This Forum

[FCMR]

Should the pension they get not cover the cost of staying in a home.

[marcus]

Should the pension they get not cover the cost of staying in a home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unfortunatly no where near.

I currantly work in supported housing and previously on the IOM.

 

An example would be:

 

A small semi-independent unit consisting of 5 self contained flats.

 

Average rent £70 per week here in the UK.

Usually paid by housing benefit, directly to us who pay same, to sub-let from say the council or housing association.

 

Staff on site 24 hours per day offering individual support.

Care costs are a breakdown of staff wages etc.

housing management costs eg. light, heating, council tax, carpets, curtains etc.

 

Average about £230 per week.

 

So for about £300 per week you get accomodation, heating, professional support.

Most that don't have more than £16,000 in the bank don't have to pay anything.

If you have up to £20,000 you will have to pay your rent but could have your care costs waivered.

Anyone above £20,000 have to pay until thier savings drop below the cut off point.

Will still recieve full range of benefits eg. DLA.

 

Now when you talk of the elderly, care costs can be as high as £1,500 per week.

If bed ridden you are talking 2 hourly pressure area care, nutricional needs, personal care, specialist medical care.

 

If you can imagine intensive care as the most expensive and a shelterd bungalow with warden the cheapest.

 

Or in my case one of my flats £300 per week in comparison to £2,000 per week for say Broadmoor.

[GD4ELI]

I'd love to meet a pensioner well off enough to be able to afford to move to the island, its not as if they get a sheltered bungalow, rent covered by housing benefit, leaving them thousands to spend on monstrous wallpaper, bedding plants and Skoda's (formely Lada's before the fall of communism)

 

Try Glen Auldyn for example - full of 'em and there's no shortage of overseas interest once a house comes on the market.

 

There's a lot more money around than you may realise.

[Slim]

Should the pension they get not cover the cost of staying in a home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's an odd situation. Basically as it stands you can come to the last years of your life in three ways:

 

1) You have fek all, live off the state in state care, your kids get nowt, but you had nowt anyway, so who cares?

2) You have some savings and equity in a house but not enough to support yourself, you go into state care and they flog it to pay part of your care, your kids get nowt.

3) You've saved loads of cash, your minted and can afford private care, your kids get an inheritance.

 

It always looks to me like option 2 means you've worked hard for fek all. You might as well not bothered, and let the state look after you. The advantage of course is you enjoyed the fruits of your labour before you needed care.

 

I gather there's all sorts of schemes and scams for people (like Richard Hillman off corrie!) to buy houses off pensioners and rent them back to them, which basically gets you the equity out before the government can get it. You see houses conveyed to kids too.

 

Sucks really, and it's only going to get worse. Currently we're paying for our current retired population, because the pension funds they contributed aren't enough to keep them. The pensions we're contributing now aren't enough to keep us either when we retire, we're going to rely on the working population at the time. The problem is, the working population is decreasing, and the ageing population is growing as we're living longer and giving birth less.

 

The upshot is, most of us will have to work for longer, like it or not, the country simply wont be able to support us like they do the retired of today.

[ian rush]

State Pension age to 70 for all seems the obvious way forward although given that most of the people who bother to go out and vote are 50+, I can't imagine it'll be a blazing headline on many manifestos

[Slim]

Your probably right, but it's not going to be that simple. How many 64 year olds do you work with? Peoples attitudes to employing older people will have to change, and older peoples attitudes to learning new skills will have to change.

[The Old Git]

I work with / employ a 70 year old and he's not the first person who's stayed with us past the age of 65. I dread when he eventually does retire as he's going to be very hard to replace.

[Slim]

What business are you in?

[Observer]

My father is still employed full time and he will be 69 next birthday - his employers value him absolutely and would find him hard to replace.

 

(Accountant for law firm)

[Slim]

There's certain sectors that do it, most notably smaller private owned companies. I bet you don't personally work with any though Observer?

[Observer]

Not any that are over retirement age no... but in all honesty I think that is a question of personal choice/circumstance rather than company policy.

[The Old Git]

What business are you in?

 

Retail

 

There's certain sectors that do it, most notably smaller private owned companies

 

That's us

[Addie]

He has worked all his life as a manual worker, paid all his ni and taxes, brought his kids up without any help from the state, done national service, paid for his own home instead of living in a house funded by other taxpayers, and because the mans body and mind is xxxxed from years of hard work his family dont get the benifit from it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe a family necessarily have the automatic right to inherit his estate. Nor do I believe the state has the right to sequestrate his estate either.

 

If he's paid in he's entitled to care. Simple and fair.

 

I totally agree with caring for those who can't care for themselves, however, I get thoroughly cheesed off subsidising those who won't.

 

If I've worked hard and saved, I can make a will and leave my estate to a cat's home if I choose.

 

Incredibly it seems possible - as we met someone in the throes of doing this - to live in a commissioners house whilst buying a villa in Spain!

 

Would this person qualify for free care without needing to sell this secret asset?

[Rog]

So let’s just think about this.

 

There’s Fred and Joe.

 

Fred sort of ambles his way through school, dsn’t waste his time studying, doesn’t bother trying very hard – just does enough to keep the teachers off his back, sods about in his free time, then gets a job to ‘get some cash to enjoy himself’, works through a succession of jobs that don’t pay a lot but then don’t impact much on how he wants to live, doesn’t bother to save, and generally just drifts and has a good time with no real thought or care for the future. He gets married and eventually gets a council house or if someone dies and leaves him a few quid he may even but his own small place, but more likely not.

 

Then there’s Joe..

 

Works hard at school, works towards getting some decent qualifications with getting a good job as the objective, works studying for a lot of the time and doing part time work to get a few quid, doesn’t go out much but instead invests in his future. Has the odd night out but mostly nose to one grindstone or another.

 

The he gets a job, invests time and effort into it, takes on hard and challenging tasks, puts himself out, and sees his income rise. He invests, wins, looses, but more often wins, and is able to retire with a solid pension and a good portfolio and substantial property interests

 

Fred had paid very little in tax during his working life, he has also taken out a great deal in terms of various ‘benefits’ and especially during periods of unemployment Maybe horse trams in the Summer, dole in the Winter (bad back, yesser)

 

Joe on the other hand has despite best efforts paid a bloody fortune in taxes but taken very little in benefit – in fact only child benefit for his one kid and that’s a universal benefit anyway.

 

Joe even has private health insurance that he pays for out of his taxed income and so puts even less load onto the NHS than Fred.

 

If Fred and Joe in later life need to have geriatric care why should Joe, who has paid in far far more and taken out far far less than Fred now be required to continue to fork out from what he has earned and invested and wants to leave to his family or for that matter to whoever he sees fit, it being his taxed income anyway, for what Fred is getting free?

 

Why should Joe not also get the same care as Fred and also get it free. Joe has actually paid far more for it already.

[Jonty]

They are both old, and they are both going to die, so what does it matter either way?

 

Joe's family will be able to fend for themselves without an inheritance, if he was the right example to them.

 

We're all going to die - some quite soon.