Could the unthinkable happen?

[jendan]

As an average aged Farmer, so someone for whom the clock is running down,I struggle with this concept of the taxpayer payng for my care (heaven forbid I should need it) so that my kids can inherit my estate.
I am worth a few bob when it is all cashed and all,of it I have accumulated myself. If my two sons want to benefit if I need care, they need to work out how to provde that cheaper than the state.
If I need care I fully intend it should be the best my money can buy. so if I am unable to look sfter myself in my own home what could I expect it to cost the boys to employ someone to live in than than the cost of a nursing home?

If someone needs 24/7 care at home,it becomes phenomenally expensive.Its basically a team of at least 3 people,plus holiday cover etc.I dont think you will get much change out of £70,000 to £80,000 per year.Could be more.

 

[davieh3350]

Why is there no National Farmers Party?
We'd make a perfect party to rule the country. Able to argue about the smallest of detail for hours.
The country has no money (or so they say), but that's not a problem because we're used to it and we'd be able to keep the country ticking over with bits of string and a few other bodges.

I'd vote for them.

 

[Campbell]

My late ma in law used to reckon that Farmers would be best at running the country. I would point out the great success of farmer owned CO-OP's

 

[DeeGee]

I think many farmers would indeed make a damn good job of running the country. In terms of cost cutting and making ends meet we are, of necessity, experts.

 

[Muck Spreader]

I was thinking on similar lines. There could be a way of a few people needing care clubbing together to pay for a few carers who are shared between the group.

You mean a few young eastern European nurses, I'm in

 

[Sussex Martin]

I think many farmers would indeed make a damn good job of running the country. In terms of cost cutting and making ends meet we are, of necessity, experts.

I think most people that have run a business for any length of time will do a better job than those that have never worked a day in their lives outside of politics.

 

[Muck Spreader]

I think most people that have run a business for any length of time will do a better job than those that have never worked a day in their lives outside of politics.

We all think we can do someone else job better than they can, until we understand the full implications of it. Having said that, I do think that a lot of politico's do get wrapped up in their own world a bit to much and need to keep one foot in the real world were the rest of us live.

 

[wasted years]

My late ma in law used to reckon that Farmers would be best at running the country. I would point out the great success of farmer owned CO-OP's

But farmers didn't actually run the co-ops, they were on the board , not the same thing.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I think most people that have run a business for any length of time will do a better job than those that have never worked a day in their lives outside of politics.

It used to be that most senior Tory politicians had a business background and most Labour ones came from working roots. Nowadays we see "career politicians" who have studied political theory or law then gone straight into politics with no working experience. The country is suffering as a result IMHO.

Because politics IS their chosen career they are unwilling to take hard decisions that the country need which might make them unpopular at the next election.

We now live in the age of endless inquiries and reports but sadly little decisiveness.

Getting back to the original post, JC has altruistic ideals but has never lived in a pragmatic world. He would either have to wise up massively in power or he would cripple the country for a generation.

I still marvel that he made a career of being "outside the club" and not toeing the party line but now elects loyalty from others. Rank hypocracy!

 

[Grassman]

It used to be that most senior Tory politicians had a business background and most Labour ones came from working roots. Nowadays we see "career politicians" who have studied political theory or law then gone straight into politics with no working experience. The country is suffering as a result IMHO.

Because politics IS their chosen career they are unwilling to take hard decisions that the country need which might make them unpopular at the next election.

We now live in the age of endless inquiries and reports but sadly little decisiveness.

Getting back to the original post, JC has altruistic ideals but has never lived in a pragmatic world. He would either have to wise up massively in power or he would cripple the country for a generation.

I still marvel that he made a career of being "outside the club" and not toeing the party line but now elects loyalty from others. Rank hypocracy!

And here is where Mr trump steps in!

 

[JP1]

My vote will be wasted this year.

I can't bring myself to vote Labour as I'm sure they'd crash the country . I do agree with some of their policies though.

I can't vote Tory this time (have done a few times) as their handling of the NHS, social care and education appears incompetent .

It looks like it'll be a protest vote for the Lib Dems or Greens for me then but our sitting Tory MP is virtually guaranteed a win in this area.

It's called Democracy

I'm with you on never being able to bring myself to vote Labour.

I think the Conservatives have really shot themselves in the foot over the "Dementia Tax", a total lottery and a massive inheritance tax by stealth.

 

[Red Fred]

If someone needs 24/7 care at home,it becomes phenomenally expensive.Its basically a team of at least 3 people,plus holiday cover etc.I dont think you will get much change out of £70,000 to £80,000 per year.Could be more.

Mum is bedridden and needs 3 visits a day from 2 carers. The council have just withdrawn the funding for the one carer they used to subsidise, so I think we will be finding around £22,000 pa from now on for both carers, 3 times a day, for half an hour per visit. It certainly concentrates the mind. Note this is NOT 24/7 care, just 3 visits for moving her around, etc,and we look after her the rest of the time.

 

[Martin Holden]

Looking at History, under Labour administrations Ag' always faired better but as part of the EU and CAP it doesn't make any difference, but post Brexit it could well do again. One sad fact is there is no credible opposition and a democracy needs this to function properly. Never had there been a time when the choices have been fairly dull. Truth is no one knows what Brexit will mean for us all apart from keeping some civil servants and lawyers busy for the next few years! As a centre ground person, it is all very un exciting!

Mum is bedridden and needs 3 visits a day from 2 carers. The council have just withdrawn the funding for the one carer they used to subsidise, so I think we will be finding around £22,000 pa from now on for both carers, 3 times a day, for half an hour per visit. It certainly concentrates the mind. Note this is NOT 24/7 care, just 3 visits for moving her around, etc,and we look after her the rest of the time.

Been there, done that and have the T shirt. Know the feeling well! The Tories have shot themselves in the foot with the stealth tax which is what it really is. Not many polititians have openly admitted that we have to pay for the free services that are there. However, I am convinced there is huge budget waste inside the NHS starting with the monstrous profits the drugs companies make! Sure they have long term research investments and shareholders to satisfy, but the price increases over the last few years have been calosal to say the least.

 

[JP1]

I still cannot fathom why all three parties (well 5 if you include Wales and Scotland) have not all made a point about global companies and transfer pricing.

There's a massive tax deficit that could be plugged to pay for essential services from what we are already buying from global companies who sell to us in the UK. I don't know what the Apple off-shore reserves are but a proportion of that belongs to our Government and therefore by extension our NHS etc.

 

[KMA]

In a real dilemma now, wouldn't vote Labour if they were the only party standing especially with the fruitloops in charge at the moment, Libdem policies are pretty crap, Tory manifesto is just brutal and socially unjust, if Sturgeon would get off the indyref2 bollox they'd be worth voting for. Started off intending to vote blue for the first time in years but having very serious doubts now.

Tories to win with an increased majority but not as big as expected. Serious and violent unrest in the country towards the end of the next parliament as Tory policies start to bite. A UK wide tactical 'anyone but the tories' vote in the election after that as a huge minority feel they have nothing left to lose anyway.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Can someone explain this new social care thing .I understand the £100,000 cut off .but how will it be different than before. Can they force a child to sell a house that they have inherited and may be their home

 

[Cowabunga]

Mum is bedridden and needs 3 visits a day from 2 carers. The council have just withdrawn the funding for the one carer they used to subsidise, so I think we will be finding around £22,000 pa from now on for both carers, 3 times a day, for half an hour per visit. It certainly concentrates the mind. Note this is NOT 24/7 care, just 3 visits for moving her around, etc,and we look after her the rest of the time.

You could directly employ someone [or two sharing the job] for maybe four hours a day, nearly every day of the year for that. Maybe local or maybe a foreign worker living in. There must be more economic options than through the 'social services' who charge the earth and pay carers minimum wage and only allocate maybe half an hour per visit. Most of their time and cost goes on getting from one place to another.

 

[Cowabunga]

Can someone explain this new social care thing .I understand the £100,000 cut off .but how will it be different than before. Can they force a child to sell a house that they have inherited and may be their home

They will inherit less. So if a house is valued at say £180K and the care bill is £80k, which it could very easily exceed, then the bill will be presented to the estate to pay on death. If that means that the inheritors have to raise a mortgage to keep the property or have to sell, so be it.

So don't run up a million Pound care bill or your offspring will only be left with another million or so between them.


Seriously though, I can see many older people committing suicide to avoid these charges on their property. Even if they don't, it will be an awful burden and worry for many of them. Have the powers that be thought of this I wonder?

 

[Cowabunga]

In a real dilemma now, wouldn't vote Labour if they were the only party standing especially with the fruitloops in charge at the moment, Libdem policies are pretty crap, Tory manifesto is just brutal and socially unjust, if Sturgeon would get off the indyref2 bollox they'd be worth voting for. Started off intending to vote blue for the first time in years but having very serious doubts now.

Tories to win with an increased majority but not as big as expected. Serious and violent unrest in the country towards the end of the next parliament as Tory policies start to bite. A UK wide tactical 'anyone but the tories' vote in the election after that as a huge minority feel they have nothing left to lose anyway.

Will they have a choice if the economy goes down the tubes as many expect it to? Where's the money coming from? Not saying it will get that bad, but the Government has a responsibility to budget for a severe economic downturn regardless. In those circumstances it would be irresponsible to promise to spend much, and this gives the added political advantage that if things turn out for the best, they will indeed be able to spend more than promised in their manifesto. So nobody could really be disappointed if they win promising misery but yet deliver better.

 

[JP1]

They will inherit less. So if a house is valued at say £180K and the care bill is £80k, which it could very easily exceed, then the bill will be presented to the estate to pay on death. If that means that the inheritors have to raise a mortgage to keep the property or have to sell, so be it.

So don't run up a million Pound care bill or your offspring will only be left with another million or so between them.


Seriously though, I can see many older people committing suicide to avoid these charges on their property. Even if they don't, it will be an awful burden and worry for many of them. Have the powers that be thought of this I wonder?

The central points are as follows:

If you succumb to cancer and die early, you will have lower care costs if you die early rather than , say , dementia.

Currently you would be assessed for your savings and only be responsible for care costs if you had more than £23k in savings.

Now the Government / private contractors will charge for all care costs by recovery from house proceeds (after a £100,000 allowance) after your death.

Many (including my Aunt) have already lost their independent living in warden assisted housing because of the removal of Central Government grants. All that did for 5 years was placed ever greater burden on the ambulance service and the A&E department at the local hospital. Madness