Bbc News

[MarkG]

I think it is a sad indictment of this board when someone gains pleasure from a person having to sell their house to fund care.

Why should people who can't afford to buy a house without taking on excrutiating levels of debt be taxed more to pay for 'free' care for people who have a big house paid off by decades of wage inflation?

It's a sad indictment of a society when rich old farts can use men with guns to steal a large fraction of the income from the young who'll never even see the same benefits themselves. At this rate the future of this country will be old farts living alone or as couples in four-bed houses, government employees passing paper around to pretend to be useful while they wait for their fat pensions, and chavs pumping out violent, illliterate kids in council flats, who make a living robbing the old farts: all the productive people will be gone.

Edited March 30, 2006 by MarkG

[IMupNorth]

i'm a youngun and guess what - i think it's a joke that people think they can just 'live for now' and forget about what will happen when they stop working.

so they have to sell their houses - so what? did it never ever cross their mind that one day they would get old? it happens to everyone (unless you die early) - so surely you should have the presence of mind to prepare for it financially.

if i had my way i would say - no state pension, for anybody

no benefits - for anybody

no social housing - for anybody

the only thing i would keep is free education right through to end of university. at the end of the day, we didn't ask to be born, so everyone should be given the same opportunity to education. maybe tie up education for post 16's with business apprenticeship so it isn't the tax system funding this.

when i went to uni i did so on day release - working the other 4 - my employer therefore paid the fees and i neither sponged off my parents or the state.

build some workhouses, and anyone who doesn't work, chuck 'em in, anyone doesn't like it, put them on a boat and take them somewhere far away.

as to immigration - let nobody in unless they have already been approved to come here. anyone turns up that isn't meant to be here - put them on a boat back to where they came from.

Absolutely spot on analysis - gets my vote for 'Post of The Day'

[RichM]

It's a cruel tax basically, isn't it?

Save, sort yourself out, aim to pass something on, and wham! Gordon screws you for, potentially, hundreds of thousands of pounds. Let's face it, a few years of care for someone with Parkinson's or major stroke can be well expensive.

The social services in this country should be aimed at those who genuinely need help:

• the physically disabled
  
• the severely mentally disabled, e.g. severe schizphrenia, major (and I mean major) depressive episode, etc
  
• those with learning disabilities
  
• those with stroke/Parkinson's/Alzheimers
  
• orphaned/abused kids
  

Instead, we have 2 million people off with "stress" (not necessarily something deserving disability support at all, unlike major depression or schizophrenia), millions of pounds going to chavs having multiple kids, millions going on crappy social engineering projects, advisors, coordinators, etc etc.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

This thread is way to the right of the BNP.

[RichM]

This thread is way to the right of the BNP.

Well, only some posters.

The welfare state was set up with the intention of being a "national insurance" system, wasn't it? Is it unreasonable to expect that people who paid in should benefit?

And the BNP are protectionist socialists anyway, aren't they?

I believe in giving everyone a chance regardless of their race, sex, sexual orientation, age or ethnic group, within a free market economy enriched by privately supported arts, culture, and charitable action.

With me as Lord Chancellor

[MarkG]

Is it unreasonable to expect that people who paid in should benefit?

The welfare state is a ponzi scam: the money they 'paid in' was spent giving benefits to the old farts of their day. Now the old farts today expect the young to 'pay in' money to them when those young taxpayers will never see a penny themselves.

Is it any wonder that we don't want to be the 'greatest fools' at the end of the ponzi scam?

And the BNP are protectionist socialists anyway, aren't they?

The BNP seem to be _way_ to the left of Labour, from what I've seen of their economic policies.

[FreeTrader]

Can I just say that this thread must be one of the most downright nastiest I have read on this board.

What are we saying that it is ok for someone to sit on their **** and do nothing for their entire life and still qualify for a pension and care in their old age whilst those stupid enough to buy a house should be penalised.

These people now requiring care have paid in to the 'system' all their lives funding our hospitals, schools etc (basically funding our births and our schooling).

I think it is a sad indictment of this board when someone gains pleasure from a person having to sell their house to fund care.

Totally agree blake, and I was about to post a similar sentiment until I came across your comment.

This thread openly reveals the petty, spiteful jealousy and maliciousness of some of the posters on this board.

Whatever happened to common decency? Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that HPC is regarded by many as the watering hole of the country's most prolific whinging underachievers.

You know who you are, and you are beneath contempt.

[MarkG]

This thread openly reveals the petty, spiteful jealousy and maliciousness of some of the posters on this board.

The ones who believe they should be able to steal money from today's kids to fund their retirement, you mean?

Whatever happened to common decency?

The 'Me Generation' destroyed that decades ago.

Look, you can whine all you want, but there's a huge war brewing between young and old in the UK over the next couple of decades. Trying to pretend that they're 'selfish' and 'jealous' for not wanting to slave away to pay for free stuff for old farts is not going to change that reality.

But if you want a future where the rich old farts steal from the few productive younger people who haven't emigrated and the chavs steal from the rich old farts, hey, carry one.

Edited March 30, 2006 by MarkG

[CaptainClamp]

This is what demographic war looks like. A nation turning against itself because of an imaginary shortage of resources.

God help us when the real shit hits the fan. Peak oil, that is.

Edited March 30, 2006 by CaptainClamp

[MarkG]

This is what demographic war looks like. A nation turning against itself because of an imaginary shortage of resources.

Bingo. That's exactly what's happening.

Since WWII there has been an implicit bargain between government and people: do what you're told and we'll give you a decent living and lots of free stuff when you're old or out of work or just can't be assed to get up in the morning. Today that bargain is being changed to: give us most of your salary and you'll get nothing and won't even be able to afford to buy a house or have a family.

People with nothing to lose are dangerous to have around, and increasingly the younger generations in the UK have nothing and no prospect of getting it unless their rich parents give them a big wad of cash from MEWing their overpriced house.

[SarahBell]

This is what demographic war looks like. A nation turning against itself because of an imaginary shortage of resources.

God help us when the real shit hits the fan. Peak oil, that is.

Well we can eat old people gently roasting them over a fire of their fine furniture.

This problem is simple.

Either old people contribute towards their care or younger people get taxed to pay for it. There will come a point though when there aren't enough young people to tax and then we're really doomed.

What we need is a really cold winter, a really good dose of flu and we'll solve some of the problem.

[trompe le monde]

Haven't seen quite such as an obnoxious thread as this before on HPC.

Why the hell should someone who's probably scrimped and saved their whole life to buy a house and bring up a family be penalised in this way? They will have paid tax and NI all their life, and will probably have paid into a pension during this time in order to pay for a comfortable retirement. The ethos of older folks tends to be to more thrifty as they experienced the war and post-war rationing and shortages of stuff we take for granted. They don't take on massive debt just to pi$$ it away like most folk seem to do today - they don't need everything now, 'because I'm worth it'. Also a lot of older folks (looking back at my folks now) were brought up in rented property, and sleeping two or three to a room was pretty common.

So you'd chuck an old lady out of her 4 bed house because she 'doesn't need it' and she'd be 'perfectly happy' in something smaller. What utter self serving bo11ocks! Putting aside the fact that old folks get set in their ways and don't like change; that maybe they brought up their family there and it has sentimental value, the fact is, it's their place, and it's none of your damn business - get over it.

The NHS was supposed to provide a service from the cradle to the grave, that was always the deal. If some waster is entitled to care when they've pi$$ed all their money and assets away, why should anyone who's saved all their life have to flog their house to get that same care. Similar thing with that couple that wanted to keep their terminally ill child on life support when medical opinion thought the best course of action was to turn off the machine - imagine the outcry if the response was 'well, unless you sell the house I'm afraid we can't afford to keep life support going - too expensive'.

Would people here dig into their own pockets to pay for decent care for their elderly relatives, if the state didn't provide it for those having no assets? Some old folks have houses - good luck to them; some don't - that's life. When the cycle runs its course, and the people in this forum can afford property again, I'm sure they won't take kindly to having their assets sold out from underneath them in their dotage.

Sorry, rant over, I know there's as many obnoxious old folks out there as decent ones, but for god's sake, we'll probably all be frail and/or senile at some point and that's the time we'll really want someone looking out for us - the government is screwing an easy target and it is despicable.

TLM

Edited March 30, 2006 by trompe le monde

[Catch22]

Wishful Thinking,

No offence was taken I knew you were not getting at me.

TLM...Well said mate.

[FreeTrader]

TLM - you nailed it.

These people have lived their lives exactly as the vast majority of the members of this forum say they intend to live their own when they can afford to buy.

The duplicity and hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

I knew an old lady an ex customer who had a plaque on her wall which said " The more I learn about people the more I prefer my dog". I now understand her logic.

[BricksandMortar]

Contrary to my earlier beliefs I now find some quite human people on this forum and it pleases me. Well said TLM et al.

Funny that how Auntie Mildred would [apparently] be quite happy in a little box whereas Junior Gimme wants her cast off 4 bedder no less.

All animals are equal except the elderly who have seen more deprevation than any of us will ever know.

Edited March 30, 2006 by BricksandMortar

[Elizabeth]

The one positive from this is that it encourages more efficient use of the nation's housing stock. Pensioners living in 4 bed houses is pretty silly. Of course they are attached to their homes and community, but it is usually possible to buy somewhere more suitable and cheaper and easier to manage very close by. I'm sure if they were assisted to do this they would agree it was a great decision (when they have banked £100k).

Would there be anything wrong with encouraging older people to live in accommodation suitable for their needs? Is it any different from encouraging energy efficiency, recycling, small engined cars?

This nation needs to put its love affair with the house on the back burner.

My grandmother lived in the same house for 50 years. She died after 6 months in a care home when she was 92, and spent that entire 6 months asking to be taken home. That was her home for better or worse. Once she lost hope of going home she disintegrated, became senile and died in a matter of 6 weeks.

Moving old folks kills them. That is a simple fact of housing. What about instead, opening up a relatively small amount of greenfield for building and just waiting for them to die of natural causes?

On the central issue. These people paid their taxes and NI all their lives, as a number of people have pointed out. And that is a considerable contribution. What is the point of tax and NI?

By selling their homes people get trapped in residential care. They then have no way out but to a social housing after making the sacrifices required to buy their own home at no cost to the government. It also assumes no hope of getting better which isn't always the case. Residential care involves all monies taken to pay for the care and the provision of an allowance - pocket money if you will for someone who has been on the planet for 70 or 80 years. The report was right. Residential care should be a last resort where independent living is not an option even with help, because if it is not it naturally robs the person of the last vestiges of that independence and destroys all dignity.

[Anti_Claus]

I knew an old lady an ex customer who had a plaque on her wall which said " The more I learn about people the more I prefer my dog". I now understand her logic.

I like that! Problem now is I need to get a dog tho I don't think it would like me somehow...

Edited March 30, 2006 by Anti_Claus

[right_freds_dead]

well the thread seemed to hit a good nerve. nice. a few posters here socked it too them markg hit the nail a few times. the best line was 'my house is my pension - so use it'. i never thought of that one. it was top drawer. deft.

i was never saying i didnt like pensioners or that it was good for them to lose their homes after paying so much NI. all i was saying is that i was happy not to be paying for it, when i havent even the foggiest chance of fair housing myself. if you want a 4 bed house and your older. good for you. if you want your 4 bed house AND me to pay for your care from the luxury of a £120k bedsit - NO WAY ALBERT.

plus. like some other posters said. you created this selfish thatcher monster. now go reap it. this country has gone all self self self in the last 20 years. and thats from me. a modest chap with reasonably good values. im just p1ssed off that ive been shafted in housing and i want all the UK residents to feel the same way. pensioners included. no one cares for the ftb. i dont care for anyone else anymore. and i hate it. going out and its mainly all tit showing slags and boozed up blaggards. credit sucking tv. cynical news. celeb has replaced the family. ohh sh1t....

i want the 70s back. (without all the solid state electronics)

[needle]

It'd be good if you could reverse this and sell old people for homes.

[right_freds_dead]

or swap bags of old persons pee for rent vouchers.

(to be cashed at any one of TTRTT's tat gaffs.)

[talby]

As an aside, if anyone's interested theres also a good and long thread on this topic over at talk.guardian.co.uk under "UK News" - "Families forced to sell homes to pay for continuing care". There are some quite nasty and spiteful posters over there as well !

[right_freds_dead]

There are some quite nasty and spiteful posters over there as well !

when you say posters, dont you mean disgruntled taxpaying young voters ?

[2005]

I think this topic brings up the issue of what penioners think houses are actually for. As another poster mentioned if they are for thier pension then they should use it 'for their pension' - but it isn't really their pension is it? it is more to do with inheritance isn't it?

If I am wrong can someone please explain to me how a house can be converted into a pension without selling it first.

Pensioners have fallen into the trap of many homeowners in this country. They fail to realise that money tied up in a pile fo bricks is not 'a pension' because it is 'tied up in a pile of bricks' - you can't spend a pile of bricks. It is the same mentality that makes people think they can afford a 4x4 and plasma TV because the Nationwide says house prices have risen XXX% in the last year. It isn't real money until you sell the property.

This is the uk mentaility that puts too much emphasis on housing as being about nothing more than money.

A house should be a home but as we live longer it is increasingly unreasonable to expect to stay in the same house for ever. Too many elderly people ned up in homes because they can't cope in their own home anymore - well they may not be able to cope in their own 4/5 bed detached house but they could probably cope a lot longer in a smaller bungalow.

We all go through different stages in life and we should adapt our housing to suit our needs. A city flat is great when you are young and want a vibrant social life. Then you want a larger house with a garden when the kids come along. As you get older and the kids grow up and leave it would be sensible at that point to downsize - many people do - they sell up and move to a small bungalow by the sea - go and have a look at Southport. That is how you release cash for your pension.

We are now living much longer and must adapt accordingly. Unfortunately the UK housing stock is incapable of meeting the needs of a growing older society. While we build masses of 2 bed high rise flats for the young nobody is building good quality retirement homes. Many older people don;t want to live in 'retirement flats with wardens on site' - we should be building good quality bungalows with gardens in decent areas and close to local facilities.

We need better financial awareness so people understand that houses are not the only way to invest for your future and we need to start building housing that meets the needs of the population instead of the needs of the developer.

It is late and I have waffled on but my main point is - 1) houses are not pensions they are homes 2) as we live longer we need to be more adaptable in our housing choices 3) we need more suitable housing to allow the elderly to downsize without giving up their quality of life.

[okonu]

Good post 2005.

Some further points - no, the tax and NI collected during their lifetimes didn't pay for expensive nursing care. (for the pre-boomer generation - or even the boomer)

When they were working/ paying tax, there was no concept, as far as I know, that many would live to 90+ and require nursing for senile dementia. That is why the report is asking for an extra 2% of GDP to be spent on old age care. If that comes from tax only - you are looking at 5% increase (from 40 to 42% or so)

Personally I support intergenerational living, (aka the granny flat/ dower house, maybe with tax breaks to make it more attractive) but concede it isn't practical for many.

With my parents-in-law (who are living in a country with no pensions/ old age care) it has already been agreed that the youngest son & his family will stay in their house and look after them. In return - he gets the house.