Knife in the back for pensioners..

fretmeister

hywelg said:

fretmeister said:

They have paid National Insurance for 40+ years at that point. So they have paid for that care.

Myth.

So you paid some tax. And you think that entitles you to £2k a week in nursing home fees? For how long? For how many people? Everyone?

Nuts. Current taxation pays for current expenditure. Barely.

But I also said I'd support an increase in NI.

The point is jo public was repeatedly informed that NI would cover it. But because it's govt policy and not a bank you can't have a mis -selling claim for the porkies.

guitarfishbay

digitalscream said:

Teetonetal said:

I absolutely think that people should pay for their own care until the money runs out. But also that the children should not pickup the cost.

By definition, that means the children are picking up the tab in the form of losing their inheritance.

Either way, we're heading for something that's never happened before; pretty soon, there'll be a generation in which the vast majority inherit nothing of value from their parents, because the house itself has been spent on care (and more people need care than ever before). That's going to be an interesting time.

People die of all kinds of things, in many scenarios the care is paid for just by circumstance.  A person could spend months in hospital and die there, there would be no bill.

Fretwired

fretmeister said:

But I also said I'd support an increase in NI.

The point is jo public was repeatedly informed that NI would cover it. But because it's govt policy and not a bank you can't have a mis -selling claim for the porkies.

People are living longer, there are new drugs and treatments - this is only going to get worse. The number of people reaching 100 is increasing. That means the current 100 year olds have been funded in terms of pension for 35 years.

The time is coming when the state is going to have to say if you have a decent job and assets we are not going to look after you. Get your own pension and save for old age (obviously the NHS is still free to all). The state pension will start to be withdrawn from the better off within my lifetime.

mart

Voxman said:

...
Fair? IHT is nothing less than legalised Government thuggery and it should be stopped completely for ordinary people and reserved only for literally the mega-wealthy.  
...

Do "ordinary people" typically leave an estate worth a third of a million? Or two thirds of a million if they're married? I suspect a lot of people would class that as mega-wealthy.

The current IHT thresholds seem pretty generous to me.And I speak as someone on the receiving end of an inheritance that is above the threshold. I really feel I should be paying more, much more.

FX_Munkee

On the plus side I can tell Mrs Munkee that it is now financially responsible to buy that Ferrari with my savings.

hywelg

fretmeister said:

The point is jo public was repeatedly informed that NI would cover it.

I don't know how old you are , I'm 63 and I have NEVER heard that my NI is to cover my pension and old age healthcare. Its not even hypothecated for current expenditure, never mind for 40 years ahead. Never has been.

Its absolutely nothing to do with health or insurance or pensions. Its a plain ole simple tax that gets spent on roads, the military, local government etc etc.

I believe the triple lock is wrong, especially with how the pension has gone up in the last few years. Pensioners should think themselves lucky  to get a double lock (incomes or inflation) . And the winter fuel allowance should be means tested. Along with prescription/dental charges and eye tests.

Legionreturns

digitalscream said:
Fuck the care companies and residential homes; very few of the staff are properly qualified to do their jobs (even the seniors, who're legally allowed to dispense medication!), and even less give a shit about the people in their care.

Perhaps the problem stems from the fact that care workers are among the lowest paid in the country. I challenge you to spend your days elbow deep in human shit, using your own car, only being paid for the time that you are actually supposed to be with the client (as opposed to the actual time you're there if you actually want to achieve any kind of help). When you've finished contemplating that, factor in that you'll get between £7.65 and £8.50 per hour. 

Perhaps the reason some of our care workers appear not to give a shit is this?

If nursing care is so expensive...where is all the money going? It certainly isn't the workers.

digitalscream

Legionreturns said:

digitalscream said:
Fuck the care companies and residential homes; very few of the staff are properly qualified to do their jobs (even the seniors, who're legally allowed to dispense medication!), and even less give a shit about the people in their care.

Perhaps the problem stems from the fact that care workers are among the lowest paid in the country. I challenge you to spend your days elbow deep in human shit, using your own car, only being paid for the time that you are actually supposed to be with the client (as opposed to the actual time you're there if you actually want to achieve any kind of help). When you've finished contemplating that, factor in that you'll get between £7.65 and £8.50 per hour. 

Perhaps the reason some of our care workers appear not to give a shit is this?

If nursing care is so expensive...where is all the money going? It certainly isn't the workers.

If you read the rest of my comment instead of cherry-picking so you can be angry, I mentioned exactly that. You might've missed the part where my wife has been doing this for 7 years (having worked her way up from the bottom), so I know exactly what goes on in these place and how much they're paid.

However, that only counts for the basic carers. The seniors are usually on £10-12+ (usually £17k - £20k - less than the national average, but still a decent wage) and have had all of their training paid for, yet still don't give a shit and make such frightening errors as a result that I'm amazed they don't kill more people.

As for where the money is going...it's certainly not making anyone rich. A large chunk, for example, goes towards legal fees and liability insurance...because of everything I said earlier.

Community care isn't actually as expensive as residential, because residential homes need a lot of facilities (proper secure units for dementia patients, security for drugs, well-above-the-norm medical facilities etc). By definition, it also requires a relatively top-heavy structure and lot of external monitoring, because the barrier to entry is so low; at its lowest levels, social care is unskilled work, but the consequences of getting it wrong are so high that you need a lot of managers and supervisors.

Legionreturns

digitalscream said:

If you read the rest of my comment instead of cherry-picking so you can be angry, I mentioned exactly that.

I did read the rest of your comment, and certainly didn't mean to come off as angry. At least, not at you! My apologies.

I'm not a care worker, but I know a fair few and work in a similarly paid industry. I'm a specialist teaching support worker in a school that only accepts children referred by the local authority. They all have violent tendencies and massive emotional, social and mental health problems. I face real risk of serious harm every day and a constant barrage of abuse both verbal and physical. 

I guess the point I was making (badly as it turns out!) is that people who do care work, our indeed my job, are seriously undervalued. There are very few people who CAN do these jobs competently, and even fewer that are willing to especially given the pay scales. The consequence of this is that the roles often end up going totally unsuitable people because there are not enough good ones to go round. 

In a previous career (feels like a previous life now!) I was extremely well paid for doing a box ticking management role for a large multinational. Was I doing a harder job? Absolutely not. Was I worth 5 times my current salary? Not in a million years. This is the problem with the way care giving type roles are undervalued in our society. 

ThePrettyDamned

digitalscream said:

Teetonetal said:

I absolutely think that people should pay for their own care until the money runs out. But also that the children should not pickup the cost.

By definition, that means the children are picking up the tab in the form of losing their inheritance.

Either way, we're heading for something that's never happened before; pretty soon, there'll be a generation in which the vast majority inherit nothing of value from their parents, because the house itself has been spent on care (and more people need care than ever before). That's going to be an interesting time.

For what it's worth, there seems to be a shift in the care industry from residential homes to care-in-the-community according to my wife (she's worked in the care industry for 7 years or so now). The weird part of that is that in 90% of cases, it would actually be better for the staff and cheaper for the elderly to hire somebody themselves. That way, those being cared for get somebody (or a couple of people) consistent who's invested in them, and the staff themselves get to avoid all the bullshit that comes with zero-hour contracts, minimum wage (which their employer usually has to make up to the National Living Wage because they're so tight on what constitutes "work") and the like.

If my wife or I ever need care, that's exactly what we're going to do. Fuck the care companies and residential homes; very few of the staff are properly qualified to do their jobs (even the seniors, who're legally allowed to dispense medication!), and even less give a shit about the people in their care.

I was accused of not caring a lot while I worked in healthcare. Not just by patients and families, but by the media.

Eventually, you start to believe it. 

digitalscream

Legionreturns said:

digitalscream said:

If you read the rest of my comment instead of cherry-picking so you can be angry, I mentioned exactly that.

I did read the rest of your comment, and certainly didn't mean to come off as angry. At least, not at you! I'm not a care worker, bit I know a fair few and work in a similarly paid industry. I'm a specialist teaching support worker in a school that only accepts children referred by the local authority. They all have violent tendencies and massive emotional, social and mental health problems. I face real risk of serious harm every day and a constant barrage of abuse both verbal and physical. 

I guess the point I was making (badly as it turns out!) is that people who do care work, our indeed my job, are seriously undervalued. There are very few people who CAN do these jobs competently, and even fewer that are willing to especially given the pay scales. The consequence of this is that the roles often end up going totally unsuitable people because there are not enough good ones to go round. 

In a previous career (feels like a previous life now!) I was extremely well paid for doing a box ticking management role for a large multinational. Was I doing a harder job? Absolutely not. Was I worth 5 times my current salary? Not in a million years. This is the problem with the way care giving type roles are undervalued in our society. 

Fair enough

It's a shit job, particularly the way it's set out now, and involves a massive amount of risk. My wife, for example, used to come home black and blue - she worked in a secure dementia unit where there were a number of violent residents - including a retired boxer. She actually had to go to hospital a couple of times.

The company she currently works at is probably worse than any of the ones she's been in, doing community care (although she's a coordinator now). As an aside, it's the only industry I've ever encountered where people can regularly ring up in the morning and say "Yeah, I'm not doing any work today" for no reason and still have a job, yet the companies don't seem to understand that they could get rid of whole levels of management if they start giving the carers proper employment contracts.

Fretwired

Care home provision should be part of the NHS.

ThePrettyDamned

digitalscream said:

Legionreturns said:

digitalscream said:

If you read the rest of my comment instead of cherry-picking so you can be angry, I mentioned exactly that.

I did read the rest of your comment, and certainly didn't mean to come off as angry. At least, not at you! I'm not a care worker, bit I know a fair few and work in a similarly paid industry. I'm a specialist teaching support worker in a school that only accepts children referred by the local authority. They all have violent tendencies and massive emotional, social and mental health problems. I face real risk of serious harm every day and a constant barrage of abuse both verbal and physical. 

I guess the point I was making (badly as it turns out!) is that people who do care work, our indeed my job, are seriously undervalued. There are very few people who CAN do these jobs competently, and even fewer that are willing to especially given the pay scales. The consequence of this is that the roles often end up going totally unsuitable people because there are not enough good ones to go round. 

In a previous career (feels like a previous life now!) I was extremely well paid for doing a box ticking management role for a large multinational. Was I doing a harder job? Absolutely not. Was I worth 5 times my current salary? Not in a million years. This is the problem with the way care giving type roles are undervalued in our society. 

Fair enough

It's a shit job, particularly the way it's set out now, and involves a massive amount of risk. My wife, for example, used to come home black and blue - she worked in a secure dementia unit where there were a number of violent residents - including a retired boxer. She actually had to go to hospital a couple of times.

The company she currently works at is probably worse than any of the ones she's been in, doing community care (although she's a coordinator now). As an aside, it's the only industry I've ever encountered where people can regularly ring up in the morning and say "Yeah, I'm not doing any work today" for no reason and still have a job, yet the companies don't seem to understand that they could get rid of whole levels of management if they start giving the carers proper employment contracts.

She's brave - I had been sent to a+e before a couple of times. 

That wasn't what got me out, though. It was the general lack of compassion for my struggles from higher ups. I really did feel unappreciated - I don't share too many stories, because they're pretty inappropriate, but your wife will have plenty. 

The government needs to realise how fucking hard it is. I'd suggest starting by forcing Jeremy Hunt to train for 2 weeks then work in a dementia unit or major neuro trauma unit for 3 days a week. Which is actually full time hours in a lot of other jobs. 

That'll learn him. Plus he'll do something worthwhile by cleaning bums and getting punched to protect another patient, versus his current job  

guitarfishbay

Fretwired said:

Care home provision should be part of the NHS.

This is my belief too.

I don't know how best to fund it. But I do believe it should be available to all at an acceptable level.

quarky

Voxman said:

quarky said:

Or is it? Is it really fair that as people get older, they can pass on their £500,000 house to their kids and expect the state to pick up the cost of their care? I must admit, that doesn't seem right to me.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tories-to-cut-winter-fuel-payments-for-wealthiest-pensioners-as-they-launch-manifesto/ar-BBBfr2Z?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

You want to talk about fair?

Is it fair that someone who has already paid tax on EVERYTHING throughout their lives:

1. Income tax on their earnings and their pension and their savings (when interest used to be paid!)
2. Capital gains tax on any asset that they have acquired and sold at a profit
3. Corporation tax on the profits of any business they built up
4. VAT on goods & services purchased throughout their lifetime
5. Car duty, road fund licence, TV licence (all taxes by another name), P11D on company benefits, etc etc
6. National Insurance (just another form of tax)
7. Council tax
8. Umpteen duties (ie tax) Cigarette, alcohol, petrol duty, airline duty, Excise duty
9. Insurance premium tax
10. Stamp duty


That when they try to pass down to their children whatever is left their children are mugged blind by the government to the tune of another 40% of their assets (less a modest and inadequate 'allowance' that has not kept pace with inflation let alone rising property prices, esp in London).  This is a tax applied after all the above taxes have already been paid!! 

Fair? IHT is nothing less than legalised Government thuggery and it should be stopped completely for ordinary people and reserved only for literally the mega-wealthy.  

So no, people shouldn't have to pay for their care - the government already took their money throughout their lives on everything they had. They spent the tax unwisely and now expect people to pay all over again. 

And as for the NHS - the ratio of managers/administrators to trained medical staff is 4:1!  Its one of the most corrupt systems in the world, and if you want to save billions even reducing that ratio to 3:1 will solve NHS funding problems overnight. 

I had to pay for my mothers care and on a modest estate my sister and I had to pay some £114,000 of IHT and we had to pay it in advance before selling her home.  Don't talk to me about fair!

That is the point. They paid tax throughout their lives, and are not being taxed again. **The kids** are being taxed when the receive it. So, yes, I think inheritance tax is perfectly fair at a fundamental level. Why should the money that I earn through hard work be taxed to buggery, but some kid gets a boatload form a family member and doesn't have to pay tax on it?? That would be blatantly UNFAIR. So the real question is around a fair level. £325k (or whatever it is) is a staggering amount of income to receive without paying tax on it. What I would change, is calculate the tax per recipient, although I can see the problems and potential for abuse with this.

guitarfishbay

quarky said:

That is the point. They paid tax throughout their lives, and are not being taxed again. **The kids** are being taxed when the receive it. So, yes, I think inheritance tax is perfectly fair at a fundamental level. Why should the money that I earn through hard work be taxed to buggery, but some kid gets a boatload form a family member and doesn't have to pay tax on it?? That would be blatantly UNFAIR. So the real question is around a fair level. £325k (or whatever it is) is a staggering amount of income to receive without paying tax on it. What I would change, is calculate the tax per recipient, although I can see the problems and potential for abuse with this.

Let's say you have parent A, and their goal in life is to provide for kid B.  Once they've made enough for themselves they want to give the rest to kid B.  Are you fundamentally opposed to them being able to do this in life?  If no - what's the difference in death?

Remove the emotive aspects of 'one big lump sum at once'... if you fundamentally believe inheritance tax is fair then surely you also believe you should not be able to transfer money between family members in life without it being taxed.  Because to me it's the same transaction, wealth from one person passing to another, by the wishes of the giver.  To believe in one and not the other would be inconsistent.

Let's be honest.  Rich people aren't paying this tax unless something goes wrong.  Anyone who has proper wealth can dodge it, save for unplanned events.  There was a thread about house prices and one member commented his family home was worth a substantial sum.  I obviously wish his family a long and healthy life, but I'd also place a bet that unless there's an unforeseen event that the home won't be subject to inheritance tax.

Personally I would raise the inheritance tax threshold and then have no exemptions.  Right now it's a politics of jealousy tax that only the unfortunate will pay.  I'd rather focus on effective taxation as money is earned.  I think once you have money if you want to give it away to someone else that should be up to you.

Nitefly

I wonder what will happen in the case of married couples, where one partner requires care home care, but the other does not - how will they apportion the value of the home?

quarky

guitarfishbay said:

quarky said:

That is the point. They paid tax throughout their lives, and are not being taxed again. **The kids** are being taxed when the receive it. So, yes, I think inheritance tax is perfectly fair at a fundamental level. Why should the money that I earn through hard work be taxed to buggery, but some kid gets a boatload form a family member and doesn't have to pay tax on it?? That would be blatantly UNFAIR. So the real question is around a fair level. £325k (or whatever it is) is a staggering amount of income to receive without paying tax on it. What I would change, is calculate the tax per recipient, although I can see the problems and potential for abuse with this.

Let's say you have parent A, and their goal in life is to provide for kid B.  Once they've made enough for themselves they want to give the rest to kid B.  Are you fundamentally opposed to them being able to do this in life?

I think it is great that parents want to do the best for their kids. I do. I hope ALL parents do. A couple of things though, I don't believe that giving kids a massive cash injection is the best thing for them (there are plenty of books about this), and I want to give something to my kids, sure (I would hope I can give them something for them to have some form of passive income, even if it is only a few £k/year), but I also firmly believe though that it is fair that the money my kids receive does get taxed. As I said before, it is income to them so why shouldn't it?

 If no - what's the difference in death?

Remove the emotive aspects of 'one big lump sum at once'... if you fundamentally believe inheritance tax is fair then surely you also believe you should not be able to transfer money between family members in life without it being taxed.  Because to me it's the same transaction, wealth from one person passing to another, by the wishes of the giver.  To believe in one and not the other would be inconsistent.

Well, there has to be a practical limit, but yes, if I give my kids £500/month, technically that is income to them and should be declared and taxed. In terms of being practical, the £325k (or £650k!!!! for a couple) is *way* above that practical line.

Let's be honest.  Rich people aren't paying this tax unless something goes wrong.  Anyone who has proper wealth can dodge it, save for unplanned events.  There was a thread about house prices and one member commented his family home was worth a substantial sum.  I obviously wish his family a long and healthy life, but I'd also place a bet that unless there's an unforeseen event that the home won't be subject to inheritance tax.

Yep, which is why they still need to be taxed on income. If someone is rich enough to put their assets into a trust to avoid IHT, then the beneficiary should be taxed on the money they receive. Where it involves property, it should be assed for market rent and they should be taxed on that too.

Personally I would raise the inheritance tax threshold and then have no exemptions.  Right now it's a politics of jealousy tax that only the unfortunate will pay.  I'd rather focus on effective taxation as money is earned.  I think once you have money if you want to give it away to someone else that should be up to you.

Fair enough. I think halving it would be a good start, but I understand where you are coming from. I think we can both agree that avoidance needs to be avoided

guitarfishbay

Fair enough.  Yes to me the year exemption rule leaves who pays the tax down to the health lottery.  That is completely unfair at it's base level. 

Sporky

I do find it quaint that there are people who still think success should be punished with as much tax as possible.