tzijlstra Posted May 12, 2014 Author Share Posted May 12, 2014 Did you realise that the carers allowance is effectively paid by the cared for person, in that their Attendance Allowance goes down by roughly the same ammount? So £1,000 a week to look after a person in care, but the home carer who has probably had to give up their own job in order to look after their loved one is only worth £65 quid by the government. And this may reduce their own private pension as well. Oh, and then they will also have joined the club of the unemployed, and be labelled 'a benefit scrounger' Yeah I did happen to know that, it is a bizarre situation, really is. I don't understand why the government isn't forcing new legislation through on this point. I will actually email the MP (Herr Blunkett) to see if he can explain why this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Yeah I did happen to know that, it is a bizarre situation, really is. I don't understand why the government isn't forcing new legislation through on this point. I will actually email the MP (Herr Blunkett) to see if he can explain why this is. Great. Let us know if you get a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amberleaf808 Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 On your 60th birthday it should be compulsory to receive a jab to put you to sleep for ever! Old people are a pain! Always get in the way at the shops etc. Put them to sleep at 60!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOHN HABS Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 On your 60th birthday it should be compulsory to receive a jab to put you to sleep for ever! Old people are a pain! Always get in the way at the shops etc. Put them to sleep at 60!!! Think you have posted this to get a reaction ? If the Avatar is actually you with more hair around your chin than on top of your head, has someone put your head on upside down - hence you not being able to talk sense ? Would you want your parents putting to sleep at 60 years of age ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 On your 60th birthday it should be compulsory to receive a jab to put you to sleep for ever! Old people are a pain! Always get in the way at the shops etc. Put them to sleep at 60!!! Hells bells, 60's not that old these days! Think about Helen Mirren, Sting, Pierce Brosnan, Jane Seymour etc. Plenty of life in them yet. But you do have a point about real old age and quality of life, (and I bet a lot more young people think the same as you but aren't brave enough to say it...) I personally see no reason to artificially prolong someone's life at great expense when the quality isn't there and they simply want to die. But we're heading into very murky water with that one, and believe me, we all have to be careful what we wish for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Think you have posted this to get a reaction ? If the Avatar is actually you with more hair around your chin than on top of your head, has someone put your head on upside down - hence you not being able to talk sense ? Would you want your parents putting to sleep at 60 years of age ? Haha! It's actually someone more controversial than amberleaf. Think "Mock the Week" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I am opposed to tobacco smoking, which I consider a filthy habit and offensive to others. I use pub bistros more often because smoking is banned. BUT -- smoking can earn tax revenue for government; sales of smoking related products can provide employment; and -- FINALLY -- smokers on average live 7 years less than non-smokers, thus draw the pension for 7 less years. OK. the NHS is stuck with the cost of smoking related disease. But it is also stuck with the later-years costs of non-smokers. By personal experience, I'm finding out the medical and pharmaceutical costs of keeping ME alive, life non-smoker as I am. Has government action against tobacco (much as I personally appreciate it) cost the government money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I am opposed to tobacco smoking, which I consider a filthy habit and offensive to others. I use pub bistros more often because smoking is banned. BUT -- smoking can earn tax revenue for government; sales of smoking related products can provide employment; and -- FINALLY -- smokers on average live 7 years less than non-smokers, thus draw the pension for 7 less years. OK. the NHS is stuck with the cost of smoking related disease. But it is also stuck with the later-years costs of non-smokers. By personal experience, I'm finding out the medical and pharmaceutical costs of keeping ME alive, life non-smoker as I am. Has government action against tobacco (much as I personally appreciate it) cost the government money? Thats an interesting point of view which is hard to argue against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 I am opposed to tobacco smoking, which I consider a filthy habit and offensive to others. I use pub bistros more often because smoking is banned. BUT -- smoking can earn tax revenue for government; sales of smoking related products can provide employment; and -- FINALLY -- smokers on average live 7 years less than non-smokers, thus draw the pension for 7 less years. OK. the NHS is stuck with the cost of smoking related disease. But it is also stuck with the later-years costs of non-smokers. By personal experience, I'm finding out the medical and pharmaceutical costs of keeping ME alive, life non-smoker as I am. Has government action against tobacco (much as I personally appreciate it) cost the government money? It has, as has action against alcohol by raising the price. But it is a weird conundrum, it is improvements in health science that keep us alive for longer, yet we aren't properly prepared for the cost of that. And when are people supposed to pass away?.... If we were in primitive circumstances most of us would be lucky to see 35. Look at The Island on Channel 4, most of those guys would be dead in months! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Projections have it[/url] that pensions as a percentage of GDP are about to inflate from 8,9% to 10,8% whilst simultaneously the cost of healthcare is set to inflate from 6,8 to 9,1% by 2061/2062. These might seem like small numbers, but in real terms this is a rather devastating impact. In real terms that means pensions are going to quadruple in cost to the state by 2063. Quadruple. This leaves the state with a decreased ability to pay for anything other than pensions and we haven't even mentioned the consequent costs of healthcare which will follow a similar trajectory. I'm confused by your assertion. How is an increase from 8.9% to 10.8% a quadrupling? It looks more like an increase of about 20% (not 400%). Even if you add together the pension and healthcare %'s, it goes from 15.7% to 19.9%, and increase of 25%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.