dubsie Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. Fine, but how. Mechanics of this don't seem well thought out . You have to pay now if you have savings or property so how do they expect those that don't to pay......where is money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Fine, but how. Mechanics of this don't seem well thought out . You have to pay now if you have savings or property so how do they expect those that don't to pay......where is money. There is no money and there has only been an illusion that there is since about 2000. That is the problem at the root of the situation that we now face. Some either hope or pretend that there is money about : their hopes or pretences will be dashed in the next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedupTeddiBear Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. +1 Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRboomer07 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. Too late, already dun it (sold the family home when kids moved out), but no BTL's to dispose of. From our experience the greedy BTL spivs are in the 30 - 40 age group! Our age group (grey-tops) can still remember the TWO previous property 'corrections' and were not tempted by BTL. Family members in the 30 - 40 age bracket tried to convince us to get into BTL, when we declined we were regarded as losers! However, now having afew £100K tucked away for a rainy day, we could never understand the view that bricks is the only investment. Those BTL spivs that we know are beginning to panic now, and I'm saying nothing to them, me a loser? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Craw Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 You can't just completely remove the supposed benefits of saving and working, if in the end, you're no better off for it. It's just a continuous of the worst type of welfare there is. + (a lot) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeplyblue Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Too late, already dun it (sold the family home when kids moved out), but no BTL's to dispose of. From our experience the greedy BTL spivs are in the 30 - 40 age group! Our age group (grey-tops) can still remember the TWO previous property 'corrections' and were not tempted by BTL. Family members in the 30 - 40 age bracket tried to convince us to get into BTL, when we declined we were regarded as losers! However, now having afew £100K tucked away for a rainy day, we could never understand the view that bricks is the only investment. Those BTL spivs that we know are beginning to panic now, and I'm saying nothing to them, me a loser? I think not. Mind you, when the savings in cash have lost 80% of their value because of inflation, then a property which has only lost 40% of its value may seem like a good investment. db Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermany Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's been obvious for several years that this would be a problem: Demographics: the boomer bulge that created pent up housing demand and HPI will also create in a short time similar competition for health and social resources. Prices of these commodities will rise and availability will fall. Health: Costs of health care are risning much faster than general inflation. These costs will always outstrip taxpayers ability to pay. Rationing is inevitable.......look how keen the government is to devolve responsibility for this onto GPs. They want to pass this particular parcel on within a year of taking office. This should ring alarm bells. Free health care will go the way of free university education. The education bill shows that the goalposts can be moved, and forget the argument about paying taxes for all these years creating an entitlement to the same benefits as last year. The rules have changed and will continue to change. Society: The elderly need more doctors, nurses and carers than the young. The elderly are hanging on to property "wealth"...houses that they don't need. The young need houses to raise families in. They can't afford those houses, but they are capable of working in the health and social sector to take care of the elderly. An equilibrium will be reached to swap housing wealth for social and health care. Economics: Health and social care costs are going up largely because of inflation caused by the older generations "rationing" housing resources. The pursuit of capital growth and the use of housing as an investment has created a shortage of an essential commodity. The younger generation has to pay the price for this but it means that wages and general prices have to rise also.......so the costs of health and social care rise proportionately. We'll get to equilibrium/tipping point where house values fall as care costs rise. The value of one will be used up in paying for the other. The likely solution is a sort of OAP version of the "student loan"- You get health and social care that is costed- and the costs are recovered in full from those who have the ability to pay (plus an extra deduction to subsisize those who can't). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermany Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Mind you, when the savings in cash have lost 80% of their value because of inflation, then a property which has only lost 40% of its value may seem like a good investment. db You do realise that your loss of 40% on property value is in addition to the loss of the currency value caused by inflation. Property needs to gain 6% a year to stand still...........actually a lot more if you add servicing and loan costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRboomer07 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Mind you, when the savings in cash have lost 80% of their value because of inflation, then a property which has only lost 40% of its value may seem like a good investment. db Thanks for that nugget, but I'll stick with my original decision. Plus, having sold up we are very mobile, not attached to any property, and frustrated that we can't sell! Perhaps a camper or narrow boat could be our next 'home', seems to be plenty of choice around at the mo. I do know how lucky we were in '07 (thanks only to knowledge gained from HPC, not the meja). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's been obvious for several years that this would be a problem: Society: The elderly need more doctors, nurses and carers than the young. The elderly are hanging on to property "wealth"...houses that they don't need. Who are you to say what they do or don't need? Just because someone is elderly doesn't mean they don't want a spare room or two for family to stay in, particularly when families are often so scattered. The houses they are 'hanging on to' are usually modest enough but enable eg a son or daughter plus spouse and couple of grandchildren to stay a night or two. For most of those scattered families, hotel bills on a regular basis simply wouldn't be an option. In any case, they all stop 'hanging on' to those houses eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's been obvious for several years that this would be a problem: Demographics: the boomer bulge that created pent up housing demand and HPI will also create in a short time similar competition for health and social resources. Prices of these commodities will rise and availability will fall. Health: Costs of health care are risning much faster than general inflation. These costs will always outstrip taxpayers ability to pay. Rationing is inevitable.......look how keen the government is to devolve responsibility for this onto GPs. They want to pass this particular parcel on within a year of taking office. This should ring alarm bells. Free health care will go the way of free university education. The education bill shows that the goalposts can be moved, and forget the argument about paying taxes for all these years creating an entitlement to the same benefits as last year. The rules have changed and will continue to change. Society: The elderly need more doctors, nurses and carers than the young. The elderly are hanging on to property "wealth"...houses that they don't need. The young need houses to raise families in. They can't afford those houses, but they are capable of working in the health and social sector to take care of the elderly. An equilibrium will be reached to swap housing wealth for social and health care. Economics: Health and social care costs are going up largely because of inflation caused by the older generations "rationing" housing resources. The pursuit of capital growth and the use of housing as an investment has created a shortage of an essential commodity. The younger generation has to pay the price for this but it means that wages and general prices have to rise also.......so the costs of health and social care rise proportionately. We'll get to equilibrium/tipping point where house values fall as care costs rise. The value of one will be used up in paying for the other. The likely solution is a sort of OAP version of the "student loan"- You get health and social care that is costed- and the costs are recovered in full from those who have the ability to pay (plus an extra deduction to subsisize those who can't). The entire debate is totally specious. The maximum shortfall will be £6bn in 2020. Translates to around as little as £25 per head per month or perhaps around 0.005% extra interest rate on an average mortgage (back of envelope). Even without the £6bn paid to worthless scum in the City in bonuses which cover this maximum shortfall it is so easily affordable to all of us to provide this care for all of us that there doesn't even appear to be a 'problem'. Unless of course the government want to provide a valuable and profitable business to their chums in the private insurance business by stealing people's assets by law irrespective of whether we've just had a housing boom or not. i.e. Do you really think that they'll reverse this tax when house prices have fallen? Will they ****. It's a scam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve99 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's been obvious for several years that this would be a problem: Demographics: the boomer bulge that created pent up housing demand and HPI will also create in a short time similar competition for health and social resources. Prices of these commodities will rise and availability will fall. Health: Costs of health care are risning much faster than general inflation. These costs will always outstrip taxpayers ability to pay. Rationing is inevitable.......look how keen the government is to devolve responsibility for this onto GPs. They want to pass this particular parcel on within a year of taking office. This should ring alarm bells. Free health care will go the way of free university education. The education bill shows that the goalposts can be moved, and forget the argument about paying taxes for all these years creating an entitlement to the same benefits as last year. The rules have changed and will continue to change. Society: The elderly need more doctors, nurses and carers than the young. The elderly are hanging on to property "wealth"...houses that they don't need. The young need houses to raise families in. They can't afford those houses, but they are capable of working in the health and social sector to take care of the elderly. An equilibrium will be reached to swap housing wealth for social and health care. Economics: Health and social care costs are going up largely because of inflation caused by the older generations "rationing" housing resources. The pursuit of capital growth and the use of housing as an investment has created a shortage of an essential commodity. The younger generation has to pay the price for this but it means that wages and general prices have to rise also.......so the costs of health and social care rise proportionately. We'll get to equilibrium/tipping point where house values fall as care costs rise. The value of one will be used up in paying for the other. The likely solution is a sort of OAP version of the "student loan"- You get health and social care that is costed- and the costs are recovered in full from those who have the ability to pay (plus an extra deduction to subsisize those who can't). Check my population pyramid graph (again) The UK does not have a Baby boomer population bulge! Its a Gen X bulge, many years to go yet till its a problem and not caused by your nemesis BBers choosing to be born when they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 Check my population pyramid graph (again) The UK does not have a Baby boomer population bulge! Its a Gen X bulge, many years to go yet till its a problem and not caused by your nemesis BBers choosing to be born when they were. please stop using USA definitions! the UK definition: the UK baby boom was 1946 to 1970, they are the baby boomers, they were born in the baby boom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) It's all about perception. A retired 60 year old who worked from 16 to 60 naturally thinks they earned their wealth. A 20 year old facing a national debt of £1 trillion might think the 60yo stole it (from the future). ...the amount quoted should be put in context by quoting the debt as a percentage of GDP ...then it is meaningful ...it also shows how high it was in the 50's to the 70's ....and didn't look that good in the 1800's at the height of Empire..... ....but if you wish to look at the ascent in the last 10 years under Nulabour in £billions...check this....baby boomers only...?.... ...in the top graph you can see rises to fund the British costs in The American War of Independence, Wars around Waterloo and Trafalgar, the steep rise for WW1 and just as it started falling the spike for WW11 ...and the 2002 steep ascent after Twin Towers when hatches were unbolted to boost World /UK trade and further speculation / boom in housing......roll on Mr Brown.... Edited February 20, 2011 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 ...the amount quoted should be put in context by quoting the debt as a percentage of GDP ...then it is meaningful ...it also shows how high it was in the 50's to the 70's ....and didn't look that good in the 1800's at the height of Empire..... ....but if you wish to look at the ascent in the last 10 years under Nulabour in £billions...check this....baby boomers only...?.... ...in the top graph you can see rises to fund the British costs in The American War of Independence, Wars around Waterloo and Trafalgar, the steep rise for WW1 and just as it started falling the spike for WW11 ...and the 2002 steep ascent after Twin Towers when hatches were unbolted to boost World /UK trade and further speculation / boom in housing......roll on Mr Brown.... in simple terms the major peaks followed the Napoleonic Wars and then World Wars 1&2 following the break out of peace after each we saw spectacular global economic growth which made the implications of the war debts much less onerous it is fair to say that, if we go thru the pain of reducing the deficit (vertical ascent of the debt curve) then it will make the current problems quite minor in the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) in simple terms the major peaks followed the Napoleonic Wars and then World Wars 1&2 following the break out of peace after each we saw spectacular global economic growth which made the implications of the war debts much less onerous it is fair to say that, if we go thru the pain of reducing the deficit (vertical ascent of the debt curve) then it will make the current problems quite minor in the long term. ..true....until of course Labour get back in and we go all vertical at an accelerated pace just like the last 10 years.... Edited February 20, 2011 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.