If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
True. But why should the family home be sacrosanct? It's a large part of people's wealth and if it is no longer needed because the elderly person needs care then it should be sold and used to pay for that.
Well it partly depends on whether you see the state as more of a safety net [like unemployment benefits] or more as an automatic insurer [like the NHS]. There's a strong logical case that end-of-life care is more like the NHS.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full command of her faculties. We paid for a personal carer to look after her and she lived with my brother. Plus we were lucky enough to live close by (though it was not perhaps quite so much luck as closeness to my mother was one of the factors which weighed in the balance when we bought our house) and saw her every week (minimum).
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
I would argue children have similar duties to their parents in old age, as they had towards them when they were a young age.
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
++++++++++
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full ++++++
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
I see no reason why the state should be the first resort of elderly care. I would love to leave all my filthy lucre to my daughter, but if my health dictates otherwise, so be it.
The problem is that the current "system" discourages people from building up the assets (or annuities) to fund their care and we have lost the moral obligation for everyone to look after their elderly.
We need to acknowledge these realities and have the state provide a basic minimum level of care in their own homes first and then (if a care home is required), into a Care Home with a very basic level of provision. Think of it as akin to "hostels for the elderly". This would include room sharing and bathroom sharing etc etc. Above that basic level an individual and their family can choose to top up into something much better from their assets etc. Insurance can then be setup for those who want to take it out for the top-up payments.
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full command of her faculties. We paid for a personal carer to look after her and she lived with my brother. Plus we were lucky enough to live close by (though it was not perhaps quite so much luck as closeness
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that sa
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
True. But why should the family home be sacrosanct? It's a large part of people's wealth and if it is no longer needed because the elderly person needs care then it should be sold and used to pay for that.
As house prices continue to rise far faster than wages the family home is a crucial asset to help advance up the property ladder if we are not to become ever more a nation of renters, hence insurance is the preferred option b
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
True. But why should the family home be sacrosanct? It's a large part of people's wealth and if it is no longer needed because the elderly person needs care then it should be sold and used to pay for that.
Well it partly depends on whether you see the state as more of a safety net [like unemployment benefits] or more as an automatic insurer [like the NHS]. There's a strong logical case that end-of-life care is more like the NHS.
I think that is correct - otherwise you're benefiting the poor, spendthrifts and the very rich at the expense of the middle ground savers and so forth...
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
I would argue children have similar duties to their parents in old age, as they had towards them when they were a young age.
So you expect people to bear the costs of both bringing up their children and taking care of their parents? How much money do you think people have, especially to care for relatives who might live hundreds of miles from them?
And I totally disagree with the argument that "if you have savings, you should pay for your own care". It seems grossly unfair for those who have the bad luck to need care in later life to fully bear the costs. In the NHS the risk of getting ill is shared with everyone else - I don't see why that shouldn't apply to care as well.
Frankly the problem will only be solved when we have an adult conversation about
1) what the state should do 2) what the individual should do
In addition we should stop all the preaching about healthy lifestyles, by all means put information on a website but stop with the national campaigns. Our problems are demographic.Lifetime healthcare costs, not to mention pension costs are greater for people who live healthily than those who smoke/drink/are obese.
It may sound harsh but we can have a health conscious long living population or an affordable one. Pick one.
Just cancelling all the healthy living campaigns would save a few million on its own.
We could also restrict councils and government to the same level of pension contribution per employee as the average private sector employee. Surrey pension scheme for example has an employer contribution of 14% if that was 5% that would be saving of two thirds ( for info in 2010 surrey council pension contributions amounted to 36 million so 24 million extra on the budget, at 2010 values the extra 15% they want would amount to around 80 million so already a third of the way there)
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If
++++++++++
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full ++++++
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
I see no reason why the state should be the first resort of elderly care. I would love to leave all my filthy lucre to my daughter, but if my health dictates otherwise, so be it.
The problem is that the current "system" discourages people from building up the assets (or annuities) to fund their care and we have lost the moral obligation for everyone to look after their elderly.
We need to acknowledge these realities and have the state provide a basic minimum level of care in their own homes first and then (if a care home is required), into a Care Home with a very basic level of provision. Think of it as akin to "hostels for the elderly". This would include room sharing and bathroom sharing etc etc. Above that basic level an individual and their family can choose to top up into something much better from their assets etc. Insurance can then be setup for those who want to take it out for the top-up payments.
There is a British cultural attitude here too which is that we like our children and grannies out of sight, and out of mind. Middle-class though it may be to say so, we send our kids to boarding school and our grannies to homes.
I'm not sure either enjoy them very much.
It is not the same in countries like Spain, for example. Which is something they do right.
Frankly the problem will only be solved when we have an adult conversation about
1) what the state should do 2) what the individual should do
In addition we should stop all the preaching about healthy lifestyles, by all means put information on a website but stop with the national campaigns. Our problems are demographic.Lifetime healthcare costs, not to mention pension costs are greater for people who live healthily than those who smoke/drink/are obese.
It may sound harsh but we can have a health conscious long living population or an affordable one. Pick one.
Just cancelling all the healthy living campaigns would save a few million on its own.
We could also restrict councils and government to the same level of pension contribution per employee as the average private sector employee. Surrey pension scheme for example has an employer contribution of 14% if that was 5% that would be saving of two thirds ( for info in 2010 surrey council pension contributions amounted to 36 million so 24 million extra on the budget, at 2010 values the extra 15% they want would amount to around 80 million so already a third of the way there)
All that would achieve is more impoverished people in retirement, which would inevitably increase costs to the state to care for them. It's a false economy.
(In any case the savings would have to be offset against increased Employer NI contributions so wouldn't generate the £24m you are claiming anyway)
Frankly the problem will only be solved when we have an adult conversation about
1) what the state should do 2) what the individual should do
In addition we should stop all the preaching about healthy lifestyles, by all means put information on a website but stop with the national campaigns. Our problems are demographic.Lifetime healthcare costs, not to mention pension costs are greater for people who live healthily than those who smoke/drink/are obese.
It may sound harsh but we can have a health conscious long living population or an affordable one. Pick one.
Just cancelling all the healthy living campaigns would save a few million on its own.
We could also restrict councils and government to the same level of pension contribution per employee as the average private sector employee. Surrey pension scheme for example has an employer contribution of 14% if that was 5% that would be saving of two thirds ( for info in 2010 surrey council pension contributions amounted to 36 million so 24 million extra on the budget, at 2010 values the extra 15% they want would amount to around 80 million so already a third of the way there)
Are you sure the 14% contribution isn't employer + employee ?
Any smart employer will have the Employer contributing the whole lot due to tax/NI implications (With salary sacrifice also baked in), at least this is the way it will be shown externally looking at it from the pension company's perspective.
Frankly the problem will only be solved when we have an adult conversation about
1) what the state should do 2) what the individual should do
In addition we should stop all the preaching about healthy lifestyles, by all means put information on a website but stop with the national campaigns. Our problems are demographic.Lifetime healthcare costs, not to mention pension costs are greater for people who live healthily than those who smoke/drink/are obese.
It may sound harsh but we can have a health conscious long living population or an affordable one. Pick one.
Just cancelling all the healthy living campaigns would save a few million on its own.
We could also restrict councils and government to the same level of pension contribution per employee as the average private sector employee. Surrey pension scheme for example has an employer contribution of 14% if that was 5% that would be saving of two thirds ( for info in 2010 surrey council pension contributions amounted to 36 million so 24 million extra on the budget, at 2010 values the extra 15% they want would amount to around 80 million so already a third of the way there)
All that would achieve is more impoverished people in retirement, which would inevitably increase costs to the state to care for them. It's a false economy.
(In any case the savings would have to be offset against increased Employer NI contributions so wouldn't generate the £24m you are claiming anyway)
Sorry how do you conclude that? Are council workers not already eligible for the state pension? Why do only council workers have the right to get more than that and have their extra pension funded by tax payers?
My extra pension over and above the state pension is funded by me and a pretty standard level of employer contribution. When I retire I don't expect to get much if anything in the way of state funding above the basic state pension, why would these council workers require more if councils could only contribute 5% like most private employers?
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
I would argue children have similar duties to their parents in old age, as they had towards them when they were a young age.
So you expect people to bear the costs of both bringing up their children and taking care of their parents? How much money do you think people have, especially to care for relatives who might live hundreds of miles from them?
And I totally disagree with the argument that "if you have savings, you should pay for your own care". It seems grossly unfair for those who have the bad luck to need care in later life to fully bear the costs. In the NHS the risk of getting ill is shared with everyone else - I don't see why that shouldn't apply to care as well.
Children have no assets, by definition. Elderly parents usually do. But, I consider looking after both a duty - after all, they made great sacrifices to bring you into the world - and there can be a debate about the level of state support offered to those with no assets, just as with childcare. Neither obligation lasts forever. And I certainly don't want to be visited for just one hour a week by my family in a home if I reach my 80s, in my final years.
As you get older and older, and approach death, the probability of you needing care from the NHS approaches 1. This is about fairly sharing the liabilities.
Throughout human history families have lived together - and cared for one another - across multiple generations. It's only in recent years the economics have been convenient enough to farm this out (really, only the last 60 years or so) and it isn't sustainable.
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
I would argue children have similar duties to their parents in old age, as they had towards them when they were a young age.
So you expect people to bear the costs of both bringing up their children and taking care of their parents? How much money do you think people have, especially to care for relatives who might live hundreds of miles from them?
And I totally disagree with the argument that "if you have savings, you should pay for your own care". It seems grossly unfair for those who have the bad luck to need care in later life to fully bear the costs. In the NHS the risk of getting ill is shared with everyone else - I don't see why that shouldn't apply to care as well.
Children have no assets, by definition. Elderly parents usually do. But, I consider looking after both a duty - after all, they made great sacrifices to bring you into the world - and there can be a debate about the level of state support offered to those with no assets, just as with childcare. Neither obligation lasts forever. And I certainly don't want to be visited for just one hour a week by my family in a home if I reach my 80s, in my final years.
As you get older and older, and approach death, the probability of you needing care from the NHS approaches 1. This is about fairly sharing the liabilities.
Throughout human history families have lived together - and cared for one another - across multiple generations. It's only in recent years the economics have been convenient enough to farm this out (really, only the last 60 years or so) and it isn't sustainable.
Communism rejects the family model. Much of it has seeped through
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If
++++++++++
...
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
I see no reason why the state should be the first resort of elderly care. I would love to leave all my filthy lucre to my daughter, but if my health dictates otherwise, so be it.
The problem is that the current "system" discourages people from building up the assets (or annuities) to fund their care and we have lost the moral obligation for everyone to look after their elderly.
We need to acknowledge these realities and have the state provide a basic minimum level of care in their own homes first and then (if a care home is required), into a Care Home with a very basic level of provision. Think of it as akin to "hostels for the elderly". This would include room sharing and bathroom sharing etc etc. Above that basic level an individual and their family can choose to top up into something much better from their assets etc. Insurance can then be setup for those who want to take it out for the top-up payments.
There is a British cultural attitude here too which is that we like our children and grannies out of sight, and out of mind. Middle-class though it may be to say so, we send our kids to boarding school and our grannies to homes.
I'm not sure either enjoy them very much.
It is not the same in countries like Spain, for example. Which is something they do right.
I don't think this is cultural at all. It is a Western trend apart from a few exceptions where culture/perhaps only recent economic growth has maintained it.
All that said, I'd happily take my parents or the in-laws in if they needed care. But then I can probably afford both financial and time costs of doing so.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
I would argue children have similar duties to their parents in old age, as they had towards them when they were a young age.
So you expect people to bear the costs of both bringing up their children and taking care of their parents? How much money do you think people have, especially to care for relatives who might live hundreds of miles from them?
And I totally disagree with the argument that "if you have savings, you should pay for your own care". It seems grossly unfair for those who have the bad luck to need care in later life to fully bear the costs. In the NHS the risk of getting ill is shared with everyone else - I don't see why that shouldn't apply to care as well.
Certainly, one owes obligations to both parents and children.
And what's the point of saving during one's working life, if not to provide capital and income in old age.
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
I would argue children have similar duties to their parents in old age, as they had towards them when they were a young age.
So you expect people to bear the costs of both bringing up their children and taking care of their parents? How much money do you think people have, especially to care for relatives who might live hundreds of miles from them?
And I totally disagree with the argument that "if you have savings, you should pay for your own care". It seems grossly unfair for those who have the bad luck to need care in later life to fully bear the costs. In the NHS the risk of getting ill is shared with everyone else - I don't see why that shouldn't apply to care as well.
-snip-
Throughout human history families have lived together - and cared for one another - across multiple generations. It's only in recent years the economics have been convenient enough to farm this out (really, only the last 60 years or so) and it isn't sustainable.
I think the opposite is true, although it depends on your definition of sustainable.
The previous way of doing things wasn't sustainable, so we rejigged our economy to enable our kids to specialize/upskill and crucially, move to where the jobs are. They then go on to earn more - and pay some of those increased earnings to those without high level skills to care for us.
It's one of the reasons why your average Brit is 100 times more productive than your average central african pigmy.
By caring for relatives, we give up some of that productivity.
Comments
We need to acknowledge these realities and have the state provide a basic minimum level of care in their own homes first and then (if a care home is required), into a Care Home with a very basic level of provision. Think of it as akin to "hostels for the elderly". This would include room sharing and bathroom sharing etc etc. Above that basic level an individual and their family can choose to top up into something much better from their assets etc. Insurance can then be setup for those who want to take it out for the top-up payments.
Fear not - there's a chance you might survive:
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/science/eat-toast-black-like-no-good-evidence-will-give-cancer/
*Ducks for cover*
And I totally disagree with the argument that "if you have savings, you should pay for your own care". It seems grossly unfair for those who have the bad luck to need care in later life to fully bear the costs. In the NHS the risk of getting ill is shared with everyone else - I don't see why that shouldn't apply to care as well.
1) what the state should do
2) what the individual should do
In addition we should stop all the preaching about healthy lifestyles, by all means put information on a website but stop with the national campaigns. Our problems are demographic.Lifetime healthcare costs, not to mention pension costs are greater for people who live healthily than those who smoke/drink/are obese.
It may sound harsh but we can have a health conscious long living population or an affordable one. Pick one.
Just cancelling all the healthy living campaigns would save a few million on its own.
We could also restrict councils and government to the same level of pension contribution per employee as the average private sector employee. Surrey pension scheme for example has an employer contribution of 14% if that was 5% that would be saving of two thirds ( for info in 2010 surrey council pension contributions amounted to 36 million so 24 million extra on the budget, at 2010 values the extra 15% they want would amount to around 80 million so already a third of the way there)
I'm not sure either enjoy them very much.
It is not the same in countries like Spain, for example. Which is something they do right.
(In any case the savings would have to be offset against increased Employer NI contributions so wouldn't generate the £24m you are claiming anyway)
Any smart employer will have the Employer contributing the whole lot due to tax/NI implications (With salary sacrifice also baked in), at least this is the way it will be shown externally looking at it from the pension company's perspective.
Or do they get 14 + 14 ?
My extra pension over and above the state pension is funded by me and a pretty standard level of employer contribution. When I retire I don't expect to get much if anything in the way of state funding above the basic state pension, why would these council workers require more if councils could only contribute 5% like most private employers?
As you get older and older, and approach death, the probability of you needing care from the NHS approaches 1. This is about fairly sharing the liabilities.
Throughout human history families have lived together - and cared for one another - across multiple generations. It's only in recent years the economics have been convenient enough to farm this out (really, only the last 60 years or so) and it isn't sustainable.
Since it's an area I know very little about I'll just lurk. But after a fair few contentious and argumentative threads, it's great to read this one.
So thanks everyone.
All that said, I'd happily take my parents or the in-laws in if they needed care. But then I can probably afford both financial and time costs of doing so.
new thread
And what's the point of saving during one's working life, if not to provide capital and income in old age.
The previous way of doing things wasn't sustainable, so we rejigged our economy to enable our kids to specialize/upskill and crucially, move to where the jobs are. They then go on to earn more - and pay some of those increased earnings to those without high level skills to care for us.
It's one of the reasons why your average Brit is 100 times more productive than your average central african pigmy.
By caring for relatives, we give up some of that productivity.