Use Of A Machine That Would Then...
News4 mins ago
Do You Agree?
45 Answers
http://
I do providing that those extra funds pay for the care of those who own their own houses, without the need for them to sell their houses, so as to pay for that care.
I do providing that those extra funds pay for the care of those who own their own houses, without the need for them to sell their houses, so as to pay for that care.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Sqad
/// Off to my Club now, so I am not being rude if it takes me some time to answer your further queries.......should there be some. ///
Enjoy your game of Dominoes :0) but to get back to matters in hand;
Perhaps they should first start with Scotland for instance, since they enjoy many privileges that the English do not.
*** Spending on health is £1,912 per person in England compared to £2,115 in Scotland, where prescriptions are free. ***
*** Education is another area where Scots get more resources - as well as not paying university tuition fees. Some £1,441 is spent per head on education in Scotland compared to £1,360 in England. ***
*** Scots, who enjoy free personal care, have £1,857 spent on them for social care and pensions, compared to £1,652 for the English. ***
/// Off to my Club now, so I am not being rude if it takes me some time to answer your further queries.......should there be some. ///
Enjoy your game of Dominoes :0) but to get back to matters in hand;
Perhaps they should first start with Scotland for instance, since they enjoy many privileges that the English do not.
*** Spending on health is £1,912 per person in England compared to £2,115 in Scotland, where prescriptions are free. ***
*** Education is another area where Scots get more resources - as well as not paying university tuition fees. Some £1,441 is spent per head on education in Scotland compared to £1,360 in England. ***
*** Scots, who enjoy free personal care, have £1,857 spent on them for social care and pensions, compared to £1,652 for the English. ***
-- answer removed --
bednobs
/// they don't "need" it at all! why should taxpayers pay for someones care in order that their sons and daughters can get on the housing ladder?? ///
This type of rhetoric is generally used by those who do not own property, because throughout their working lives they have chosen to Pi** all they wages up the wall, or have chosen to live off benefits most of their lives, and live in state funded housing.
It is those who have no fears, because they know that if they have to go into a home, their stay will be absolutely free, paid for by those who will have to sell their house to pay for their care, when that time comes.
/// they don't "need" it at all! why should taxpayers pay for someones care in order that their sons and daughters can get on the housing ladder?? ///
This type of rhetoric is generally used by those who do not own property, because throughout their working lives they have chosen to Pi** all they wages up the wall, or have chosen to live off benefits most of their lives, and live in state funded housing.
It is those who have no fears, because they know that if they have to go into a home, their stay will be absolutely free, paid for by those who will have to sell their house to pay for their care, when that time comes.
-- answer removed --
Yes of course, ummm. That's why these things should either be universally free to all or universally paid for by all.
"I do thing that the fuel allowance...and should not be going to those that no longer live in the UK."
Why not?
"If they have scrimped and saved all their life to have a home in their old age then yes sorry they should sell it."
Meanwhile, those who may perhaps have had more money but have chosen instead to live in "affordable" (i.e. taxpayer subsidised) housing and have pee'd all their money up the wall get free care. Fair? Perhaps not.
It is unfair to simply look at people's financial situation in their old age. What they have done with their money during their lives is equally important. That will never be done. That's why it won't work fairly. At present people who have either limited funds or decent levels of cash but who choose to make no provision for their dotage live in the secure knowledge that they do not need to worry. The State will pay for all their needs. Well it's about time the State started looking properly at people's circumstances (past as well as present) before they dole out taxpayers' dosh willy-nilly.
"I do thing that the fuel allowance...and should not be going to those that no longer live in the UK."
Why not?
"If they have scrimped and saved all their life to have a home in their old age then yes sorry they should sell it."
Meanwhile, those who may perhaps have had more money but have chosen instead to live in "affordable" (i.e. taxpayer subsidised) housing and have pee'd all their money up the wall get free care. Fair? Perhaps not.
It is unfair to simply look at people's financial situation in their old age. What they have done with their money during their lives is equally important. That will never be done. That's why it won't work fairly. At present people who have either limited funds or decent levels of cash but who choose to make no provision for their dotage live in the secure knowledge that they do not need to worry. The State will pay for all their needs. Well it's about time the State started looking properly at people's circumstances (past as well as present) before they dole out taxpayers' dosh willy-nilly.
// Well it's about time the State started looking properly at people's circumstances (past as well as present) before they dole out taxpayers' dosh willy-nilly. //
You say that NJ, having previously appeared to question the fuel allowance being targeted depending on the recipients circumstances. I'm confused.
You say that NJ, having previously appeared to question the fuel allowance being targeted depending on the recipients circumstances. I'm confused.
so an 80 year old who needs care but can't pay for it has to perhaps live in a cardboard box, because people have deemed he's not been "sensible" with his money in his lifetime?
or as an alternative you and me pay more tax so jonty and jacinta have their inheritance proteced. Both seem pretty unpalatable!
or as an alternative you and me pay more tax so jonty and jacinta have their inheritance proteced. Both seem pretty unpalatable!
I suppose it depends on what constitutes a 'well off' pensioner. My Dad worked hard from the age of 14 when he left school to his mid 70's, bought his own house and always paid his way. He's by no means well off, but he's not on the skids either - would it apply to him and how could it be implemented I wonder.
