Why should I pay for Old Age Social Care

Allan74

Old-Salt
At the back end of 2000, something like 52% did not reach the age of 55 after serving 22 years ( Although I cannot remember if this was Army wide or Infantry specific )

So I dread to think how many kick the bucket before reaching State Pension age - The % must be horrendous.
That is an astounding percentage.
 
What really hacks me off is that in the 80's the Conservatives encouraged people to stop renting and buy their own properties, and introduced the Right-to-Buy laws that meant councils had to sell. This was a great policy.

Except now those same people are having to sell their houses to pay for their care.

So they spent money on maintenance and looking after those homes so the councils didn't have to, and now the councils force them to be sold to pay for care.

It is a disgrace.
How is it a disgrace? In my view, you are responsible for your own upkeep unless you are mentally or physically incapable. Building up capital reserves to pay for your care in your dotage should be the norm.

The taxpayer funded benefit system is supposed to be a safety net to catch those who have fallen, not a hammock for the lazy or unwilling to sleep in. (To paraphrase Nye Bevan)
 
How is it a disgrace? In my view, you are responsible for your own upkeep unless you are mentally or physically incapable. Building up capital reserves to pay for your care in your dotage should be the norm.

The taxpayer funded benefit system is supposed to be a safety net to catch those who have fallen, not a hammock for the lazy or unwilling to sleep in. (To paraphrase Nye Bevan)
Because people were deceived. They were never warned that they would have to sell the houses they had paid good money for to keep themselves in their old age.

It was a con by Blair and Brown, and continued by Cameron et al to privatise the maintenance of those houses, and then take the profits back when convenient.
 
Because people were deceived. They were never warned that they would have to sell the houses they had paid good money for to keep themselves in their old age.

It was a con by Blair and Brown, and continued by Cameron et al to privatise the maintenance of those houses, and then take the profits back when convenient.
Nonsense, since people who bought non-council houses also paid to maintain those houses, and still have to sell them, if necessary, to pay for private social care.
 
What really hacks me off is that in the 80's the Conservatives encouraged people to stop renting and buy their own properties, and introduced the Right-to-Buy laws that meant councils had to sell. This was a great policy.

Except now those same people are having to sell their houses to pay for their care.

So they spent money on maintenance and looking after those homes so the councils didn't have to, and now the councils force them to be sold to pay for care.

It is a disgrace.
Flips to every coin. Like this household...and hundreds of thousands like us.
We bought early off the Council. Tiny 10 year mortgage 50% less than the rent, which we paid off in 7 years. That was in 1993. Meantime, we've dodged (having a stab at index-linking) £91k in rent alone.
Sure, we've likely put around 35k plus in improvements eg fitted bedrooms & a kitchen etc ( as you do) but I reckon we must still be ahead to circa 60k-ish.

Meantime, we are not a drag on our Local Authority who still get our £94.00 per month Council Tax, but have no legal burden to fix our stuff up if it breaks, do our garden, or anything else.
SWMBO all credit to her has turned it into something of a luxury pad over the 30 years...we'd never have done that to a Council Rent House.

Come Waiting for God Time, sure we have to bunce up but we don't really care. It stops at a certain level and if the remaining spouse is over 65 they get to stay at the house till death if they can...or their time in a home.
In which case, the Estate is allowed to retain something like 16k...might be wrong about exact figure bit it might even be 26K. Either way, there's about 95k in equity they can have..and we cannot take it with us nor is our son interested in one cent of it. In any case, be it former Local Authority or Private, I'm sure the law & systems do not differ.

TBH, if able to back in the day, buying you Council House was a complete no-brainer. No more waiting for months for Council Van to fix stuff you were not allowed to for a start. Carte blanche to improve your own house to a decent degree. Which is why they were all sold. You could say even those Buy to Lets create a service of sorts than a hindrance as again they too house thousands of people the Council can tick off their waiting lists. Although, not all of them are pleasant.
You cannot do it now in FK post code though. But, being retired, the additional £310.00 monthly in rent we'd be paying otherwise does come in handy some months. Since we retired we've dodged 19k in rent alone.
 
Because people were deceived. They were never warned that they would have to sell the houses they had paid good money for to keep themselves in their old age.

It was a con by Blair and Brown, and continued by Cameron et al to privatise the maintenance of those houses, and then take the profits back when convenient.
That is economically incoherent whinging.

If you rent a property then you never have any capital in it and will pay forever. That money, from your perspective, has been burned. Should you move out at any time you would have bugger all to show for all your years of payments. If you buy the property on any repayment scheme, then your own capital share increases with time, up to the point where you have acquired the whole thing and don't need to pay any more. From your perspective that money has been invested wisely. As it is yours you have to pay the upkeep costs, but even so you will spend less over the period than you would have paid in rent and have a hefty nest egg to show for it. This nest egg can then, in part, be used to fund your care in your old age.

Sounds to me like a winner.

The only way your post makes sense is if you are trying to preach the position that you should not have to be responsible for yourself and somebody else should be made to do it at reduced or zero cost to you. That is the real nub of modern socialism, which I detest.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
There's far more that tax revenue gets wasted on that I'd rather was stamped down on first.

There's so many easy solutions - How about we start burning dingy migrants at power stations, Self importing free fuel for the nation.

I'm sure some of them scrub up quite well.
 

Allan74

Old-Salt
That is economically incoherent whinging.

If you rent a property then you never have any capital in it and will pay forever. That money, from your perspective, has been burned. Should you move out at any time you would have bugger all to show for all your years of payments. If you buy the property on any repayment scheme, then your own capital share increases with time, up to the point where you have acquired the whole thing and don't need to pay any more. From your perspective that money has been invested wisely. As it is yours you have to pay the upkeep costs, but even so you will spend less over the period than you would have paid in rent and have a hefty nest egg to show for it. This nest egg can then, in part, be used to fund your care in your old age.

Sounds to me like a winner.

The only way your post makes sense is if you are trying to preach the position that you should not have to be responsible for yourself and somebody else should be made to do it at reduced or zero cost to you. That is the real nub of modern socialism, which I detest.
Or rather...

"The only way your post makes sense is if you are trying to preach the position that you should not have to be responsible for yourself and somebody else should be made to do it at reduced or zero cost to you. That is the real nub of modern Conservativism i.e I keep my assets and poorer young people pay for me.
 

Allan74

Old-Salt
Flips to every coin. Like this household...and hundreds of thousands like us.
We bought early off the Council. Tiny 10 year mortgage 50% less than the rent, which we paid off in 7 years. That was in 1993. Meantime, we've dodged (having a stab at index-linking) £91k in rent alone.
Sure, we've likely put around 35k plus in improvements eg fitted bedrooms & a kitchen etc ( as you do) but I reckon we must still be ahead to circa 60k-ish.

Meantime, we are not a drag on our Local Authority who still get our £94.00 per month Council Tax, but have no legal burden to fix our stuff up if it breaks, do our garden, or anything else.
SWMBO all credit to her has turned it into something of a luxury pad over the 30 years...we'd never have done that to a Council Rent House.

Come Waiting for God Time, sure we have to bunce up but we don't really care. It stops at a certain level and if the remaining spouse is over 65 they get to stay at the house till death if they can...or their time in a home.
In which case, the Estate is allowed to retain something like 16k...might be wrong about exact figure bit it might even be 26K. Either way, there's about 95k in equity they can have..and we cannot take it with us nor is our son interested in one cent of it. In any case, be it former Local Authority or Private, I'm sure the law & systems do not differ.

TBH, if able to back in the day, buying you Council House was a complete no-brainer. No more waiting for months for Council Van to fix stuff you were not allowed to for a start. Carte blanche to improve your own house to a decent degree. Which is why they were all sold. You could say even those Buy to Lets create a service of sorts than a hindrance as again they too house thousands of people the Council can tick off their waiting lists. Although, not all of them are pleasant.
You cannot do it now in FK post code though. But, being retired, the additional £310.00 monthly in rent we'd be paying otherwise does come in handy some months. Since we retired we've dodged 19k in rent alone.
They were sold because they were offered at huge discounts and a moronic HMG decided that no RTB sales cash would be allowed to fund the replacement of Council Homes....plus of course the same version of HMG, bought, sorry, sponsored, by large building firms, abolished the PM stds. which then left a later MOL crying that modern houses are tiny and how was that allowed to occur.
 
They were sold because they were offered at huge discounts
Not going to lie.
That's the only bit that mattered to me and it would seem, thousands more.
This bloody house was unstitching itself in a variety of ways under The Cooncul Cosh.
We waited until the mass Street refurbing took place over about 5 years,, for a new roof, GSH, DG, insulation, and a spot of re-wire. The residual issues we had no hope of getting upgrades for "free" was the kitchen, bathroom, and replacing old (circa1938!) pitch pine flooring, skirtings...the usual . That lot cost about £30k over a few years.

I know about not being allowed to spend money replacing stock.
My understanding at the time was it had to do with EU regs interfering.
I estimated with a solicitor friend that over the entire RTB period, FDC grossed around 86 million. They got as much as £35/50k plus for the big 4 bedroom jobs in nice areas. More if you had not got full discount status as I had. Some folk were happy to pay far more...it was still a cheap deal after all. These big ones do an easy 130k plus now...and some went for less than £20k on max discount.
Where it went? No idea.
Actually, I was checking local rents for a third party just last week and was a bit shocked to find the rent for my home would be £398.00 per month now, plus Council Tax ( which we pay obviously) of £98.00 per month.
Private rent for these are now around £495.00 per month. So we save about 5k P/a now. Thankfully. Phuck 'em!
 
Last edited:
Or rather...

"The only way your post makes sense is if you are trying to preach the position that you should not have to be responsible for yourself and somebody else should be made to do it at reduced or zero cost to you. That is the real nub of modern Conservatism i.e I keep my assets and poorer young people pay for me.
Its called capitalism, :- never use your own money, always use someone ease's (Ask any banker) ;)
 

Allan74

Old-Salt
Not going to lie.
That's the only bit that mattered to me and it would seem, thousands more.
This bloody house was unstitching itself in a variety of ways under The Cooncul Cosh.
We waited until the mass Street refurbing took place over about 5 years,, for a new roof, GSH, DG, insulation, and a spot of re-wire. The residual issues we had no hope of getting upgrades for "free" was the kitchen, bathroom, and replacing old (circa1938!) pitch pine flooring, skirtings...the usual . That lot cost about £30k over a few years.

I know about not being allowed to spend money replacing stock.
My understanding at the time was it had to do with EU regs interfering.
I estimated with a solicitor friend that over the entire RTB period, FDC grossed around 86 million. They got as much as £35/50k plus for the big 4 bedroom jobs in nice areas. More if you had not got full discount status as I had. Some folk were happy to pay far more...it was still a cheap deal after all. These big ones do an easy 130k plus now...and some went for less than £20k on max discount.
Where it went? No idea.
Actually, I was checking local rents for a third party just last week and was a bit shocked to find the rent for my home would be £398.00 per month now, plus Council Tax ( which we pay obviously) of £98.00 per month.
Private rent for these are now around £495.00 per month. So we save about 5k P/a now. Thankfully. Phuck 'em!
Nope, not the EU...purely HMG of the day.
 
Or rather...

"The only way your post makes sense is if you are trying to preach the position that you should not have to be responsible for yourself and somebody else should be made to do it at reduced or zero cost to you. That is the real nub of modern Conservativism i.e I keep my assets and poorer young people pay for me.
Doesn't make sense in the context of my original post, where I say that you are responsible for yourself.
 
According to an article in the Daily Unmentionable, which I am banned upon pain of death from providing a link to on here, those born in the 1970s and later could be waiting another SEVEN years for their state pension.
 

exbluejob

LE
Book Reviewer
According to an article in the Daily Unmentionable, which I am banned upon pain of death from providing a link to on here, those born in the 1970s and later could be waiting another SEVEN years for their state pension.
I was born in 57. Cheers easy.
 
According to an article in the Daily Unmentionable, which I am banned upon pain of death from providing a link to on here, those born in the 1970s and later could be waiting another SEVEN years for their state pension.
Its already 67 for them that would be a SPA of ...er...74? Seems unlikely,
 

sirbhp

LE
Book Reviewer
The figures were from government actuaries, produced in order to budget for military pensions.
Even if, as is often the case, the actuaries produced " worst case" forecasts, fewer than 25% of veterans surviving long enough to draw their pension is quite scary.
An Actuary is someone who found the life of accounting far too exciting .
 
According to an article in the Daily Unmentionable, which I am banned upon pain of death from providing a link to on here, those born in the 1970s and later could be waiting another SEVEN years for their state pension.

Mate by the time we're of a pensionable age they'll just have a conveyor belt to mass tip geriatrics into a massive volcano as the cost of caring for us will be impossible. Either that or a mass synthetic opioid programme to keep geriatrics as low maintenance as possible until we overdose.
 

Latest Threads

Top