The Spaniard Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Roughly = to the bankster bonus theft. Simple solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. Just to put a little balance on it. They paid for the health service that enabled you to enter the world for free and they paid for the education systems, including basically free university. So they were not all bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. If you think about it logically, that's just over £68 a day - a good deal less than many hotels that might chuck in breakfast, but don't chuck in all other meals, laundry, 24 hour care and supervision, and very high heating bills. And which are probably also employing staff on relatively low wages. My mother's home (specialist dementia) costs £44K+ a year - and it's not one of those run by greedy chains only interested in raking in money. You have to take into account the very high staff/inmate ratio that's needed when people need constant watching and physical help. My mother's completely self-funded. We had to pay out a very hefty chunk of her assets (by no means huge) to buy an annuity to cover the difference between her income (£12K-ish) and the fees. But I don't begrudge a penny of it. Trying to look after someone with dementia one-to-one at home - yes, I have done it for months on end - means giving up your entire life, day and night, and will almost certainly turn you into an exhausted, nerve-screaming wreck. Nobody who hasn't done it can possibly imagine the difficulties, the strains, or the amount of superhuman patience required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffneck Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 The sad thing is , they will still have it far better than the generations below them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buccaneer Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. . Simple solution Instead of suffering poor quality care at extortionate rates in rip off Britain move to the Phillipines and purchase top quality care at local rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. The high price is probably mostly the the price of the accommodation, Ironically, the same corrosive force that makes boomer houses worth a small fortune. Of course, sitting on a house so you can charge a small extortion for a pile of bricks, isn't scamming anyone, but offering an elderly care service is. 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) People should work to provide care 3k a year? How are they going to afford the boomer houses ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Think Mrs. Bear is right, even £44k a year seems cheap when I think about all the skilled staff the facility must need 24/7. Considering the median income in Britain is something like £22k a year, it seems unaffordable for our society to do en masse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 Just to put a little balance on it. They paid for the health service that enabled you to enter the world for free and they paid for the education systems, including basically free university. So they were not all bad. no they didn't; that was their parents generation. Statistically boomers have taken out far more than they ever paid in tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. I have seen this happen.....caring is very stressful 24 hour job, many are doing it now all over the country. But I do say if you have money or assets and require paid help you should pay for it....you can't take it with you.....as for children and inheritance, it is up to them to make something of their own lives, using their own resources.....that is what many have had to do, work for what they have got, not given a leg up from a dead wealthy relative, while the rest of us have had to pay for their care costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzy Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Simple solution Instead of suffering poor quality care at extortionate rates in rip off Britain move to the Phillipines and purchase top quality care at local rates. Or relax the immigration laws for Phillipinos who want to come and work as live-in carers. Being cared for in your own home has to have some advantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. AND we have a need for immigrant care workers! Why? Because we have fostered a generation who would rather sit on the dole for the money than do a job. There's a lot of issues to solve in the UK... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Or relax the immigration laws for Phillipinos who want to come and work as live-in carers. Being cared for in your own home has to have some advantages. In theory, yes, but can work out even more expensive. Nobody can (or wants to) do that sort of work 24/7 for months on end, which means several staff in shifts, which is almost certainly going to mean an agency, which means their cut on top. And a lot of people who need constant care will need 2 people to lift them. Plus you have all the costs of running a house, food, heating, etc. on top. This sort of care is only really viable if the person has a large income and doesn't have dementia. Anyone demented is liable to be very difficult even with familiar faces, let alone anyone new coming in for the weekend or night shift. Edit: just worked out that even if you were only paying £7 an hour, 24/7 (probably far more) total cost per year would be £61,320. Plus house-running bills on top. We explored this option in the past with 2 relatives, one with dementia but physically OK - one with her marbles but very immobile. Sums never did add up. Edited February 16, 2011 by Mrs Bear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 The high price is probably mostly the the price of the accommodation, Ironically, the same corrosive force that makes boomer houses worth a small fortune. Of course, sitting on a house so you can charge a small extortion for a pile of bricks, isn't scamming anyone, but offering an elderly care service is. wow. good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve99 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) 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. Very few have BTL, 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... This is very much the case, the horse has long bolted on the job-for-life/secure-pension/ happy-retirment/affordable-housing well before most so-called 'boomers' became working adults, there is a massive difference between the world that those born in '45 and those born say in 1960, some good and some bad, this is always the case in history. So called Gen X has had probably the best of it, with higher paid, more interesting jobs and until recently, plenty of work to choose from, along with the cheapest housing since the 60's which they bought in the mid to late 90's. Lots of my age group lost out in the recessions of the 70's, 80's and early 90's and many of our freinds and family lost their houses in the early 90's bust (due entirely to unemployment and illness) and some we know have still not recovered from that, being haunted by the banks for nearly 2 decades. Gen X hasnt felt this yet and has a remarkably long run of prosperity, a bit like the war babys but with more overseas holidays, and a whole bunch of toys to play with, and whats more, they were the first generation not to get the cane at school (teachers in the old days became teachers so that they could psychopathicaly beat kids: fact) 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. You are seriously lucky to be able to keep a job in the UK after the age of 50 never mind get a new one. The sad thing is , they will still have it far better than the generations below them. Who will?? we are 15 years off the first BBers reaching dementia and disablement in large numbers. Long way to go yet, still not finished with the people born in the 1920's and 30's. The big one will be Gen X of course which is the UK's real baby boom, check the population pyramid. The high price is probably mostly the the price of the accommodation, Ironically, the same corrosive force that makes boomer houses worth a small fortune. Of course, sitting on a house so you can charge a small extortion for a pile of bricks, isn't scamming anyone, but offering an elderly care service is. All houses are considerd to be worth a small fortune, you buy it and live in it and then in the long run someone else gets it no matter what the price nor what your thoughts are on it, when you get to 80 with dementia you dont give a monkeys **** People should work to provide care 3k a year? How are they going to afford the boomer houses ? No, I was comparing the issue of what the government believes a person can live on, ie the dole at 3k per year with the cost of old age care in a home. Seems when it comes to anything but benefits there are so many people in the financial chain that we end up with a completely ficticious figure re what something really costs. dito national health etc etc, lots of quangos, administrators etc etc and in the case of private care homes, massive profits to be made at the expense of the inmates (&families etc) Im sure this could be more rationaly worked out. very much like the price of housing, completely artificial values manufactured by vested interests. no they didn't; that was their parents generation. Statistically boomers have taken out far more than they ever paid in tax. ?? this is made up nonsense, the 1950''s and 60's were painfully austere in comparison to the 70's onwards, I would sugest post 70's people have had far more money and resources spent on them, including education believe it or not. Back then only maybe 3% of state educated people went to university, thats why it was free and most were out of school by 16 paying tax. Edited February 16, 2011 by steve99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 Very few have BTL, gen X is a much bigger so called generation, The big one will be Gen X of course which is the UK's real baby boom, check the population pyramid. jeesus chr1st on a bike in UK terms these ARE boomers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_baby_boom#European_and_South-Pacific_trends - "United Kingdom 1946–1974" will people please get their definitions right UK baby boomers (descriptive name) were born from 1946 up to approx 1970 you have confused yourself with the US definition, their boom finished about 1950; ours carried on much longer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouch Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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. This is all so very, very true and I'm glad that someone on this board recognizes the fact that the boomers are indeed innocent of all charges levied against them; there's far too much boomer bashing on this board and it's good to see a pro boomer post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundance_kid Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Isn't all that will happen is whatever arbitrary level of 'assets' the Government sets at the time are, people will simply ensure they will be below that level when the times approaches. This will save nothing, and most likely burden the state further as it will most likely ensure further aspiration to live off the state. 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. What needs to end is the idea of a free lunch but no one has the balls to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlemalt Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Where I live I seem surrounded by retired/retiring boomers. In the morning - me off to work largely to support their solid gold pensions while they swan around and play golf/go on numerous holidays. Who's paying my pension? The government should prise every penny from their cold dead hands. I don't see why my a$$ should pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Excellent thanks. Remarkable how so many intelligent people miss the point. The problem is that we don't have a democracy. If we did and you asked people to vote on whether to pay Bob Diamond and his few thousand chums £6bn a year from public subsidy or funding the entire care bill for the elderly forever, I find it hard to believe a single one (Banksters excluded) would vote for banksters. Sadly, we have a Bankocracy where The Bullingdon Boys will keep handing the subisdy to Bob Diamond forever. They're criminals - all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Isn't all that will happen is whatever arbitrary level of 'assets' the Government sets at the time are, people will simply ensure they will be below that level when the times approaches. No, for three reasons. One, it's not that simple to give money/assets away in advance. Two, a lot of people will never do it anyway because they like to think they'll never need care. And by the time it begins to be obvious that they are going to need it, they won't do it because they're either demented or have become exceedingly tight/suspicous/paranoid in old age, particularly where money's concerned. Three, plenty of people will reason that if they are going to need care, they'd rather choose it themselves than be at the mercy of Social Services, who will just bung them in the first gruesome, wee-smelling home that happens to have a room available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundance_kid Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 No, for three reasons. One, it's not that simple to give money/assets away in advance. Two, a lot of people will never do it anyway because they like to think they'll never need care. And by the time it begins to be obvious that they are going to need it, they won't do it because they're either demented or have become exceedingly tight/suspicous/paranoid in old age, particularly where money's concerned. Three, plenty of people will reason that if they are going to need care, they'd rather choose it themselves than be at the mercy of Social Services, who will just bung them in the first gruesome, wee-smelling home that happens to have a room available. Aren't you forgetting that the glut of the baby boom generation has yet to pass. In a few years time, a gruesome wee-smelling home with a spare room will most likely be the very best the state has to offer you and younger generations will fast recognise that's it's hardly worthy of a life time of working, when you can get the same for nothing. The harder they make it to pass on money/assets, the less the Government will ultimately find there is to take. Your also forgetting the other enormous bulge yet to come of younger people who have no shame to live off the state with not a penny to their name. At least the older generations at present held a greater notion of at least of saving for retirement and to not live off the state. God help us when the welfare dependent bulge retires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opt_out Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundance_kid Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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). Surely the problem though is even if the Government takes back the a boomers wealth/house in their old age, that debt still remains for the 20 year old. Something this Lord fails to answer. Nothing has been solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 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). Yes the politics of divide and rule old vs young, man/woman, black/white, south/north, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun 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. then the cost of care must realign to reflect this, right? It's just another way the rich can ensure everyone else dies penny less. Nah we're all in this together. 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.