Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Si1

"baby Boomers 'must Pay For Their Own Elderly Care'" Says Govt Advisor

Recommended Posts

Ah you beat me to this. But yes the idea that boomers should pay for their own care is correct.

Interestingly isn't fascinating how policy can impact prices in some sectors. This will presumably reduce the funds (ie less public funding) into the care sector and therefore will presumably lower prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems fair enough to me, and I speak as an early baby-boomer (i.e. the immediate post-war bulge). Either

1.you have no children, in which case you cash in your house to pay for care, or

2. you do have children, in which case they have the choice of looking after you & collecting the inheritance or putting you in a home and not collecting.

If one child does all the caring, they collect the loot. (Though this might be difficult to square with EU pressure to get the UK to change to enforced inheritance laws....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Experts predict that by 2026, the long term care and support system will have a funding shortfall of £6 billion without urgent reforms.

Roughly = to the bankster bonus theft.

Simple solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disgraceful.

the baby boomer's are god's chosen generation.

the fact that a few food items were still being rationed for the first couple of their lives means that they fully shared in the sacrifices made by their grandparents/parents in the trenches of Belgium & at Dunkirk.

the fact that they can operate certain features of a mobile phone means that they're fully down the with the kids & culturally savvy.

they are a generational sweetspot.

tax the feckless gen X/Y's ipods & whatnot to pay for the boomer's retirement, I say. selling pwoperdee is out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disgraceful.

the baby boomer's are god's chosen generation.

the fact that a few food items were still being rationed for the first couple of their lives means that they fully shared in the sacrifices made by their grandparents/parents in the trenches of Belgium & at Dunkirk.

the fact that they can operate certain features of a mobile phone means that they're fully down the with the kids & culturally savvy.

they are a generational sweetspot.

tax the feckless gen X/Y's ipods & whatnot to pay for the boomer's retirement, I say. selling pwoperdee is out of the question.

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disgraceful.

the baby boomer's are god's chosen generation.

the fact that a few food items were still being rationed for the first couple of their lives means that they fully shared in the sacrifices made by their grandparents/parents in the trenches of Belgium & at Dunkirk.

the fact that they can operate certain features of a mobile phone means that they're fully down the with the kids & culturally savvy.

they are a generational sweetspot.

tax the feckless gen X/Y's ipods & whatnot to pay for the boomer's retirement, I say. selling pwoperdee is out of the question.

PMSL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Any fantasy about 100% universal state provision – forget it,” Lord Warner, 70, told a conference in London organised by the think-tank, Reform.

“The issue that is knocking around, because it is such a big chunk of potential resource, is the money that's locked up in fixed assets in terms of people's houses,” he said.

“We are living through, and I am part of, a generation which, frankly, has done pretty well for itself in terms of its ability to build up assets.” But the need to ensure “intergenerational fairness” means that pensioners should not expect to rely on their children for financial support.

“As this ageing population emerges, the working population is shrinking. My kids regularly remind me that it's not for them to keep me in the style to which I have become accustomed.

Laughable really.

The chances that Lord Warner will ever need his kids " to keep me in the style to which I have become accustomed" is so remote as to be ridiculous. Now that's not to say that he might not benefit from their care and attention in his old age but as for financial support well that's got to be a :lol::lol::lol:

His own situation isn't a very good example to justify any policy agenda for any significant mass of the UK population. How the insurance companies must all guffaw in private at his gall and at the money they will all rip off people of all ages in the decades to come as they age.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say. selling pwoperdee is out of the question.

The Silent Generation have already tumbled it. ;)

Sign over the property to the children ( Baby Boomers ) while still having their marbles, problem sorted, the inheritance is protected and the Local Authority pay the bill. That burk of an adviser should have buttomed his lip. How much do these fools get paid. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tax the feckless gen X/Y's ipods & whatnot to pay for the boomer's retirement, I say. selling pwoperdee is out of the question.

Oh, they can sell some, all those BTLs they bought for their retirement. If the ungrateful little blighters won't buy them at their full inflated worth make the amount up by taxing it out of them instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a saying and I have witnessed it many times.

THE CARER GOES FIRST. :(

Please expand - I googled, but nothing showed up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please expand - I googled, but nothing showed up?

The strain of caring for an elderly relative probably suffering dementia and all the other age related problems is so stressful and is literally a 24 hour job which eventually leads to a serious decline in the health of the carer.

My family had to deal with it for a year before the relative went into a care home self funding from their savings ( No Property ).

The carers health declined and has not recovered leading to their life span being diminished by many years.

It can effect the pleasure of their retirement having spent 50 years working and then unable to relax and enjoy their own retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice that public backers of this viewpoint are very well-heeled individuals (Lord Lipsey comes to mind) who, if unfortunate enough to need this form of care in their old age, will likely be able to meet the costs comfortably from retirement income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half-good.

Yes, taxpayer-funded care for rich pensioners is unsustainable beyond a certain level.

That applies right now. Today's old folks - the boomers' parents - are getting a better pension deal than their children can hope for. Their assets shouldn't be ringfenced if they need expensive end-of-life care. Children who take responsibility for caring should stand to inherit, those who don't, shouldn't.

Delaying it to hit a future generation of geriatrics is just kicking the ball into the long grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions are though:

How can it possibly cost 25Kpa ++ to keep someone in care? espec when the staff are Phillipino's on half min wage or Poles on min wage? This scam should be sorted first before any other decision taken.

Is this another scam to deplete the working (ie all you that believe you are middle class) class of everything they have saved in their lives? Hence many 'middle' class gen x y or the next one will inherrit nothing (like all the baby boomers I know) thus putting you neatly back in your place.

Care could if administered correctly with no scamsters in the process cost no more than 10K pa, after all the living wage called the dole is only around 3Kpa. (I would say many of these aged care providers are no better than bankers)

Oh and by the way, as it stands, the last one standing does have to sell their house for care, already.

Edited by steve99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roughly = to the bankster bonus theft.

Simple solution.

You beat me too it!

It's precisely why there's no money left for the usual things! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, I don't want to stand in the way of a good boomer-bashing, but how is the basic problem of demographics fixable? It doesn't matter what funding they have - too many old people and not enough young people means caring for them all in old age is always going to be problematic. If they have more funds, these will just inflate the cost of care.

The other thing that slightly foxes me is that, technically, I'm a (late) boomer, and my mum is a pre-boomer, yet she's the one who leads the (retired) boomer lifestyle, whereas I look like having a much less secure retirement, if any...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, I don't want to stand in the way of a good boomer-bashing, but how is the basic problem of demographics fixable?

Not "fixable" at all. A lot of countries have a "surplus" of young people, many have a "surplus" of elderly!

Just happens! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people cant wait to get into a home. To be a complete burden on society. To have dozens of people rushing to the hospital every time they take a turn for the worse to be with them. To have poorly paid foreign workers wiping their butts. In other words its all about them.

In generations past elderly people did not want to be a burden on society.. and when they hit say 85 and really were declining, they basically killed themselves, as they coudn't stand being a burden. Their pride was too much for that. Grandma slipped and fell off a brutal cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Japan, where they have a great elderly population they are working robots and automated care for the masses. This is the furture. Some elderly are still working in their 80s in McDonalds, after their economic bubble burst over 20 yearsago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when they hit say 85 and really were declining, they basically killed themselves

Yes, and they kept onions on their belts, but then Michael York and Jenny Agutter saved them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice that public backers of this viewpoint are very well-heeled individuals (Lord Lipsey comes to mind) who, if unfortunate enough to need this form of care in their old age, will likely be able to meet the costs comfortably from retirement income?

There is another slight flaw in this plan, isn't he assuming property values won't collapse? If a nice £300k house suddenly collapses in value to say £100k, there might not be enough "wealth" left to pay for the care especially if it's a couple.

It's just another way the rich can ensure everyone else dies penny less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.