Page 3 | Emergency Budget

Wouldloveanother · 2022-09-23T09:38:18+00:00

What are we all thinking? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62920969 A discussion thread…

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:36

WineLife · 23/09/2022 11:33

So what happens when you’ve spent all your ‘hard earned money’ on your care and you’ve used the money from your property and you’re now the same as the all those ‘Poor People’ who just haven’t worked hard enough during their lives to pay for their own care?! You still need to pay for care.

I’ll tell you what happens, you get offered some shit hole by the council that you wouldn’t want to keep a dog in. Because that’s what happens now and it’s only going to get worse. And you’ll soon be complaining that it isn’t fair as you’ve spent everything you’ve ‘worked so hard for’ and you shouldn’t be treated like the poor people scum!

OR what we could do is find a way to give all our elderly a decent standard of social care which is properly funded which is what the NI increase was supposed to be helping with. Along with increasing provision to reduce bed blocking in hospitals and therefore helping with wait times etc.

Show quote history

But at what cost to the working person? Why should they pay yet more tax towards other people that they can’t afford?

OP posts:

womaninatightspot · 23/09/2022 11:38

I haven't but I just read the wikipedia entry. Hopefully it won't come to that but I honestly despair about where we are going as a society.

LongLivedQueen · 23/09/2022 11:39

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:25

But life isn’t free is it? If you’re a pensioner that has amassed nothing after 40+ years of working life, then how can you expect the same treatment as people who have saved for their retirement?

I said in my post, it should be funded through means testing, but those who contribute above a certain threshold should get more choice in their care to reward them for paying.

There has to be incentives somewhere

Show quote history

But you're advocating for is NO treatment. Nothing at all for the people who amassed no wealth.

Means testing raises no funds. It's just a method of seeing who can pay.

So, again, if you don't to pay for care for old poor people, and they have no money, what do you want to do with them?
Eat them maybe?>

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:40

LongLivedQueen · 23/09/2022 11:39

But you're advocating for is NO treatment. Nothing at all for the people who amassed no wealth.

Means testing raises no funds. It's just a method of seeing who can pay.

So, again, if you don't to pay for care for old poor people, and they have no money, what do you want to do with them?
Eat them maybe?>

Show quote history

I said, they should be paid for by means testing others. But receive a much more basic packaged care in return. I reiterate, life isn’t free

OP posts:

ilovesooty · 23/09/2022 11:42

RippleQueen · 23/09/2022 11:13

Tory bot

Show quote history

No she isn't. It's something she's been consistent about for years, however reprehensible it sounds.

LongLivedQueen · 23/09/2022 11:43

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:40

I said, they should be paid for by means testing others. But receive a much more basic packaged care in return. I reiterate, life isn’t free

Show quote history

Means testing others? Means testing refers to seeing how much money they have and deciding what they may or may not be entitled to.

Means testing others does not pay for anything.

WTF are you wittering about?

WineLife · 23/09/2022 11:43

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:36

But at what cost to the working person? Why should they pay yet more tax towards other people that they can’t afford?

Show quote history

But we were affording it? It was already being deducted and as far as we knew was going to go towards social care. It makes no sense to go back on that. Apart from to make it entirely clear they don’t give a shit about improving standards and provision in social care.

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:45

LongLivedQueen · 23/09/2022 11:43

Means testing others? Means testing refers to seeing how much money they have and deciding what they may or may not be entitled to.

Means testing others does not pay for anything.

WTF are you wittering about?

Show quote history

I can see I’ll have the get the ladybird book of economics out for you.

Ken, Barbara and June all need care. Barbara has worked all her life and paid off her mortgage. She has assets worth £500,000. Same with Ken, but £300,000. June quit work to have kids, lived in social housing, didn’t save any money and now has nothing. Ken and Barbara’s £800,000 will pay for all 3 of them. But Ken and Barbara will have the luxury of choice and much better home. June will receive a basic package without any choice in the matter.

OP posts:

BirmaBrite · 23/09/2022 11:45

@Wouldloveanother But receive a much more basic packaged care in return.

What would the basic package of care include ?

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:46

BirmaBrite · 23/09/2022 11:45

@Wouldloveanother But receive a much more basic packaged care in return.

What would the basic package of care include ?

Basically the difference between an NHS hospital and a private one, it isn’t hard to imagine. Better food, nicer room, better facilities etc.

OP posts:

kistanbul · 23/09/2022 11:46

I do very well out if it financially, but I don’t need the extra cash. I just want to live in a country with clean streets, functioning schools and hospitals and where people live in warm homes with enough to eat.

The tax cut to encourage business investment in machinery etc just seems like a subsidy for Chinese manufacturers.

ancientgran · 23/09/2022 11:47

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:21

There should be a two tier system paid for by means testing. If you’re contributing to your own care above X amount you get a choice of home, better facilities etc. If you’re not contributing you get a basic package without choice.

Show quote history

That is the system now isn't it?

MissyB1 · 23/09/2022 11:51

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:22

Social care isn’t the NHS, the budgets don’t come from the same place. The hike was to pay mainly for social care for the elderly. It’s not the same thing.

Show quote history

Sigh….. ok I will explain to you why it basically is the same thing. Because they are inextricably linked. Investing in social care frees up hospital beds. Both by facilitating discharges and prevention of hospitalisation in the first place. The NHS depends heavily on good social care - and vice versa. One doesn’t function without the other.
Im surprised you have never worked that out. It’s not rocket science.

WineLife · 23/09/2022 11:51

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:45

I can see I’ll have the get the ladybird book of economics out for you.

Ken, Barbara and June all need care. Barbara has worked all her life and paid off her mortgage. She has assets worth £500,000. Same with Ken, but £300,000. June quit work to have kids, lived in social housing, didn’t save any money and now has nothing. Ken and Barbara’s £800,000 will pay for all 3 of them. But Ken and Barbara will have the luxury of choice and much better home. June will receive a basic package without any choice in the matter.

Show quote history

I realise these are example figures but this just illustrates the point. What happens when Ken has spent his £300,000 (in approximately 4 years at £6000 a month) or Barbara after 7 years? Do they get to continue in their luxury care home? Or do they have to go and live with poor old June? now that they can’t afford to pay for any more years of care? Because the council don’t have the funds to pay for the luxury care so they’re not going to do that…how would that work?

Tootiredtoogiveatoss · 23/09/2022 11:51

@Xenia ...I am alright Jack🙄

caringcarer · 23/09/2022 11:52

@SummerBummers they are, everyone is getting a one percent tax cut from 20 to 19 percent.

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:53

ancientgran · 23/09/2022 11:47

That is the system now isn't it?

Show quote history

Nope. And what’s more, they’re slashing what people are expected to pay for their own care next year.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-our-plan-for-health-and-social-care/adult-social-care-charging-reform-further-details

OP posts:

LongLivedQueen · 23/09/2022 11:54

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:45

I can see I’ll have the get the ladybird book of economics out for you.

Ken, Barbara and June all need care. Barbara has worked all her life and paid off her mortgage. She has assets worth £500,000. Same with Ken, but £300,000. June quit work to have kids, lived in social housing, didn’t save any money and now has nothing. Ken and Barbara’s £800,000 will pay for all 3 of them. But Ken and Barbara will have the luxury of choice and much better home. June will receive a basic package without any choice in the matter.

Show quote history

PErhaps you could get a dictionary out first, because that is not at all what means testing is.
Perhaps the word you are looking for is subsidising?

Also, no. It's not Ken and Barbaras responsibilty for pay for June. They already paid their contributions.

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:54

WineLife · 23/09/2022 11:51

I realise these are example figures but this just illustrates the point. What happens when Ken has spent his £300,000 (in approximately 4 years at £6000 a month) or Barbara after 7 years? Do they get to continue in their luxury care home? Or do they have to go and live with poor old June? now that they can’t afford to pay for any more years of care? Because the council don’t have the funds to pay for the luxury care so they’re not going to do that…how would that work?

Show quote history

but it isn’t just those 3 people is it? It’s not a care costs bubble of 3. In reality the umbrella would be made up of thousands of people, so this wouldn’t happen and Ken would stay where he was.

OP posts:

WineLife · 23/09/2022 11:54

ancientgran · 23/09/2022 11:47

That is the system now isn't it?

Show quote history

It very much is the system now. Which means when you’ve spent your money you’re shipped off to the ‘basic’ care home with often terrible substandard facilities etc as that is all the council can afford to fund.

The system is unfair and broken on top of there being not enough places. Which as pp explains, means a knock on effect to hospitals as there is no space for people to move into an appropriate care home causing endless bed blocking and increasing wait times and pressure on the NHS in general.

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:55

LongLivedQueen · 23/09/2022 11:54

PErhaps you could get a dictionary out first, because that is not at all what means testing is.
Perhaps the word you are looking for is subsidising?

Also, no. It's not Ken and Barbaras responsibilty for pay for June. They already paid their contributions.

Show quote history

So who should pay for June?

OP posts:

Lunar270 · 23/09/2022 11:55

As an ex contractor, great news on the IR35 repeal. Some sense at last.

For the rest, I don't see much help for poor people. Removing the additional rate tax is ludicrous.

Kennykenkencat · 23/09/2022 11:56

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:08

I don’t think working people should be subsidising pensioners any further. As a demographic they’re much better off than we are.

Show quote history

They implies everything single person over the age of 66 is somehow loaded.

A few might be but lots are not

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:56

And why poor old June? She’s hardly done a days work in her life.

OP posts:

Original poster

Wouldloveanother · 23/09/2022 11:56

Kennykenkencat · 23/09/2022 11:56

They implies everything single person over the age of 66 is somehow loaded.

A few might be but lots are not

Show quote history

They’re the wealthiest demographic in the country with huge capital tied up in housing.

OP posts: