't be in the manifesto for the next election.

I’m not a Labour voter but I was impressed by his speech.

Speaking as one of those people I completely disagree. We’ve been responsible, we own our house outright, have decent pensions and money in the bank. If we need care we’ll pay for it, it’s what the money is for. I really like Burnham’s passion for good, unrationed social care but it’s not for people like us who want choice in the kind of care we get and where it’s provided. I fully expect we’ll pay if we need care and there won’t be any resentment. If a rainy day comes along the umbrella our assets provide will be put up.

But the thing is, what I’m starting to realise is you can’t begin to get to anything of substance until you’ve had the frank conversations. We’ve had too much sound bite politics, and far too many announcements that sound tough or substantive but are based on flimsy evidence and therefore make for bad policy in the end, because politicians haven’t been honest enough about how the costs and benefits weigh up.

Whatever you think of Andy Burnham ideologically (and I’m not somebody who votes Labour no matter what) - at least it feels like we finally have a proper politician back in charge.

Well they'll have to swallow paying higher taxes then. There is no magic solution that doesn't cost someone.

@Raiderofthelostbattenburg

Be careful that's dangerous talk on here. Some people believe Labour are coming for our children.

Precisely. 💯

I doubt it. People look after their parents at home for their benefit and quality of life. Not many people want to go into a care home. I wouldn’t put my parents in one if I could avoid it, regardless of whether or not it was free.

That isn’t a problem of the triple lock, it’s an advantage! Considering how paltry the state pension is, why shouldn’t it be given a boost? Pensioners are on a fixed income, no overtime or bonuses. Even on the highest of the three, the rise isn’t that much!

Then they have to accept higher taxation on their "considerable assets".

People thought that with Blair/Brown, and look how that ended up!

Definitely agree you can't have treatment linked to age.

I'm still in awe of the 90 year old who holds the world record for his age bracket for doing a 10k on the Cumberauld 10k, 1hr 4min.

He beat bowel cancer 20 years ago.

Those considerable assets they look a lifetime to amass, and hoped to pass on to their family.

I think the issue will always be that some people haven't contributed at all or not nearly enough for their social care and the burden falls disproportionately on those that have already contributed the most. At what point do people reap what they sow? It feels in this country that we go to great lengths to insulate everyone from the consequences of their choices and then force other people to fund this. That's why resentment and disquiet grows and I think it's understandable.

Yes, there will always be examples where people are genuinely too disabled to work or they are in low paid but essential jobs but there are also lots of cases where people are actively choosing not to contribute or go minimise their contribution. Work 16 hours to remove the benefit cap. Actively don't take on a promotion or extra responsibility. Purposely don't save for a pension because they like travelling and want to enjoy themselves. These are all examples of people I know. These people are very happy to take more and more from the system and will never pay in enough to pay for their care needs.

They’re not there for passing on to their family. They should be to protect them in old age if necessary.