Discussion:
Social Care - the Tories have let us down
(too old to reply)
The Todal
2018-03-08 11:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
aged parents who need that care.

But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px

One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.

The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial
positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014,
with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
into their reserves last year.
tim...
2018-03-08 12:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Todal" <***@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
> aged parents who need that care.
>
> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.

Whilst I agree that it's terrible that we haven't solved this problem

What is the Red team's solution? They seem just as ostrichlike. Their last
pontification on the issue was to dis the Tory's idea for their own
political ends (even though they probably, fundamentally, agreed with it.)

They have since failed to suggest a workable alternative.

tim
Omega
2018-03-08 12:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/03/2018 11:04, The Todal wrote:
> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
> aged parents who need that care.
>
> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>
>
> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
> after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
> social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>
> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial
> positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014,
> with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
> into their reserves last year.


I certainly haven't the wit to remedy the whole of the problem but we
have a mentality in this country that doesn't help matters, "I've worked
hard all my life ... blah, blah, blah". Then it goes on, depending
who is whinging the mantra, "I want to leave ALL my wealth to my
children", or "I've paid my taxes all my life", then again, "Why should
the State take all my money? Etc. etc..

Many of my generation, the Bulge, have probably had the best welfare and
quality of life since our birth than any other generation, in the whole
of human history, solely because we were born at the 'right' time.

Many of us see the lifestyle we enjoyed was absolutely down to our
'cleverness' and not because the special time we were born! We are
special so we expect our extravagant living should go on forever.

If the Bulge people will only reason for a moment, the system we paid
into, was to run that system then! It paid a pension that ensured
people didn't starve to death, it paid the hip operation for your Nanna,
it educated YOUR children.

We had our go and by fuck didn't we take everything on offer with
relish! In a sense, it has exploded in our faces because we expected to
carry on taking, taking, taking though many of us will live to see one
hundred years on the planet and by the hell we are NOT giving one penny
of 'our hard earned cash' over the coming twenty five, thirty years.

Statistically, I believe, I could live about thirty years more than my
father along with the other several million Bulge people. Who is to
care for us in this time? Who will pay our fat inflated pensions while
we live alone in our four bedroom houses?

We have been the most cosseted generation since time began and still, we
demand more and more without doing a fucking tap for it, because, "We've
worked hard all our lives".

omega
abelard
2018-03-08 12:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:10:40 +0000, Omega <***@last.com> wrote:

>On 08/03/2018 11:04, The Todal wrote:
>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
>> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
>> aged parents who need that care.
>>
>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>
>>
>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
>> after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
>> social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>>
>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
>> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
>> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial
>> positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014,
>> with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>> into their reserves last year.
>
>
>I certainly haven't the wit to remedy the whole of the problem but we
>have a mentality in this country that doesn't help matters, "I've worked
>hard all my life ... blah, blah, blah". Then it goes on, depending
>who is whinging the mantra, "I want to leave ALL my wealth to my
>children", or "I've paid my taxes all my life", then again, "Why should
>the State take all my money? Etc. etc..
>
>Many of my generation, the Bulge, have probably had the best welfare and
>quality of life since our birth than any other generation, in the whole
>of human history, solely because we were born at the 'right' time.
>
>Many of us see the lifestyle we enjoyed was absolutely down to our
>'cleverness' and not because the special time we were born! We are
>special so we expect our extravagant living should go on forever.
>
>If the Bulge people will only reason for a moment, the system we paid
>into, was to run that system then! It paid a pension that ensured
>people didn't starve to death, it paid the hip operation for your Nanna,
>it educated YOUR children.
>
>We had our go and by fuck didn't we take everything on offer with
>relish! In a sense, it has exploded in our faces because we expected to
>carry on taking, taking, taking though many of us will live to see one
>hundred years on the planet and by the hell we are NOT giving one penny
>of 'our hard earned cash' over the coming twenty five, thirty years.
>
>Statistically, I believe, I could live about thirty years more than my
>father along with the other several million Bulge people. Who is to
>care for us in this time? Who will pay our fat inflated pensions while
>we live alone in our four bedroom houses?
>
>We have been the most cosseted generation since time began and still, we
>demand more and more without doing a fucking tap for it, because, "We've
>worked hard all our lives".

it is good to see a poster with sense


--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2018-03-08 15:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/03/2018 12:10, Omega wrote:

> On 08/03/2018 11:04, The Todal wrote:

>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
>> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us
>> have aged parents who need that care.
>>
>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>
>>
>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
>> after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
>> social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>>
>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
>> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
>> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’
>> financial positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last
>> audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with social care
>> responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year.
>
>
> I certainly haven't the wit to remedy the whole of the problem but we
> have a mentality in this country that doesn't help matters, "I've worked
> hard all my life   ...   blah, blah, blah".  Then it goes on, depending
> who is whinging the mantra, "I want to leave ALL my wealth to my
> children", or "I've paid my taxes all my life",  then again, "Why should
> the State take all my money?  Etc. etc..

It's a reasonable enough stance, isn't it?

What's the fundamental difference between health care provided under the
NHS and health care not provided under the NHS?

There are plenty of countries in the world where getting cancer at 70
will require the patient to either start spending their savings and
re-mortgaging their house, or writing their will. If that's not what you
want for the UK (and I hope it isn't), what is the difference with dementia?

> Many of my generation, the Bulge, have probably had the best welfare and
> quality of life since our birth than any other generation, in the whole
> of human history, solely because we were born at the 'right' time.
>
> Many of us see the lifestyle we enjoyed was absolutely down to our
> 'cleverness' and not because the special time we were born!  We are
> special so we expect our extravagant living should go on forever.
>
> If the Bulge people will only reason for a moment, the system we paid
> into, was to run that system then!  It paid a pension that ensured
> people didn't starve to death, it paid the hip operation for your Nanna,
> it educated YOUR children...

...and paid for the pensions and health care of those born "too early"
to make a lifetime's contribution into the main post-war welfare state's
provisions.

> We had our go and by fuck didn't we take everything on offer with
> relish!

Some of us might have.

> In a sense, it has exploded in our faces because we expected to
> carry on taking, taking, taking though many of us will live to see one
> hundred years on the planet and by the hell we are NOT giving one penny
> of 'our hard earned cash' over the coming twenty five, thirty years.
>
> Statistically, I believe, I could live about thirty years more than my
> father along with the other several million Bulge people.  Who is to
> care for us in this time?  Who will pay our fat inflated pensions while
> we live alone in our four bedroom houses?

We will. Or rather, of those who are in the same position as we were
when we were doing the same thing(s) for older generations (see above).

> We have been the most cosseted generation since time began and still, we
> demand more and more without doing a fucking tap for it, because, "We've
> worked hard all our lives".

You have an odd way of conflating opposites as though they were identical.

Someone who has never done "a fucking tap" (what a way with words you
have) can hardly be accused of the ultimate sin of working hard all
their life.
Handsome Jack
2018-03-08 15:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
>Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
>disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us
>have aged parents who need that care.
>
>But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>
>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-
>bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>
>One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
>after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
>social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>
>The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
>verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
>almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’
>financial positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last
>audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with social care
>responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year.

Theresa May tried to suggest an approach last year. Labour, ably
assisted by people like you, responded by screaming "Dementia tax!
DEMENTIA TAX!" You've got a fucking nerve complaining now that the
Tories have backed off.

Behaviour like this has led all parties to keep away from the issue if
they possibly can. But anyway, they're going to do a green paper
consultation this summer.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-set-out-proposals-to-ref
orm-care-and-support

That'll give you a chance to think up a few more meaningless slogans to
scream, while proposing nothing constructive yourselves beyond chanting
"More Money for the Public Sector! There must be more Moneeyyyyy!"


--
Jack
The Todal
2018-03-08 17:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/03/2018 15:43, Handsome Jack wrote:
> The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
>> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us
>> have aged parents who need that care.
>>
>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-
>> bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>
>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
>> after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
>> social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>>
>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
>> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
>> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’
>> financial positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last
>> audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with social care
>> responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year.
>
> Theresa May tried to suggest an approach last year. Labour, ably
> assisted by people like you, responded by screaming "Dementia tax!
> DEMENTIA TAX!" You've got a fucking nerve complaining now that the
> Tories have backed off.
>
> Behaviour like this has led all parties to keep away from the issue if
> they possibly can. But anyway, they're going to do a green paper
> consultation this summer.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-set-out-proposals-to-ref
> orm-care-and-support
>
> That'll give you a chance to think up a few more meaningless slogans to
> scream, while proposing nothing constructive yourselves beyond chanting
> "More Money for the Public Sector! There must be more Moneeyyyyy!"
>
>

I think somehow you didn't manage to absorb the simple phrase "having
had their central government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in 8 years".

It's reasonable to say that we can't keep pace with the increasing cost
of social care. But cutting the funding? Does that actually make any
sort of sense?

Anyway, when you're sitting alone in your house in trousers filled with
3 day old cack and you can't manage to get to the phone to ask anyone to
come and give you some food, I genuinely hope that you can at least
reach for your laptop and find a way of posting to Usenet and telling us
all what a stupid idiot you were back in March 2018.
Yellow
2018-03-08 18:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:43:15 +0000 Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com>
posted:
>
> The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
> >Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
> >disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us
> >have aged parents who need that care.
> >
> >But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
> >
> >https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-
> >bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
> >
> >One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
> >after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
> >social care, the government?s financial watchdog has concluded.
> >
> >The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
> >verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
> >almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities?
> >financial positions had ?worsened markedly? since they were last
> >audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with social care
> >responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year.
>
> Theresa May tried to suggest an approach last year. Labour, ably
> assisted by people like you, responded by screaming "Dementia tax!
> DEMENTIA TAX!" You've got a fucking nerve complaining now that the
> Tories have backed off.

I was extremely frustrated to how that played out because it was very
clear that the majority of people in the UK had (or have) no idea what
people have to pay now, how it works, and that the Tories proposals in
some ways would mean people had to pay less towards their care.

No effort was made by the media to explain it to the folks, and as you
say, it was labelled the "dementia tax" and that was that.

And, along with the fox hunting pledge, this ended up with the Tories
almost losing the election.

(No, it was not down to people suddenly deciding to support the Labour
manifesto because most people did not read it, but instead it was
because they were reminded the Tories are a load of heartless toffs)

Agree with the Tory proposal or not, and I acknowledge that they were
beyond stupid in the presentation of the their idea, it should have been
used as a starting position for a "national discussion" but it has just
left us with more heads in the sand than we had before.

We need a way forward rather than this bloody stupid limbo we are in
how.
Incubus
2018-03-09 09:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-08, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
>>Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and disabled
>>- many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have aged parents
>>who need that care.
>>
>>But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>>
>>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-
>>bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>
>>One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years after
>>exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of social care,
>>the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>>
>>The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the verge
>>of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by almost 50
>>per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial positions had
>>“worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of
>>councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>>year.
>
> Theresa May tried to suggest an approach last year. Labour, ably assisted by
> people like you, responded by screaming "Dementia tax! DEMENTIA TAX!" You've
> got a fucking nerve complaining now that the Tories have backed off.
>
> Behaviour like this has led all parties to keep away from the issue if they
> possibly can. But anyway, they're going to do a green paper consultation this
> summer.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-set-out-proposals-to-ref
> orm-care-and-support
>
> That'll give you a chance to think up a few more meaningless slogans to
> scream, while proposing nothing constructive yourselves beyond chanting "More
> Money for the Public Sector! There must be more Moneeyyyyy!"

Sadly, a true reflection of Labour in opposition where their game plan is to
tear down anything the Conservatives propose reglardless of merit and simply
because they are Conservative policies. It's also hypocritical of Labour to
scream 'dementia tax' while Corbyn suggests appropriating people's houses and
increasing inheritance tax.
Tim
2018-03-09 17:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/03/2018 09:54, Incubus wrote:
> On 2018-03-08, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and disabled
>>> - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have aged parents
>>> who need that care.
>>>
>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-
>>> bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>
>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years after
>>> exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of social care,
>>> the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>
>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the verge
>>> of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by almost 50
>>> per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial positions had
>>> “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of
>>> councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>>> year.
>>
>> Theresa May tried to suggest an approach last year. Labour, ably assisted by
>> people like you, responded by screaming "Dementia tax! DEMENTIA TAX!" You've
>> got a fucking nerve complaining now that the Tories have backed off.
>>
>> Behaviour like this has led all parties to keep away from the issue if they
>> possibly can. But anyway, they're going to do a green paper consultation this
>> summer.
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-set-out-proposals-to-ref
>> orm-care-and-support
>>
>> That'll give you a chance to think up a few more meaningless slogans to
>> scream, while proposing nothing constructive yourselves beyond chanting "More
>> Money for the Public Sector! There must be more Moneeyyyyy!"
>
> Sadly, a true reflection of Labour in opposition where their game plan is to
> tear down anything the Conservatives propose reglardless of merit and simply
> because they are Conservative policies. It's also hypocritical of Labour to
> scream 'dementia tax' while Corbyn suggests appropriating people's houses and
> increasing inheritance tax.

All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.



>


--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388
Incubus
2018-03-09 17:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/03/2018 09:54, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-03-08, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
>>>> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
>>>> aged parents who need that care.
>>>>
>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-
>>>> bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>
>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
>>>> after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
>>>> social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>
>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
>>>> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
>>>> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial
>>>> positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014,
>>>> with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping into
>>>> their reserves last year.
>>>
>>> Theresa May tried to suggest an approach last year. Labour, ably assisted
>>> by people like you, responded by screaming "Dementia tax! DEMENTIA TAX!"
>>> You've got a fucking nerve complaining now that the Tories have backed off.
>>>
>>> Behaviour like this has led all parties to keep away from the issue if they
>>> possibly can. But anyway, they're going to do a green paper consultation
>>> this summer.
>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-set-out-proposals-to-ref
>>> orm-care-and-support
>>>
>>> That'll give you a chance to think up a few more meaningless slogans to
>>> scream, while proposing nothing constructive yourselves beyond chanting
>>> "More Money for the Public Sector! There must be more Moneeyyyyy!"
>>
>> Sadly, a true reflection of Labour in opposition where their game plan is to
>> tear down anything the Conservatives propose reglardless of merit and simply
>> because they are Conservative policies. It's also hypocritical of Labour to
>> scream 'dementia tax' while Corbyn suggests appropriating people's houses
>> and increasing inheritance tax.
>
> All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.

Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from the
Conservatives when there is a Labour government. They don't lie about Labour
policies and they don't invent emotive names for them. They are much better at
sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any policies they
disagree with. They do engage in polemics such as calling on 'Bottler' Brown
to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless and jocular than
when Labour go on the offensive.

I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and rotten about
Labour politics. Many of them are utter scoundrels.
abelard
2018-03-09 18:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 09/03/2018 09:54, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-08, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
>>>>> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
>>>>> aged parents who need that care.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-
>>>>> bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>
>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
>>>>> after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
>>>>> social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
>>>>> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
>>>>> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial
>>>>> positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014,
>>>>> with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping into
>>>>> their reserves last year.
>>>>
>>>> Theresa May tried to suggest an approach last year. Labour, ably assisted
>>>> by people like you, responded by screaming "Dementia tax! DEMENTIA TAX!"
>>>> You've got a fucking nerve complaining now that the Tories have backed off.
>>>>
>>>> Behaviour like this has led all parties to keep away from the issue if they
>>>> possibly can. But anyway, they're going to do a green paper consultation
>>>> this summer.
>>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-set-out-proposals-to-ref
>>>> orm-care-and-support
>>>>
>>>> That'll give you a chance to think up a few more meaningless slogans to
>>>> scream, while proposing nothing constructive yourselves beyond chanting
>>>> "More Money for the Public Sector! There must be more Moneeyyyyy!"
>>>
>>> Sadly, a true reflection of Labour in opposition where their game plan is to
>>> tear down anything the Conservatives propose reglardless of merit and simply
>>> because they are Conservative policies. It's also hypocritical of Labour to
>>> scream 'dementia tax' while Corbyn suggests appropriating people's houses
>>> and increasing inheritance tax.
>>
>> All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.
>
>Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from the
>Conservatives when there is a Labour government. They don't lie about Labour
>policies and they don't invent emotive names for them. They are much better at
>sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any policies they
>disagree with. They do engage in polemics such as calling on 'Bottler' Brown
>to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless and jocular than
>when Labour go on the offensive.
>
>I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and rotten about
>Labour politics. Many of them are utter scoundrels.

just so
but there is no way of selling socialism on rational grounds

--
www.abelard.org
Yellow
2018-03-09 19:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:55:21 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
@gmail.com> posted:
>
> On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:

> > All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.
>
> Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from the
> Conservatives when there is a Labour government. They don't lie about Labour
> policies and they don't invent emotive names for them. They are much better at
> sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any policies they
> disagree with. They do engage in polemics such as calling on 'Bottler' Brown
> to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless and jocular than
> when Labour go on the offensive.
>
> I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and rotten about
> Labour politics. Many of them are utter scoundrels.

Another example was "bedroom tax". The fact that people who lived in the
private rented sector had long lost the extra benefit to pay for homes
larger than they strictly needed was completely washed away by a two
word slogan.

Agree or do not agree with how housing benefit is paid, it would have
been nice so have the pros and cons of such a policy, not least the hope
it would free up some desperately needed larger homes, discussed rather
than have the kind of Labour politician we were treated to on Question
Time last night (Laura Pidcock) bellowing "bedroom tax!!! bedroom
tax!!!" instead.
tim...
2018-03-10 11:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:***@News.Individual.NET...
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:55:21 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
> @gmail.com> posted:
>>
>> On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.
>>
>> Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from the
>> Conservatives when there is a Labour government. They don't lie about
>> Labour
>> policies and they don't invent emotive names for them. They are much
>> better at
>> sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any policies
>> they
>> disagree with. They do engage in polemics such as calling on 'Bottler'
>> Brown
>> to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless and jocular
>> than
>> when Labour go on the offensive.
>>
>> I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and rotten
>> about
>> Labour politics. Many of them are utter scoundrels.
>
> Another example was "bedroom tax". The fact that people who lived in the
> private rented sector had long lost the extra benefit to pay for homes
> larger than they strictly needed was completely washed away by a two
> word slogan.
>
> Agree or do not agree with how housing benefit is paid, it would have
> been nice so have the pros and cons of such a policy, not least the hope
> it would free up some desperately needed larger homes,

that's easy

it doesn't
JNugent
2018-03-10 13:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/03/2018 11:45, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:***@News.Individual.NET...
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:55:21 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
>> @gmail.com> posted:
>>>
>>> On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> > All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from the
>>> Conservatives when there is a Labour government.  They don't lie
>>> about Labour
>>> policies and they don't invent emotive names for them.  They are much
>>> better at
>>> sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any
>>> policies they
>>> disagree with.  They do engage in polemics such as calling on
>>> 'Bottler' Brown
>>> to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless and
>>> jocular than
>>> when Labour go on the offensive.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and
>>> rotten about
>>> Labour politics.  Many of them are utter scoundrels.
>>
>> Another example was "bedroom tax". The fact that people who lived in the
>> private rented sector had long lost the extra benefit to pay for homes
>> larger than they strictly needed was completely washed away by a two
>> word slogan.
>>
>> Agree or do not agree with how housing benefit is paid, it would have
>> been nice so have the pros and cons of such a policy, not least the hope
>> it would free up some desperately needed larger homes,
>
> that's easy
>
> it doesn't

*If* not paying extra benefit for a social housing unit bigger than the
claimant needs does not cause any such tenants to downsize to a more
suitably-sized property, it must mean - at least in some cases - that
they are more content to have less than the full rent paid to them than
they would be to have a home with no spare bedrooms. In other cases, of
course, downsizing might be difficult. But it can't be impossible in
every last case.
tim...
2018-03-10 13:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"JNugent" <***@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/03/2018 11:45, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:***@News.Individual.NET...
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:55:21 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
>>> @gmail.com> posted:
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from
>>>> the
>>>> Conservatives when there is a Labour government. They don't lie about
>>>> Labour
>>>> policies and they don't invent emotive names for them. They are much
>>>> better at
>>>> sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any
>>>> policies they
>>>> disagree with. They do engage in polemics such as calling on 'Bottler'
>>>> Brown
>>>> to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless and jocular
>>>> than
>>>> when Labour go on the offensive.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and
>>>> rotten about
>>>> Labour politics. Many of them are utter scoundrels.
>>>
>>> Another example was "bedroom tax". The fact that people who lived in the
>>> private rented sector had long lost the extra benefit to pay for homes
>>> larger than they strictly needed was completely washed away by a two
>>> word slogan.
>>>
>>> Agree or do not agree with how housing benefit is paid, it would have
>>> been nice so have the pros and cons of such a policy, not least the hope
>>> it would free up some desperately needed larger homes,
>>
>> that's easy
>>
>> it doesn't
>
> *If* not paying extra benefit for a social housing unit bigger than the
> claimant needs does not cause any such tenants to downsize to a more
> suitably-sized property, it must mean - at least in some cases - that they
> are more content to have less than the full rent paid to them than they
> would be to have a home with no spare bedrooms. In other cases, of course,
> downsizing might be difficult. But it can't be impossible in every last
> case.

It's impossible in most cases

There really isn't a supply of smaller properties for the people to move to

and even if there was the moving costs could be about 100 times the monthly
extra rent so it isn't cost effective unless you know its for the very long
term
Yellow
2018-03-10 13:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:45:58 -0000 tim... <***@yahoo.com>
posted:
>
> "Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:***@News.Individual.NET...
> > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:55:21 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
> > @gmail.com> posted:
> >>
> >> On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> > All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.
> >>
> >> Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from the
> >> Conservatives when there is a Labour government. They don't lie about
> >> Labour
> >> policies and they don't invent emotive names for them. They are much
> >> better at
> >> sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any policies
> >> they
> >> disagree with. They do engage in polemics such as calling on 'Bottler'
> >> Brown
> >> to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless and jocular
> >> than
> >> when Labour go on the offensive.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and rotten
> >> about
> >> Labour politics. Many of them are utter scoundrels.
> >
> > Another example was "bedroom tax". The fact that people who lived in the
> > private rented sector had long lost the extra benefit to pay for homes
> > larger than they strictly needed was completely washed away by a two
> > word slogan.
> >
> > Agree or do not agree with how housing benefit is paid, it would have
> > been nice so have the pros and cons of such a policy, not least the hope
> > it would free up some desperately needed larger homes,
>
> that's easy
>
> it doesn't
>

You realise my post was not actually about housing benefit?
Incubus
2018-03-12 09:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-09, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:55:21 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612 @gmail.com>
> posted:
>>
>> On 2018-03-09, Tim <***@gatty.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > All parties have the same game plan when in opposition.
>>
>> Perhaps I am biased but I don't see the same level of pettiness from the
>> Conservatives when there is a Labour government. They don't lie about
>> Labour policies and they don't invent emotive names for them. They are much
>> better at sticking to the facts and making rational arguments against any
>> policies they disagree with. They do engage in polemics such as calling on
>> 'Bottler' Brown to trigger a General Election but it's a lot more harmless
>> and jocular than when Labour go on the offensive.
>>
>> I'm afraid I am of the view that there is something very dirty and rotten
>> about Labour politics. Many of them are utter scoundrels.
>
> Another example was "bedroom tax". The fact that people who lived in the
> private rented sector had long lost the extra benefit to pay for homes larger
> than they strictly needed was completely washed away by a two word slogan.
>
> Agree or do not agree with how housing benefit is paid, it would have been
> nice so have the pros and cons of such a policy, not least the hope it would
> free up some desperately needed larger homes, discussed rather than have the
> kind of Labour politician we were treated to on Question Time last night
> (Laura Pidcock) bellowing "bedroom tax!!! bedroom tax!!!" instead.

I agree. Unfortunately, a lot of Labour voters seem to be swayed by such
outpourings as they are of a similar mentality.
BurfordTJustice
2018-03-08 16:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If their families don't want to care for them, why should the rest of the
tax payer pay for them.??




"The Todal" <***@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
: Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
: disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
: aged parents who need that care.
:
: But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.
:
:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
:
: One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
: after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
: social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.
:
: The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
: verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
: almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial
: positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014,
: with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
: into their reserves last year.
pamela
2018-03-08 17:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:

> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly
> and disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many
> of us have aged parents who need that care.
>
> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
> resources.
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-g
> oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>
> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three
> years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising
> cost of social care, the government’s financial watchdog has
> concluded.
>
> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on
> the verge of insolvency having had their central government
> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that
> authorities’ financial positions had “worsened markedly” since
> they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with
> social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
> year.

An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous benefits for
the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote winner has come at the
expense of state spending elsewhere.

Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of GDP.

Elderly care payments are another £10 billion.

Meanwhile, personal social services comes to only £30 billion.

Illness and disability payments come to £44 billion.


More here: https://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
tim...
2018-03-08 19:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:***@81.171.92.183...
> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>
>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly
>> and disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many
>> of us have aged parents who need that care.
>>
>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>> resources.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-g
>> oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>
>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three
>> years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising
>> cost of social care, the government's financial watchdog has
>> concluded.
>>
>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on
>> the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that
>> authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly" since
>> they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with
>> social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>> year.
>
> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous benefits for
> the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote winner has come at the
> expense of state spending elsewhere.
>
> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of GDP.

That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners

(which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those with no
employee or private pension )

How do you think we should cut it?

Could you live on 11,000 pa?

I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have employee
pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of the amount which
denies you pension credits but the majority of them are going to be tiny,
not the hundreds of thousands that company execs retire on.

and for those who have private pensions the average size of the pot at
retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an annuity, would give
you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does is deny you pension credits

Not exactly a fortune is it?

Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any noticeable
way?

tim
pamela
2018-03-08 22:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:

>
>
> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly
>>> and disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and
>>> many of us have aged parents who need that care.
>>>
>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
faces
>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>
>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three
>>> years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically
>>> rising cost of social care, the government's financial watchdog
>>> has concluded.
>>>
>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that
>>> authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly" since
>>> they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with
>>> social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>>> year.
>>
>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous benefits
>> for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote winner has
>> come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>
>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>> GDP.
>
> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>
> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
> with no employee or private pension )
>
> How do you think we should cut it?
>
> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>
> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of the
> amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of them
> are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that company
> execs retire on.
>
> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
> is deny you pension credits
>
> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>
> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
> noticeable way?
>
> tim

£11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food, clothing
and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.

Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have entertainments,
have broadband internet, etc should seek other sources of funding.
Housing costs, social services visit, medical costs, etc are covered
by various allowances.

This generation of pensioners is the richest ever. Before my mother
went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well on her state
pension and had nothing to complain about and often had plenty spare
to gift to other relatives.

The young of today get far less than this in their state benefits to
live on if they can't work. They're the ones who are getting the
short end of the stick.
The Todal
2018-03-08 23:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly
>>>> and disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and
>>>> many of us have aged parents who need that care.
>>>>
>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
> faces
>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>
>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three
>>>> years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically
>>>> rising cost of social care, the government's financial watchdog
>>>> has concluded.
>>>>
>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that
>>>> authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly" since
>>>> they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with
>>>> social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous benefits
>>> for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote winner has
>>> come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>> GDP.
>>
>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>
>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>> with no employee or private pension )
>>
>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>
>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>
>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of the
>> amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of them
>> are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that company
>> execs retire on.
>>
>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>> is deny you pension credits
>>
>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>
>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>> noticeable way?
>>
>> tim
>
> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food, clothing
> and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>
> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have entertainments,
> have broadband internet, etc should seek other sources of funding.
> Housing costs, social services visit, medical costs, etc are covered
> by various allowances.
>
> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever. Before my mother
> went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well on her state
> pension and had nothing to complain about and often had plenty spare
> to gift to other relatives.
>
> The young of today get far less than this in their state benefits to
> live on if they can't work. They're the ones who are getting the
> short end of the stick.
>

All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.

900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you with
toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted by arthritis or
the long term effects of diabetes. Or early Alzheimers.
pamela
2018-03-09 00:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23:22 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:

> On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>> care.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>> resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>> faces
>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>
>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found
>>>>> that authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly"
>>>>> since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of
>>>>> councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their
>>>>> reserves last year.
>>>>
>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>>> GDP.
>>>
>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>
>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>
>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>
>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>
>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>> company execs retire on.
>>>
>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>>> is deny you pension credits
>>>
>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>
>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>> noticeable way?
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>
>> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have entertainments,
>> have broadband internet, etc should seek other sources of
>> funding. Housing costs, social services visit, medical costs, etc
>> are covered by various allowances.
>>
>> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever. Before my
>> mother went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well on
>> her state pension and had nothing to complain about and often had
>> plenty spare to gift to other relatives.
>>
>> The young of today get far less than this in their state benefits
>> to live on if they can't work. They're the ones who are getting
>> the short end of the stick.
>>
>
> All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.
>
> 900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you with
> toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted by
> arthritis or the long term effects of diabetes. Or early
> Alzheimers.

If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
authority will provide it. They cover all care costs if your
savings are below £16,000 but none if your savings are over £23,000.

When my mother was ill she had 4 care visits a day at home provided
by the council who also paid for her to have a walk-in shower
installed. She was well provided for. She wanted for nothing.
The Todal
2018-03-09 08:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/03/2018 00:25, pamela wrote:
> On 23:22 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>
>> On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>> faces
>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found
>>>>>> that authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly"
>>>>>> since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of
>>>>>> councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their
>>>>>> reserves last year.
>>>>>
>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>>>> GDP.
>>>>
>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>
>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>>
>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>
>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>
>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>
>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>>>> is deny you pension credits
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>
>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>
>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>
>>> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have entertainments,
>>> have broadband internet, etc should seek other sources of
>>> funding. Housing costs, social services visit, medical costs, etc
>>> are covered by various allowances.
>>>
>>> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever. Before my
>>> mother went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well on
>>> her state pension and had nothing to complain about and often had
>>> plenty spare to gift to other relatives.
>>>
>>> The young of today get far less than this in their state benefits
>>> to live on if they can't work. They're the ones who are getting
>>> the short end of the stick.
>>>
>>
>> All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.
>>
>> 900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you with
>> toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted by
>> arthritis or the long term effects of diabetes. Or early
>> Alzheimers.
>
> If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
> authority will provide it. They cover all care costs if your
> savings are below £16,000 but none if your savings are over £23,000.
>
> When my mother was ill she had 4 care visits a day at home provided
> by the council who also paid for her to have a walk-in shower
> installed. She was well provided for. She wanted for nothing.
>

Very good. But the Times report tells us that the councils are running
out of money due to Tory cuts. So you might not get the level of care
your mother got.
pamela
2018-03-09 10:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08:00 9 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:

> On 09/03/2018 00:25, pamela wrote:
>> On 23:22 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>>> faces
>>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years.
>>>>>>> It found that authorities' financial positions had "worsened
>>>>>>> markedly" since they were last audited in 2014, with two
>>>>>>> thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>>>>>>> into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>
>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority
>>>>> of them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands
>>>>> that company execs retire on.
>>>>>
>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of
>>>>> the pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take
>>>>> as an annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all
>>>>> that does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>
>>>> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have
>>>> entertainments, have broadband internet, etc should seek other
>>>> sources of funding. Housing costs, social services visit,
>>>> medical costs, etc are covered by various allowances.
>>>>
>>>> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever. Before my
>>>> mother went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well
>>>> on her state pension and had nothing to complain about and
>>>> often had plenty spare to gift to other relatives.
>>>>
>>>> The young of today get far less than this in their state
>>>> benefits to live on if they can't work. They're the ones who
>>>> are getting the short end of the stick.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.
>>>
>>> 900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you
>>> with toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted by
>>> arthritis or the long term effects of diabetes. Or early
>>> Alzheimers.
>>
>> If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
>> authority will provide it. They cover all care costs if your
>> savings are below £16,000 but none if your savings are over
>> £23,000.
>>
>> When my mother was ill she had 4 care visits a day at home
>> provided by the council who also paid for her to have a walk-in
>> shower installed. She was well provided for. She wanted for
>> nothing.
>>
>
> Very good. But the Times report tells us that the councils are
> running out of money due to Tory cuts. So you might not get the
> level of care your mother got.

My mother enjoyed true dignity on account of the generous support
she received as she declined and I would love it for myself but I'm
not expecting it. I can't see future governments coming up with
"triple-locks" and fiercly pro-elderly policies as we have had in
the last decade. I expect to be far less well provided for than she
has been.

On the other hand, the influential "elder vote" might ensure retired
people don't concede too much of their current benefits to the needy
young.
tim...
2018-03-09 11:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:***@81.171.92.183...
> On 23:22 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>
>> On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>> faces
>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found
>>>>>> that authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly"
>>>>>> since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of
>>>>>> councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their
>>>>>> reserves last year.
>>>>>
>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>>>> GDP.
>>>>
>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>
>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>>
>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>
>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>
>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>
>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>>>> is deny you pension credits
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>
>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>
>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>
>>> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have entertainments,
>>> have broadband internet, etc should seek other sources of
>>> funding. Housing costs, social services visit, medical costs, etc
>>> are covered by various allowances.
>>>
>>> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever. Before my
>>> mother went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well on
>>> her state pension and had nothing to complain about and often had
>>> plenty spare to gift to other relatives.
>>>
>>> The young of today get far less than this in their state benefits
>>> to live on if they can't work. They're the ones who are getting
>>> the short end of the stick.
>>>
>>
>> All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.
>>
>> 900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you with
>> toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted by
>> arthritis or the long term effects of diabetes. Or early
>> Alzheimers.
>
> If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
> authority will provide it.

surely that back to the nub of the problem

why should those who have saving have to pay for it themselves when those
with no savings get it for free?

tim
Fredxx
2018-03-09 11:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/03/2018 11:22, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>> On 23:22  8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 19:33  8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>> On 11:04  8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>>> faces
>>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found
>>>>>>> that authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly"
>>>>>>> since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of
>>>>>>> councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their
>>>>>>> reserves last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>> benefits for the elderly.  Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>>>>> GDP.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>
>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>>> with  no employee or private pension )
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>>
>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>>>>> is deny you pension credits
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>> clothing and utilities.  It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>
>>>> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have entertainments,
>>>> have broadband internet, etc should seek other sources of
>>>> funding. Housing costs, social services visit, medical costs, etc
>>>> are covered by various allowances.
>>>>
>>>> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever.  Before my
>>>> mother went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well on
>>>> her state pension and had nothing to complain about and often had
>>>> plenty spare to gift to other relatives.
>>>>
>>>> The young of today get far less than this in their state benefits
>>>> to live on if they can't work.  They're the ones who are getting
>>>> the short end of the stick.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.
>>>
>>> 900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you with
>>> toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted by
>>> arthritis or the long term effects of diabetes. Or early
>>> Alzheimers.
>>
>> If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
>> authority will provide it.
>
> surely that back to the nub of the problem
>
> why should those who have saving have to pay for it themselves when
> those with no savings get it for free?

Its a Tory policy of "targetting".

Once even Child Benefit was given to the parent who was deemed to care
most for a child. Now it's means tested, where if one parent living with
the child is paying a higher rate of tax, its no longer payable. How
many more thousand civil servants does that take.
pamela
2018-03-09 12:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11:46 9 Mar 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 09/03/2018 11:22, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>> On 23:22  8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 19:33  8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>> On 11:04  8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-
councils-
>>>>> faces
>>>>>>>> -g
>>>>>>>> oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight
>>>>>>>> years. It found that authorities' financial positions had
>>>>>>>> "worsened markedly" since they were last audited in 2014,
>>>>>>>> with two thirds of councils with social care
>>>>>>>> responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>>> benefits for the elderly.  Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for
>>>>>> those with  no employee or private pension )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess
>>>>>> of the amount which denies you pension credits but the
>>>>>> majority of them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of
>>>>>> thousands that company execs retire on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of
>>>>>> the pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take
>>>>>> as an annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all
>>>>>> that does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tim
>>>>>
>>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>>> clothing and utilities.  It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have
>>>>> entertainments, have broadband internet, etc should seek other
>>>>> sources of funding. Housing costs, social services visit,
>>>>> medical costs, etc are covered by various allowances.
>>>>>
>>>>> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever.  Before my
>>>>> mother went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well
>>>>> on her state pension and had nothing to complain about and
>>>>> often had plenty spare to gift to other relatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> The young of today get far less than this in their state
>>>>> benefits to live on if they can't work.  They're the ones who
>>>>> are getting the short end of the stick.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.
>>>>
>>>> 900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you
>>>> with toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted
>>>> by arthritis or the long term effects of diabetes. Or early
>>>> Alzheimers.
>>>
>>> If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
>>> authority will provide it.
>>
>> surely that back to the nub of the problem
>>
>> why should those who have saving have to pay for it themselves
>> when those with no savings get it for free?
>
> Its a Tory policy of "targetting".
>
> Once even Child Benefit was given to the parent who was deemed to
> care most for a child. Now it's means tested, where if one parent
> living with the child is paying a higher rate of tax, its no
> longer payable. How many more thousand civil servants does that
> take.

Two extra desktop PCs?
JNugent
2018-03-09 18:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/03/2018 11:46, Fredxx wrote:

> On 09/03/2018 11:22, tim... wrote:
>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

[social care:]

>>> If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
>>> authority will provide it.

>> surely that back to the nub of the problem
>> why should those who have saving have to pay for it themselves when
>> those with no savings get it for free?
>
> Its a Tory policy of "targetting".

It has been the policy of every government since 1900 to provide
means-tested benefits (whether at original local or later national
scale) only to those whose means are below a certain level, whether in
income or capital terms.

That's what "means-testing" means. And the Libs and Lab were all for it.

> Once even Child Benefit was given to the parent who was deemed to care
> most for a child. Now it's means tested,

It isn't means-tested in the normal sense of that term.

> where if one parent living with
> the child is paying a higher rate of tax, its no longer payable. How
> many more thousand civil servants does that take.

I agree that it is not a good rule.

But the Guardianista chatterati long ago forgot the distinctions between
universal and means-tested benefits and were pressing for the withdrawal
of CHB from "rich" parents, completely oblivious to the fact that its
major origin was in the form of a tax allowance for dependent children
(the old Family Allowance being the minor component).

They'll do their best over the next few years to have Cold Weather
Payments withdrawn from pensioners who are not in receipt of Pension
Credit, HB or Council tax Benefit.
pamela
2018-03-09 12:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11:22 9 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:

>
>
> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>> On 23:22 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/03/2018 22:07, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>>> faces
>>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years.
>>>>>>> It found that authorities' financial positions had "worsened
>>>>>>> markedly" since they were last audited in 2014, with two
>>>>>>> thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>>>>>>> into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>
>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority
>>>>> of them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands
>>>>> that company execs retire on.
>>>>>
>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of
>>>>> the pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take
>>>>> as an annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all
>>>>> that does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>
>>>> Those who wish to pursue hobbies, run a car, have
>>>> entertainments, have broadband internet, etc should seek other
>>>> sources of funding. Housing costs, social services visit,
>>>> medical costs, etc are covered by various allowances.
>>>>
>>>> This generation of pensioners is the richest ever. Before my
>>>> mother went to live in a care home, she lived remarkably well
>>>> on her state pension and had nothing to complain about and
>>>> often had plenty spare to gift to other relatives.
>>>>
>>>> The young of today get far less than this in their state
>>>> benefits to live on if they can't work. They're the ones who
>>>> are getting the short end of the stick.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All very interesting but it has nothing to do with social care.
>>>
>>> 900 quid a month doesn't pay for a nurse or carer to help you
>>> with toileting and bathing and dressing, if you are afflicted by
>>> arthritis or the long term effects of diabetes. Or early
>>> Alzheimers.
>>
>> If you don't have the savings to pay for care then the local
>> authority will provide it.
>
> surely that back to the nub of the problem
>
> why should those who have saving have to pay for it themselves
> when those with no savings get it for free?

No, that's a different problem altogether which you have just
introduced. I said pensioners are relatively well off and it is
true if they receive state aid or have their own savings. You
showed me the annual pension figure which doesn't seem too bad in
elderly circumstances.
tim...
2018-03-09 11:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:***@81.171.92.183...
> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly
>>>> and disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and
>>>> many of us have aged parents who need that care.
>>>>
>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
> faces
>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>
>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three
>>>> years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically
>>>> rising cost of social care, the government's financial watchdog
>>>> has concluded.
>>>>
>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that
>>>> authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly" since
>>>> they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with
>>>> social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous benefits
>>> for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote winner has
>>> come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>> GDP.
>>
>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>
>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>> with no employee or private pension )
>>
>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>
>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>
>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of the
>> amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of them
>> are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that company
>> execs retire on.
>>
>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>> is deny you pension credits
>>
>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>
>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>> noticeable way?
>>
>> tim
>
> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food, clothing
> and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.

but not to pay rent

not every pensioner has a paid up house.

tim
pamela
2018-03-09 12:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11:20 9 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:

>
>
> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>> care.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>> resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>> faces
>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>
>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found
>>>>> that authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly"
>>>>> since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of
>>>>> councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their
>>>>> reserves last year.
>>>>
>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>>> GDP.
>>>
>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>
>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>
>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>
>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>
>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>> company execs retire on.
>>>
>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>>> is deny you pension credits
>>>
>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>
>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>> noticeable way?
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>
> but not to pay rent
>
> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>
> tim

Isn't that what housing benefit is for? You omitted to quote what I
wrote about it:

"Housing costs, social services visit, medical costs, etc are
covered by various allowances."
kat
2018-03-09 13:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly
>>>>> and disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and
>>>>> many of us have aged parents who need that care.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>> resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>> faces
>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>
>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three
>>>>> years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically
>>>>> rising cost of social care, the government's financial watchdog
>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were
>>>>> on the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that
>>>>> authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly" since
>>>>> they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with
>>>>> social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous benefits
>>>> for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote winner has
>>>> come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of
>>>> GDP.
>>>
>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>
>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>
>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>
>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>
>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of the
>>> amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of them
>>> are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that company
>>> execs retire on.
>>>
>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does
>>> is deny you pension credits
>>>
>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>
>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>> noticeable way?
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food, clothing
>> and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>
> but not to pay rent
>
> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>


And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the majority
of the homes are only band B, but that’s still £1300.
Even with a discount for a single person that’s over £1000, and the actual
basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.

--
kat >^..^<
Yellow
2018-03-09 13:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:08:57 -0500 kat <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@81.171.92.183...
> >> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:

> >> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food, clothing
> >> and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
> >
> > but not to pay rent
> >
> > not every pensioner has a paid up house.
> >
>
>
> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the majority
> of the homes are only band B, but that?s still £1300.
> Even with a discount for a single person that?s over £1000, and the actual
> basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.

If I were old enough to take my state pension today I would get just
under £9,000, which includes some serps but now serps has been scrapped,
at the age of 53, I cannot grow it any more. That is it, the maximum.

Means I do not need to pay any more NI though.
pamela
2018-03-09 13:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13:08 9 Mar 2018, kat wrote:

> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>> faces
>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years.
>>>>>> It found that authorities' financial positions had "worsened
>>>>>> markedly" since they were last audited in 2014, with two
>>>>>> thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>>>>>> into their reserves last year.
>>>>>
>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>
>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>
>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>>
>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>
>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>
>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>
>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that
>>>> does is deny you pension credits
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>
>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>
>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>
>> but not to pay rent
>>
>> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>>
>
>
> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the
> majority of the homes are only band B, but that's still £1300.
> Even with a discount for a single person that's over £1000, and
> the actual basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.

People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to pay
the council tax at all. A relatively recent ruling means some may
pay a small contributon but are still exempt from the majority of
it.

Pensioners on Pension Credit Guarantee pay no council tax even if
they have savings over £16,000.
tim...
2018-03-10 11:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:***@81.171.92.183...
> On 13:08 9 Mar 2018, kat wrote:
>
>> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>>> faces
>>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years.
>>>>>>> It found that authorities' financial positions had "worsened
>>>>>>> markedly" since they were last audited in 2014, with two
>>>>>>> thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>>>>>>> into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>
>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>>
>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that
>>>>> does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>
>>> but not to pay rent
>>>
>>> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the
>> majority of the homes are only band B, but that's still £1300.
>> Even with a discount for a single person that's over £1000, and
>> the actual basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.
>
> People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to pay
> the council tax at all.

not any more they aren't

rule changed some years ago and it is now only available if you council can
afford it. and fewer and fewer can


tim
Fredxx
2018-03-10 12:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/03/2018 11:44, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>> On 13:08  9 Mar 2018, kat wrote:
>>
>>> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>> On 19:33  8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>> On 11:04  8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>>>> faces
>>>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years.
>>>>>>>> It found that authorities' financial positions had "worsened
>>>>>>>> markedly" since they were last audited in 2014, with two
>>>>>>>> thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>>>>>>>> into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>>> benefits for the elderly.  Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>>>> with  no employee or private pension )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that
>>>>>> does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tim
>>>>>
>>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>>> clothing and utilities.  It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>
>>>> but not to pay rent
>>>>
>>>> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the
>>> majority of the homes are only band B, but that's still £1300.
>>> Even with a discount for a single person that's over £1000, and
>>> the actual basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.
>>
>> People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to pay
>> the council tax at all.
>
> not any more they aren't
>
> rule changed some years ago and it is now only available if you council
> can afford it. and fewer and fewer can

If you're a pensioner that doesn't apply.
tim...
2018-03-10 13:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fredxx" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:p80k6n$m5p$***@dont-email.me...
> On 10/03/2018 11:44, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>> On 13:08 9 Mar 2018, kat wrote:
>>>
>>>> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>>>>> faces
>>>>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years.
>>>>>>>>> It found that authorities' financial positions had "worsened
>>>>>>>>> markedly" since they were last audited in 2014, with two
>>>>>>>>> thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>>>>>>>>> into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>>>>> with no employee or private pension )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that
>>>>>>> does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>>
>>>>> but not to pay rent
>>>>>
>>>>> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the
>>>> majority of the homes are only band B, but that's still £1300.
>>>> Even with a discount for a single person that's over £1000, and
>>>> the actual basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.
>>>
>>> People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to pay
>>> the council tax at all.
>>
>> not any more they aren't
>>
>> rule changed some years ago and it is now only available if you council
>> can afford it. and fewer and fewer can
>
> If you're a pensioner that doesn't apply.

It was mostly pensioners it applied to in the first place

so it is definitely the case that the new rules apply to pensioners

You only get council tax relief from your LA IF they can afford to give it
to you. There is no longer government money for this

Pensioner or otherwise

tim
pamela
2018-03-10 13:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13:41 10 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:

>
>
> "Fredxx" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:p80k6n$m5p$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/03/2018 11:44, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>> On 13:08 9 Mar 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country
>>>>>>>>>> of resources.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-
>>>>>>>>>> oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the
>>>>>>>>>> next three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight
>>>>>>>>>> years. It found that authorities' financial positions had
>>>>>>>>>> "worsened markedly" since they were last audited in 2014,
>>>>>>>>>> with two thirds of councils with social care
>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire
>>>>>>>>> vote winner has come at the expense of state spending
>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which
>>>>>>>>> is 8% of GDP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000
>>>>>>>> pensioners
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for
>>>>>>>> those with no employee or private pension )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who
>>>>>>>> have employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in
>>>>>>>> excess of the amount which denies you pension credits but
>>>>>>>> the majority of them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds
>>>>>>>> of thousands that company execs retire on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of
>>>>>>>> the pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to
>>>>>>>> take as an annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa
>>>>>>>> so all that does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in
>>>>>>>> any noticeable way?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>>>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but not to pay rent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live
>>>>> the majority of the homes are only band B, but that's still
>>>>> £1300. Even with a discount for a single person that's over
>>>>> £1000, and the actual basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.
>>>>
>>>> People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to
>>>> pay the council tax at all.
>>>
>>> not any more they aren't
>>>
>>> rule changed some years ago and it is now only available if you
>>> council can afford it. and fewer and fewer can
>>
>> If you're a pensioner that doesn't apply.
>
> It was mostly pensioners it applied to in the first place
>
> so it is definitely the case that the new rules apply to
> pensioners
>
> You only get council tax relief from your LA IF they can afford to
> give it to you. There is no longer government money for this
>
> Pensioner or otherwise
>
> tim

Can you cite where councils no longer have to provide council tax
reduction to those who would otherwise be eligible?

What you may mean is FULL council tax relief is no longer automatically
available from all councils and I have twice posted the following for
you...

"People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to pay
the council tax at all. A relatively recent ruling means some may
pay a small contributon but are still exempt from the majority of
it."

"Pensioners on Pension Credit Guarantee pay no council tax even if
they have savings over £16,000."
Fredxx
2018-03-10 14:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/03/2018 13:41, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:p80k6n$m5p$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/03/2018 11:44, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>> On 13:08  9 Mar 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>> On 19:33  8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>>>> On 11:04  8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-
>>>>>>> faces
>>>>>>>>>> -g oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years.
>>>>>>>>>> It found that authorities' financial positions had "worsened
>>>>>>>>>> markedly" since they were last audited in 2014, with two
>>>>>>>>>> thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>>>>>>>>>> into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>>>>> benefits for the elderly.  Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those
>>>>>>>> with  no employee or private pension )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of
>>>>>>>> the amount which denies you pension credits but the majority of
>>>>>>>> them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that
>>>>>>>> company execs retire on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the
>>>>>>>> pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an
>>>>>>>> annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that
>>>>>>>> does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>>>>> clothing and utilities.  It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but not to pay rent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the
>>>>> majority of the homes are only band B, but that's still £1300.
>>>>> Even with a discount for a single person that's over £1000, and
>>>>> the actual basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.
>>>>
>>>> People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to pay
>>>> the council tax at all.
>>>
>>> not any more they aren't
>>>
>>> rule changed some years ago and it is now only available if you
>>> council can afford it. and fewer and fewer can
>>
>> If you're a pensioner that doesn't apply.
>
> It was mostly pensioners it applied to in the first place
>
> so it is definitely the case that the new rules apply to pensioners
>
> You only get council tax relief from your LA IF they can afford to give
> it to you.  There is no longer government money for this
>
> Pensioner or otherwise

You need to cite some evidence of this. Most councils provide 90%
relief, but they have to provide 100% relief for pensioners on low
income. If you believe that is wrong please provide the act making it so.

These new rules came out when IDS was minister, a modest time ago, I
believe 2013.
pamela
2018-03-10 12:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11:44 10 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:

>
>
> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>> On 13:08 9 Mar 2018, kat wrote:
>>
>>> tim... <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>> On 19:33 8 Mar 2018, tim... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@81.171.92.183...
>>>>>>> On 11:04 8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Social care means local councils providing care for the
>>>>>>>> elderly and disabled - many of us will need that care
>>>>>>>> eventually and many of us have aged parents who need that
>>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of
>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-
councils-
>>>>> faces
>>>>>>>> -g
>>>>>>>> oing-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next
>>>>>>>> three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the
>>>>>>>> dramatically rising cost of social care, the government's
>>>>>>>> financial watchdog has concluded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils
>>>>>>>> were on the verge of insolvency having had their central
>>>>>>>> government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight
>>>>>>>> years. It found that authorities' financial positions had
>>>>>>>> "worsened markedly" since they were last audited in 2014,
>>>>>>>> with two thirds of councils with social care
>>>>>>>> responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous
>>>>>>> benefits for the elderly. Paying for such a sure fire vote
>>>>>>> winner has come at the expense of state spending elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8%
>>>>>>> of GDP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for
>>>>>> those with no employee or private pension )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think we should cut it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you live on 11,000 pa?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have
>>>>>> employee pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess
>>>>>> of the amount which denies you pension credits but the
>>>>>> majority of them are going to be tiny, not the hundreds of
>>>>>> thousands that company execs retire on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and for those who have private pensions the average size of
>>>>>> the pot at retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take
>>>>>> as an annuity, would give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all
>>>>>> that does is deny you pension credits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any
>>>>>> noticeable way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tim
>>>>>
>>>>> £11,000 pa after tax is perfectly adequate to pay for food,
>>>>> clothing and utilities. It comes to over £900 a month.
>>>>
>>>> but not to pay rent
>>>>
>>>> not every pensioner has a paid up house.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And those who do still have to pay council tax, where I live the
>>> majority of the homes are only band B, but that's still £1300.
>>> Even with a discount for a single person that's over £1000, and
>>> the actual basic pension is nowhere near £11,000.
>>
>> People on low incomes are means tested to see if they need to pay
>> the council tax at all.
>
> not any more they aren't
>
> rule changed some years ago and it is now only available if you
> council can afford it. and fewer and fewer can.

Just as I said but you clipped out....

"A relatively recent ruling means some may pay a small contributon
but are still exempt from the majority of it."

"Pensioners on Pension Credit Guarantee pay no council tax even if
they have savings over £16,000."

HTH.
JNugent
2018-03-09 02:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/03/2018 19:33, tim... wrote:

> "pamela" <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 11:04  8 Mar 2018, The Todal wrote:

[ ... ]

Todal:
>>> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three
>>> years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising
>>> cost of social care, the government's financial watchdog has
>>> concluded.
>>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on
>>> the verge of insolvency having had their central government
>>> funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that
>>> authorities' financial positions had "worsened markedly" since
>>> they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with
>>> social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last
>>> year.

pamela:
>> An error the Tories have made is stoking up overgenerous benefits for
>> the elderly.  Paying for such a sure fire vote winner has come at the
>> expense of state spending elsewhere.
>> Pensions cost a socking £111 billion per annum, which is 8% of GDP.

tim:
> That's an average of 11,000 for each of 10,000,000 pensioners
> (which is the basic pension plus additional payments for those with  no
> employee or private pension )
> How do you think we should cut it?
> Could you live on 11,000 pa?

The average (mean, modal) amount paid as Retirement Pension lies
somewhere between £6,600 and £7,650. In either case, an additional £100
or £200 is paid as a winter allowance (depending on whether the
pensioner is one of a couple).

When the new pension has kicked in fully, it'll make the max about
£8,600 (plus £100 or £200), but won't change the lower figure quoted.

I refer, of course, only to the contributory Retirement Pension, not to
any means-tested additions by way of Pension Credit, HB, etc.

> I realise that there are a percentage of pensioners who have employee
> pensions which pat then an annual amount in excess of the amount which
> denies you pension credits but the majority of them are going to be
> tiny, not the hundreds of thousands that company execs retire on.
>
> and for those who have private pensions the average size of the pot at
> retirement is 50,00 which, if you did have to take as an annuity, would
> give you about an extra 2,800 pa so all that does is deny you pension
> credits
>
> Not exactly a fortune is it?
>
> Come on, tell us how you are going to cut this expense in any noticeable
> way?
Yellow
2018-03-08 18:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:04:45 +0000 The Todal <***@icloud.com>
posted:
>
> Social care means local councils providing care for the elderly and
> disabled - many of us will need that care eventually and many of us have
> aged parents who need that care.
>
> But as with the NHS, the Tories have starved the country of resources.

Bearing in mind I do not routinely support any political party but
choose who to vote for at each election - why are you blaming the Tories
for this?

Social care *and* the NHS needs to be taken outside of politics and
instead of it being used for political gain - something all the parties
are guilty of.

The way they *all* behave, over what is so important to so many of us,
just makes me first want to weep and then to bang their heads together.

And my impression is that the Labour Party just want to pay the staff
more and more and more - which I fail to see is going to solve the bed
crisis at one of my local hospitals for example, and that seem to be
their sole policy - which is the problem as I see it.

Meanwhile the Tories just keep rearranging the deck chairs rather than
taking tough decisions like closing some units (because of local
objections) to concentrate funding and resources at more efficient
facilities.

We also need to get to grips with a proper computer system that
coordinates well, everything. Something governments simply seems unable
to deliver because civil servants have repeatedly proved themselves to
be unable to run such a project.


> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/one-in-ten-councils-faces-going-bust-over-the-soaring-cost-of-elderly-care-bgjp673px
>
> One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years
> after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of
> social care, the government?s financial watchdog has concluded.

I am surprised it is only 1 in 10.


> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities? financial
> positions had ?worsened markedly? since they were last audited in 2014,
> with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
> into their reserves last year.

The bullet needs to be bitten but if all that is going to continue to
happen is when one political party suggests a way forward for the other
(along with their supporting media) to rip it to shreds for political
gain, we are just going to continue to tumble down this rabbit hole.
The Todal
2018-03-08 23:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/03/2018 18:38, Yellow wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:04:45 +0000 The Todal <***@icloud.com>
> posted:
>>

>
>> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
>> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
>> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities? financial
>> positions had ?worsened markedly? since they were last audited in 2014,
>> with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
>> into their reserves last year.
>
> The bullet needs to be bitten but if all that is going to continue to
> happen is when one political party suggests a way forward for the other
> (along with their supporting media) to rip it to shreds for political
> gain, we are just going to continue to tumble down this rabbit hole.
>

If the government can't solve this, they certainly can't negotiate a
successful Brexit.

So the position is, most people will need social care for themselves or
for aged relatives. Unless they can be sure of a speedy death for
themselves or their relatives.

Put up the taxes or put up national insurance or allow councils to
increase council tax instead of imposing arbitrary limits on council tax.

Yes, you can also force people to pay more for their own care but that
is a deferred payment since it will normally be a charge on the house
payable when the person dies.

The normal way of sorting these things out when the political parties
are at loggerheads is to have a Royal Commission and abide by the
decisions of that commission. That could take years, but tax and NI
increases can be imposed immediately. The Tories doggedly refuse to do
it because their unique selling point is to be the party of low taxes.
Low taxes, rubbish public services, a failing NHS and failing social care.
Yellow
2018-03-08 23:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:30:05 +0000 The Todal <***@icloud.com>
posted:
>
> On 08/03/2018 18:38, Yellow wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:04:45 +0000 The Todal <***@icloud.com>
> > posted:
> >>
>
> >
> >> The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the
> >> verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by
> >> almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities? financial
> >> positions had ?worsened markedly? since they were last audited in 2014,
> >> with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping
> >> into their reserves last year.
> >
> > The bullet needs to be bitten but if all that is going to continue to
> > happen is when one political party suggests a way forward for the other
> > (along with their supporting media) to rip it to shreds for political
> > gain, we are just going to continue to tumble down this rabbit hole.
> >
>
> If the government can't solve this, they certainly can't negotiate a
> successful Brexit.
>
> So the position is, most people will need social care for themselves or
> for aged relatives. Unless they can be sure of a speedy death for
> themselves or their relatives.
>
> Put up the taxes or put up national insurance or allow councils to
> increase council tax instead of imposing arbitrary limits on council tax.
>
> Yes, you can also force people to pay more for their own care but that
> is a deferred payment since it will normally be a charge on the house
> payable when the person dies.
>
> The normal way of sorting these things out when the political parties
> are at loggerheads is to have a Royal Commission and abide by the
> decisions of that commission. That could take years, but tax and NI
> increases can be imposed immediately. The Tories doggedly refuse to do
> it because their unique selling point is to be the party of low taxes.
> Low taxes, rubbish public services, a failing NHS and failing social care.

I really wish this was as simple as a few pence on income tax and NI but
as I said in my posts, I believe figuring out how this money is to be
spent is really where efforts need to be directed.
The Todal
2018-03-10 13:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/03/2018 23:41, Yellow wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:30:05 +0000 The Todal <***@icloud.com>
> posted:
>>

>>
>> The normal way of sorting these things out when the political parties
>> are at loggerheads is to have a Royal Commission and abide by the
>> decisions of that commission. That could take years, but tax and NI
>> increases can be imposed immediately. The Tories doggedly refuse to do
>> it because their unique selling point is to be the party of low taxes.
>> Low taxes, rubbish public services, a failing NHS and failing social care.
>
> I really wish this was as simple as a few pence on income tax and NI but
> as I said in my posts, I believe figuring out how this money is to be
> spent is really where efforts need to be directed.
>
>

It's okay, everyone. The councils are going to solve the problem (or at
least, reduce their underfunding problem) by hiking up the price of
public car parking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5483779/Council-parking-charges-soar.html
Loading...