Hospitals critical incidents

[Spottyphonecase24]

I have seen a number of hospital trusts have declared this today. What does this actually mean and how does it affect us? Boris didn’t seem to be bothered by this should we be?

3. Social Care

Any person that needs social care and has assets 100% needs to draw down on those assets to pay for their care.

Again, its not the taxpayers job to subsidise your wealth via your house. Whether your children inherit the house is an emotional argument which has zero basis on the care situation. They can stump up the money for your care if need be, but its not up to the taxpayer to subsidise their inheritance.

The taxpayers should ONLY step in when there are no assets to use (poor or low income), or existing assets have been used up. Thats it.

What about people with assets who can't release them? If DH or I need care the taxpayer will have to step in as our main asset is our home which can't be sold while the other party is living there.

On the basis of the actual financial numbers, the baby boomer cohort will extract far more financial resources from the UK economy vs what they paid in

Likewise younger generations. Probably more so, given the billions and billions in student loans that will never be made back. (Which isn't their fault - it's the consequences of Tony Blair's policy of making people get a piece of paper saying degree before going into the exact same job that people used to take up as a school leaver).

And those claiming 'boomers' - the generation that went out to work at 15 or 16 years old, who grew up with rationing and, for many, outside toilets, and Rachman landlords, didn't pay enough tax. As a pp has pointed out, interest rates were much higher in the past.

The taxpayer funded gold plated pensions that MPs get are not representative of the majority of pensioners.

Well the selling homes to fund care won't work for long. Unless we tackle the public health housing and homelessness emergency. A massive social housing build.

The over 40s are the fastest growing group of private renters.

Smoking and cake is a possible answer. 'Sin' tax revenue, and shorter life expectancy (so won't have to be around to be accused of being a 'burden' for not dying young).

@Tealightsandd

On the basis of the actual financial numbers, the baby boomer cohort will extract far more financial resources from the UK economy vs what they paid in

Likewise younger generations. Probably more so, given the billions and billions in student loans that will never be made back. (Which isn't their fault - it's the consequences of Tony Blair's policy of making people get a piece of paper saying degree before going into the exact same job that people used to take up as a school leaver).

And those claiming 'boomers' - the generation that went out to work at 15 or 16 years old, who grew up with rationing and, for many, outside toilets, and Rachman landlords, didn't pay enough tax. As a pp has pointed out, interest rates were much higher in the past.

The taxpayer funded gold plated pensions that MPs get are not representative of the majority of pensioners.

Most Boomers still alive didn't have outside loos or experience rationing & at worst they were young children when rationing ended.

They had access to free FE, steadier employment, could retire anywhere in europe and work there too, they had the best years of the NHS and of all other public services and yes many professional employed boomers have fantastic pensions, even my Aunt, a council cleaner all her life had an amazing pension.

Every single boomer i know is a bigoted racist, who seemingly hates young people based on how they vote.

Oh, the irony in your sentence “EVERY Boomer Is a bigot…”

Every single boomer i know is a bigoted racist, who seemingly hates young people based on how they vote.

If you're an example of 'young people' I can see why boomers might feel the way the do.

Loads of people around today had outside loos growing up. Rationing went on well into the 50.

The vast majority did not go to FE. Only a tiny percent went to university. Most went straight from school to work at the age of 15 or 16.

The loss of steady employment is the consequence of Tony Blair's (and his heirs) pursuing policies of flooding the market with cheap labour. It's not pensioners fault that he and his heirs supported the enrichment of slum landlords and exploitative labour.

Talking of slum landlords. If you haven't heard of Rachman, look him up. That is how many 'boomers' as you call them lived suffered.

Best of the NHS? People died younger because medicine was less advanced. Bit also, they funded their NHS care. Studies show that smoking taxes more than cover the smoker's care. Plus smokers on average die younger.

Your anedotal aunt doesn't represent all pensioners.

Every single boomer i know is a bigoted racist, who seemingly hates young people based on how they vote.

Nice sweeping statement there... You appear to be blinded by bigoted hate based on anecdotes and wildly inaccurate lacking nuance and context generalisations.

We've lost tax revenues from smokers. Now going all electric the tax revenues from oil will fall going forward. They're going to need new tax sources

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

3. Social Care

Any person that needs social care and has assets 100% needs to draw down on those assets to pay for their care.

Again, its not the taxpayers job to subsidise your wealth via your house. Whether your children inherit the house is an emotional argument which has zero basis on the care situation. They can stump up the money for your care if need be, but its not up to the taxpayer to subsidise their inheritance.

The taxpayers should ONLY step in when there are no assets to use (poor or low income), or existing assets have been used up. Thats it.

What about people with assets who can't release them? If DH or I need care the taxpayer will have to step in as our main asset is our home which can't be sold while the other party is living there.

Your house does not need to be sold while you arr in it.

Equity Release Mortgage (ERM) is the solution to this problem.

You tap into the equity of your home, which then allows you to pay for social care as you age. Its a loan based on the value of your home which has interest. When you both die, the house gets sold for say X, and if the value of the ERM loan is Y, with X > Y, the remaining wealth goes to your inheritors. ERMs aldo have a non-negative equity guarantee in the sense that even if Y > X, you would pay 0. The insurance company would absorb that cost.

In the case of the loan not being sufficient to fund your care, that is when the taxpayer would step in. You would still be in your house as well, because it can only be sold when you both die (the insurer is the one that absorbs the longevity risk).

Also, lets be 100% honest here:

Housing "wealth" has been mostly unearned in the UK. Buying a property and paying off a mortgage is not the same as the property appreciating by 300% over 20 years.

And yes, this massive appreciation in housing wealth has damaged UK society, so its fitting that that increase in unearned wealth (££ Trillions) be used to fund the social care of older individuals.

As for working in Europe. Today's elderly were young adults before we went into the EC as it then was.

By the time the UK joined most were settled here working and raising young families.

Living and working in Europe was always mainly an option only for the minority. You can't raise a family or settle down on the sort of jobs that don't require fluency in the language of the host country. That meant that only people who could speak French or Italian or German well could move there permanently. Or the rich - who could afford to set up their own business or fund themselves. Plus a minority whose companies sent them overseas. Which was always and still is possible.

As for the temporary student type jobs. That went on long before we joined the EC.

I know several 'boomers' who travelled around Europe - and beyond - in the 60s (pre EC times). And no they weren't rich. Grew up on council estates. They left school, went straight into work (including their time spent abroad).

I'm not arguing for or against membership of the EC and EU btw. Unlike many on both sides of the argument I can see the positives and the negatives. My post here is simply to address Alexandra's unpleasant diatribe against the elderly. Which appears to be based on serious ill-informed bigoty and misplaced resentment.

It's not about old vs young.

Stoking division, pitting different groups against each other - age, race, region, etc is an useful tactic of distraction.

Meanwhile, like I say, the billionaires of all ages (including plenty of young) get richer and the inequality gap widens (for all ages).

@BambinaJAS I do know what equity release is, DM did it. Believe me, the loan is very unlikely to fund much care as we live in a one bedroom flat with a short lease!

I don't think "Every single boomer is bigoted and racist"

That is silly. Like most groups they have their fair share of crappy specimens, but you will also meet some pretty decent ones who are acutely aware of the inter-generational problems.

The real problem in the UK is that this cohort of people (60+) is larger than the other cohorts (sub 25), so if they vote Conservative, the Tories will usually win due to FPTP (many Tory strongholds are very high % pensioners in rural areas because young people flee those places. As no jobs or interesting things to do for young folks).

Its also not a matter of "the young not voting", which seems to be a common refrain among the older crowd. They think this way due to a profound lack of education in the aggregate (few boomers actually went to higher education), plus the usual entitlement issues you find among them in the UK.

There is no easy solution for this as long as FPTP exists and the Boomers keep voting the Conservatives in. Whenever this happens, they will keep feeding the boomers more and more resources, in order to retain power to the detriment of the younger folks and society in general.

Brexit/Covid has actually made this problem worse, with the NI increase in April 2022 being a perfect example of another terrible policy.

@justasking111

We've lost tax revenues from smokers. Now going all electric the tax revenues from oil will fall going forward. They're going to need new tax sources

This is a bad argument.

We spend far more in healthcare costs for smokers than any revenue they might bring in (via sin taxes and them dying early and not collecting a pension).

Selling homes to pay for care a good idea? Not really. Quite apart from any emotional argument, it's at best a very short term answer.

Elderly Generation (expensive insecure) private rent is coming sooner than you might think.

The fastest growing group of private renters is the over 40s. Relationship breakdowns, those too ill or disabled to work, and the always low waged.

No homes too sell, no taxpayer funded help to buy lifetime isas (restricted to under 40s). Some will only secure stable housing through inheritance.

Now, people might say, who cares if they don't receive that inheritance. Well then that just adds to the ever growing group of those not only without a home to sell to pay for care, but also increased need for high private rent level of housing benefits into retirement.

What might partially solve the issue (as well as smoking) would be inheritance tax and social care liability based on the wealth (or lack of it) of the recipient.

I can't remember which political party suggested that a while back, but it was a bloody good idea.

We spend far more in healthcare costs for smokers than any revenue they might bring in (via sin taxes and them dying early and not collecting a pension).

Nope.

www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-drinking-save-public-purse-money

They think this way due to a profound lack of education in the aggregate (few boomers actually went to higher education), plus the usual entitlement issues you find among them in the UK.

You really aren't coming across well. You do realise that some young people can be very entitled as well? Give me a boomer with some life experience any day over a millennial who thinks they know it all.

(And yes, I know not all millennials are like that!)

Reading this site many boomers are giving children and grandchildren financial aid, deposit on first property for instance, child minding to help out , grown children still living at home, they may have their political foibles but they do give a helping hand where they can

Yes you're very right @justasking111

The (unpaid) childcare support many older people provide is alone a massive contribution to the national economy.

@justasking111

Reading this site many boomers are giving children and grandchildren financial aid, deposit on first property for instance, child minding to help out , grown children still living at home, they may have their political foibles but they do give a helping hand where they can

While I recognise you think of that as "a good thing", it really isn't.

Dependency like that is never good, and what usually ends up happening is that the life choices of the younger folks get constrained by the views of the older folks, simply because "they are paying or helping".

Want a deposit for a house?

Ok then, we want you to live in our town so we will only help under that condition.

Thats not a "choice". Its dependency

Etc.. etc..

Why the need to attack certain groups, in this case, age?

Tax done purely on income and wealth (including income/wealth of recipient with inheritance tax), is the only fair way to do it.

Some older people are living in poverty. Some young people are billionaires.

Tax focused on age (or region or any other wide and varied group) is not the way to go.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

They think this way due to a profound lack of education in the aggregate (few boomers actually went to higher education), plus the usual entitlement issues you find among them in the UK.

You really aren't coming across well. You do realise that some young people can be very entitled as well? Give me a boomer with some life experience any day over a millennial who thinks they know it all.

(And yes, I know not all millennials are like that!)

I specifically stated higher education in my post.

Which is 100% correct.

10% of Boomers went to University.

50% of millenials do so now

And yes, this matters when it comes to critical thinking skills.

There are many studies on this. The older boomers are much more susceptible to media and social media manipulation because of that difference (which is one of the drivers).

I think it's best to ignore Bambino at this stage. She is persisting in making wild unsubstantiated (aside from a couple of personal anecdotes) allegations about older people. Coupled with a hefty side order of bigoted ill informed sweeping generalisations.

@Tealightsandd

I think it's best to ignore Bambino at this stage. She is persisting in making wild unsubstantiated (aside from a couple of personal anecdotes) allegations about older people. Coupled with a hefty side order of bigoted ill informed sweeping generalisations.

Agreed

I'm going to @Tealightsandd. I'm neither a boomer or a millennial (I'm not sure what's in between) and didn't go to university so neither of these apply to me but I just can't stand sweeping generalisations, especially when they're a load of crap.