Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Care for the elderly - should taxpayers fund it to protect inheritances?

126 replies

Upwind · 14/05/2008 08:22

Gordon Brown thinks so:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article3926958.ece

"The Government is proposing that younger workers should fund the care of the elderly through a new form of social insurance or ageing tax; a ?new social care and support system?, offering protection to all, as the Prime Minister put it. Mr Brown added an astonishing thing: ?We can and must look to give people the opportunity and the support to save for their old age in a way that insures them and protects their houses and their inheritance.?

It is amazing that after all the row over the 10p tax grab, and party fury over inheritance tax freebies to the better-off, Mr Brown is banging that drum again. "
------

I think it is disgraceful that a "Labour" government keep transfering wealth from young and poor to old and rich by any means possible. Why should low income workers pay to protect the inheritances of the wealthy?

OP posts:
Uriel · 14/05/2008 08:23

The system should be the same as that already enjoyed in Scotland.

sarah293 · 14/05/2008 08:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheBlonde · 14/05/2008 08:24

why should someone who has worked hard and saved all their life have to pay for care when those who spent all their money get it for free?

southeastastra · 14/05/2008 08:25

agree with uriel

WilfSell · 14/05/2008 08:26

oh upwind, another nasty classic from you. Did all those elderly people not bother paying tax or National Insurance then? What will fund your old age?

Original poster
Upwind · 14/05/2008 08:32

"Well you can't have it both ways: either we all pay, and it's a tax, or the people who need the care pay, and it might eat into their inheritance. Which would be perfectly fair - people reaching retirement age now have done well from the State and the housing market over the years: free university education, generous final-salary pension schemes, rocketing property prices. Today's pensioners will receive more from the welfare state over their lifetime than they paid into it, a balance that is beginning to switch with the baby-boomer generation and will dive into negative equity for the generations following."

-----

The reality is, I don't expect to be able to enjoy a long retirement. Like most people in their twenties in the UK, I can't afford a pension or to own my own home. So we will likely work till we drop and endure poverty in our old age.

I don't want to see that happen for the baby-boomer generation. But most of them are asset rich and I think that, if possible, those assets should be used to pay for their care.

Agree Riven about the NI contributions.

OP posts:
Original poster
Upwind · 14/05/2008 08:37

And WilfSell - please point out how my post is nasty? Or will you just rely on playground taunts?

OP posts:
BrassicaNapusNapobrassica · 14/05/2008 08:43

I think something needs to be done as the current system encourages fecklessness.

HelloBeastie · 14/05/2008 08:52

Whatever system is in place will always have to make provision for the 'feckless'. No government is going to let pensioners starve on the street because they spent their money on holidays and plasma screen TVs while they were working.

BrassicaNapusNapobrassica · 14/05/2008 08:55

Agree. But given that no responsible society is going to let people starve or go without decent housing, isn't it better that everyone pays for that to happen?

HelloBeastie · 14/05/2008 08:56

The NI contributons that we pay today go to pay the pensions of current OAPs.

The idea is that each generation pays the pension of the one above, which works...until people start having fewer children, or living longer after retirement. Or both at the same time. And therein lies the problem.

HelloBeastie · 14/05/2008 08:59

Sorry, X-post.

Original poster
Upwind · 14/05/2008 09:21

"But given that no responsible society is going to let people starve or go without decent housing, isn't it better that everyone pays for that to happen?"

But what if the taxpayers can't provide enough money to provide a high level of social care for the elderly and decent housing for all? Right now there are extraordinarily long waiting lists for social housing in much of the UK and people really are going without decent housing.

Somehow priorities have to be established, though ideally we will have enough resources to provide plenty for everyone!

OP posts:
WilfSell · 14/05/2008 09:23

Baby boomers are asset-rich in the sense that the majority of them own their own homes. But beyond that, there is not huge evidence of massive assets: in fact, on the contrary, boomers are less likely to have pension provision than younger cohorts.

The reality is that wealth begets wealth. Wealthy baby boomers will do OK, but large numbers of them, especially divorced women, will end up poor in retirement.

Your post is nasty because it is selfish and intended to stir up intergenerational conflict.

sarah293 · 14/05/2008 09:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

nailpolish · 14/05/2008 09:26

oh riven that must be a worry for you

WilfSell · 14/05/2008 09:28

It is also mendacious to suggest Labour are solely responsible for transfer of wealth. Boomers who have benefited from housing wealth rises have done so because the Tories in the mid-1980s changed the housing market. The Tories also finished off social housing by selling council houses.

No-one should be forced to sell their home in later life to pay for care: the majority of people needing it will still be in couple relationships and therefore other (than the one who needs care) older peoples' well being will be threatened.

zippitippitoes · 14/05/2008 09:30

for riven that must be a terrifyoing prospect

Original poster
Upwind · 14/05/2008 09:31

Owning your own home is a massive asset - I don't see any reason that inheritances should be protected at the expense of the less well off.

Why is it selfish to think it wrong that care home workers should pay for the social care of wealthy people like Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair? Should these things be taboo and not mentioned?

Intergenerational conflict is stirred up by massive transfers of wealth from young to old. It needs to be discussed because it is not obvious that is sustainable.

OP posts:
cupsoftea · 14/05/2008 09:32

what about the issue of hospice care? - my mum died in a care home from cancer and we have to sell her house (very modest) to pay the huge bill for her stay. she had no real savings having worked with low pay for the nhs all her life.

she didn't qualify for any financial help even though she was at the end stage of cancer, was bed ridden, couldn't eat or drink on her own.

Original poster
Upwind · 14/05/2008 09:36

Riven, I can't begin to imagine how worrying that must be.

WilfSell - Labour, did nothing to improve tenants rights and allowed the social housing sell off to continue. They also established various PFI and other P-- initiatives so that future taxpayers would face the bills.

It makes no logical sense to say that the majority of people needing care will be in couple relationships. Think about it.

OP posts:
cupsoftea · 14/05/2008 09:36

for riven

fiodyl · 14/05/2008 09:38

Why shouldnt people have to sell their houses to pay for their care?

If I owned a house but it was unsuitable for my needs then I would sell it to buy somewhere that is.

I wont ever have my own house because I am paying for other people to have 2 homes

zippitippitoes · 14/05/2008 09:40

life isnt fair

never has been and never will be

hoping for fairness will lead to disappointment

fiodyl · 14/05/2008 09:44

I also thinbk this is less to do with older people not wanting to pay their own way and more to do with their children 'expecting' to inherit a free house