Science1 min 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.
Sorry for any confusion.
I queried the targetting of WFA because it was suggested that it should only be payable to people who live in the UK. People from other EU countries receive Child Benefit for children not resident in this country. I see no reason why WFA should not be payable to ex-pats who no longer live in this country. WFA was introduced as a universal benefit and as such I see it as part of the State pension package in just the same way as the pension itself. Lots of people don't actually "need" their State pension but it is still paid to them as they have contributed towards it throughout their lives.
If payments for care are to be means tested it is not fair to simply say "You've got a house. You can sell it." At present people can behave with complete disregard for their future funding, secure in the knowledge that the State will care for them come what may. Not all people who live in subsidised housing are poor. Not all people who own their own homes are rich. To make either a major factor in deciding if somebody is to receive a means tested benefit is completely unfair. It is also unfair to make such an assessment without considering what people have done with the money that they have had. People who have had cash but have made no provision for their future should receive far less assistance than those who may have had, perhaps, not quite so much but have put some aside. Currently doing that brings no rewards but simply punishes the thrifty at the expense of the profligate. The solution to this is not easy but the current system is perverse and it needs changing
I queried the targetting of WFA because it was suggested that it should only be payable to people who live in the UK. People from other EU countries receive Child Benefit for children not resident in this country. I see no reason why WFA should not be payable to ex-pats who no longer live in this country. WFA was introduced as a universal benefit and as such I see it as part of the State pension package in just the same way as the pension itself. Lots of people don't actually "need" their State pension but it is still paid to them as they have contributed towards it throughout their lives.
If payments for care are to be means tested it is not fair to simply say "You've got a house. You can sell it." At present people can behave with complete disregard for their future funding, secure in the knowledge that the State will care for them come what may. Not all people who live in subsidised housing are poor. Not all people who own their own homes are rich. To make either a major factor in deciding if somebody is to receive a means tested benefit is completely unfair. It is also unfair to make such an assessment without considering what people have done with the money that they have had. People who have had cash but have made no provision for their future should receive far less assistance than those who may have had, perhaps, not quite so much but have put some aside. Currently doing that brings no rewards but simply punishes the thrifty at the expense of the profligate. The solution to this is not easy but the current system is perverse and it needs changing
If more people were in work there would be less drain on society and it would be able to afford to look after the old and vulnerale.
£42k salery isn't a fortune to start adding extra tax to and will mean that a lot of people near the threashold in what can only be discribed as everyday jobs, such as construction, teaching and NHS (yes there are a lot in these on that and more) would not have the insentives to do better.
It isn't rocket science. It is plain economics. Less people taking from the pot and more putting into it will mean everyone will get the care and help when they need it most.
The inequity of the child benefit cap of one person earning more than £50k is a farse when two people can earn just under that but not lose anything.
And thb if you are going to over tax working people to pay for care (in whatever form that may be) then surely if that person needs care they contribute what they can. And that includes equity from their home. Why should the tax payer give a bit extra so 'someone else' can keep hold of their assets to give away later to someone else?
£42k salery isn't a fortune to start adding extra tax to and will mean that a lot of people near the threashold in what can only be discribed as everyday jobs, such as construction, teaching and NHS (yes there are a lot in these on that and more) would not have the insentives to do better.
It isn't rocket science. It is plain economics. Less people taking from the pot and more putting into it will mean everyone will get the care and help when they need it most.
The inequity of the child benefit cap of one person earning more than £50k is a farse when two people can earn just under that but not lose anything.
And thb if you are going to over tax working people to pay for care (in whatever form that may be) then surely if that person needs care they contribute what they can. And that includes equity from their home. Why should the tax payer give a bit extra so 'someone else' can keep hold of their assets to give away later to someone else?
Why don't the shoot the Elderly ( I'm one) & be done with it, take their houses off them including the furniture / & whatever is left in the house & give it to the feckers that are trying their best in Dover to settle here, what the hell is this dump coming to? when you left Scholl where did the National Contributions go? did they go to assist these scroungers from Romania & the likes, for the people that have fought & give their lives for this Dumping Ground, what a waste of life.
If the government didn't use the feeble excuse that a pension needs one to work longer for in order to cover the cost, then folk could retire earlier allowing more presently unemployed people to find work, making them less of a drain on society and a net contributor, which in turn helps society to afford to look after the old and vulnerable. Ultimately though, there are only so many employment opportunities at any one time, the trick is to ensure they generate enough wealth to reward those creating it and top up the coffers for the costs society has.
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Science5 mins ago
Has Anyone Knowingly Eaten Horsemeat?
ChatterBank11 mins ago
