National Living Wage.

[tinfoilhat]

What do you suggest? Serious question.

 

All the things you mention in your second paragraph were state administered and funded in the 1970s, when we were hardly well off. The fact is few people can afford £500 per week to 'look after' old people (I use the words loosely...)

We are supposed to be the fifth richest country in the world, yet seem to be descending fast into third world status. The cost of living (and dying) goes inexorably upwards, people are working their butts off, and yet still can't afford the basics.

 

Meanwhile the world is actually awash with money. The rich get richer still on a daily basis. Apparently, 62 people now hold half of the Worlds's wealth.

 

What's happening, and why?

 

The Germans are shipping their old folk out to Philippines - it's cheaper. If you've got Alzheimer's and don't know where you are and what day it is anyway it won't make a difference where you are, as long as you're looked after.

[*_ash_*]

What do you suggest? Serious question.

 

All the things you mention in your second paragraph were state administered and funded in the 1970s, when we were hardly well off. The fact is few people can afford £500 per week to 'look after' old people (I use the words loosely...)

We are supposed to be the fifth richest country in the world, yet seem to be descending fast into third world status. The cost of living (and dying) goes inexorably upwards, people are working their butts off, and yet still can't afford the basics.

 

Meanwhile the world is actually awash with money. The rich get richer still on a daily basis. Apparently, 62 people now hold half of the Worlds's wealth.

 

What's happening, and why?

 

*flaps wings*

 

good grief!!

 

BOLD :

 

So we're the '5th biggest / richest / whatever' country in the world, so we should be able to afford to throw our relatives into a home!

 

 

You lefties could learn a lot from visiting poorer countries/or even poorer people here, and seeing how their families strive to look after them, rather than shoving them in a MacImmigrantNurse home, run by minimum wage looking after them, whether council OR private*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*before you pull me up on that Anna, the workers I meet are amazing doing the hours they do, poor buggers, sweating their tits off because we're a lazy rich nation (probably the 5th highest) who have lost track of human morals. Your answers, and lately the tory's answer is higher wages. It's nonsense and utterly unstable and unsustainable. The money spent on our modern laziness would sustain all the vulnerable and seriously ill old people in brilliant facilities and well paid staff.

[tinfoilhat]

*flaps wings*

 

good grief!!

 

BOLD :

 

So we're the '5th biggest / richest / whatever' country in the world, so we should be able to afford to throw our relatives into a home!

 

 

You lefties could learn a lot from visiting poorer countries/or even poorer people here, and seeing how their families strive to look after them, rather than shoving them in a MacImmigrantNurse home, run by minimum wage looking after them, whether council OR private*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*before you pull me up on that Anna, the workers I meet are amazing doing the hours they do, poor buggers, sweating their tits off because we're a lazy rich nation (probably the 5th highest) who have lost track of human morals. Your answers, and lately the tory's answer is higher wages. It's nonsense and utterly unstable and unsustainable. The money spent on our modern laziness would sustain all the vulnerable and seriously ill old people in brilliant facilities and well paid staff.

 

I think you've painted the families who have elderly relatives in care with a very broad and unfair brush.

[*_ash_*]

I think you've painted the families who have elderly relatives in care with a very broad and unfair brush.

 

If it looks that way, then I will point out that wasn't my post's intention.

 

I'm slagging off seemingly 'moral' and 'rich' [/lazy] countries inhabitants on the whole, and in particular, this ones. And I deliberately pointed out council/or 'rich' private, to emphasise that rich and poor are equally immune to this.

Edited April 4, 2016 by *_ash_*

[Anna B]

*flaps wings*

 

good grief!!

 

BOLD :

 

So we're the '5th biggest / richest / whatever' country in the world, so we should be able to afford to throw our relatives into a home!

 

 

You lefties could learn a lot from visiting poorer countries/or even poorer people here, and seeing how their families strive to look after them, rather than shoving them in a MacImmigrantNurse home, run by minimum wage looking after them, whether council OR private*.

 

You are twisting my words. Of course people should look after their families if they can.

But now women are expected to go out to work, and indeed in many cases can't afford not to. (I say women because care is mostly still down to them.)

 

*before you pull me up on that Anna, the workers I meet are amazing doing the hours they do, poor buggers, sweating their tits off because we're a lazy rich nation (probably the 5th highest) who have lost track of human morals. Your answers, and lately the tory's answer is higher wages. It's nonsense and utterly unstable and unsustainable. The money spent on our modern laziness would sustain all the vulnerable and seriously ill old people in brilliant facilities and well paid staff.

 

You are twisting my words and you know it. Of course people should look after their families if they can. I've never said otherwise.

 

But there are many reasons why they sometimes can't, and you know that too. Also, it isn't always up to the family. An old person can be forced into a home for medical reasons by hospital staff. Now it used to be that medical care was 'free' on the NHS, but this is just another area where it is being eroded because no one seems willing to stand up and fight for it. These old people have paid into the system for years, but when they need it, the help is no longer there.

 

Just seen your bit in small print (?) Surely you contradict yourself in your first sentence. Who are you calling lazy? Not the workers I know either.

Neither have I particularly advocated higher wages. What I would like to see is a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.

 

Since when was it acceptable to have people earning 6, 7 and 8 figure salaries, while minimum wage is just £7 an hour? The high earnings of the top earners are skewing the cost of living ever upwards and those at the bottom simply can't afford it.

 

What pray, do you mean by 'modern laziness' that is apparently depriving old people of all these 'wonderful facilities?' I hope you are not referring yet again to the poor unemployed who will shortly be joined by 15,000 Port Talbot Steelworkers.... I would imagine they would be much happier sweating their guts out, thumping steel into shape had they the choice, instead of being condemned to 'laziness.'

No, maybe you're referring to the tax dodging super rich who sit on their backsides and wait for their investments to rise and double their money while doing f*** all. Now if they paid their rightful taxes, then we really would be able to sustain our old folk in 'wonderful facilities.'

[*_ash_*]

You are twisting my words and you know it. Of course people should look after their families if they can. I've never said otherwise.

 

But there are many reasons why they sometimes can't, and you know that too. Also, it isn't always up to the family. An old person can be forced into a home for medical reasons by hospital staff. Now it used to be that medical care was 'free' on the NHS, but this is just another area where it is being eroded because no one seems willing to stand up and fight for it. These old people have paid into the system for years, but when they need it, the help is no longer there.

 

Just seen your bit in small print (?) Surely you contradict yourself in your first sentence. Who are you calling lazy? Not the workers I know either.

Neither have I particularly advocated higher wages. What I would like to see is a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.

 

Since when was it acceptable to have people earning 6, 7 and 8 figure salaries, while minimum wage is just £7 an hour? The high earnings of the top earners are skewing the cost of living ever upwards and those at the bottom simply can't afford it.

 

What pray, do you mean by 'modern laziness' that is apparently depriving old people of all these 'wonderful facilities?' I hope you are not referring yet again to the poor unemployed who will shortly be joined by 15,000 Port Talbot Steelworkers.... I would imagine they would be much happier sweating their guts out, thumping steel into shape had they the choice, instead of being condemned to 'laziness.'

No, maybe you're referring to the tax dodging super rich who sit on their backsides and wait for their investments to rise and double their money while doing f*** all. Now if they paid their rightful taxes, then we really would be able to sustain our old folk in 'wonderful facilities.'

 

 

That took 2 reads before I worked out whether it was 'real' post (and proving my point) or sarcastic, for a laugh. No surprise it was the former

 

-

 

My recommendation Anna, is to go to Glastonbury (which I had thought was a place to get away from things) and watch this latest political moron attempt to convince people about tax-dodging, price fairness, and equality, in somewhere that is probably the most capitalist rip-off nonsense that he hates... and worse still, in front of a load of rich tax-dodging/avoiding/evading performers

 

If I went to a music festival, and a politician turned up preaching/ or even trying to shake my hand, then whether it was Corbyn, Cameron, Clegg or whoever, then they'd be missiled by whatever I could find to hand. (most probably a muddy sock )

 

I thought it was April fools day again when I heard this on the radio earlier

[Anna B]

 

That took 2 reads before I worked out whether it was 'real' post (and proving my point) or sarcastic, for a laugh. No surprise it was the former

 

-

 

My recommendation Anna, is to go to Glastonbury (which I had thought was a place to get away from things) and watch this latest political moron attempt to convince people about tax-dodging, price fairness, and equality, in somewhere that is probably the most capitalist rip-off nonsense that he hates... and worse still, in front of a load of rich tax-dodging/avoiding/evading performers

 

If I went to a music festival, and a politician turned up preaching/ or even trying to shake my hand, then whether it was Corbyn, Cameron, Clegg or whoever, then they'd be missiled by whatever I could find to hand. (most probably a muddy sock )

 

I thought it was April fools day again when I heard this on the radio earlier

 

Sorry, not with you on this one. Where does Glastonbury come into it? Have I missed something?

[sutty27]

What do you suggest? Serious question.

 

All the things you mention in your second paragraph were state administered and funded in the 1970s, when we were hardly well off. The fact is few people can afford £500 per week to 'look after' old people (I use the words loosely...)

We are supposed to be the fifth richest country in the world, yet seem to be descending fast into third world status. The cost of living (and dying) goes inexorably upwards, people are working their butts off, and yet still can't afford the basics.

 

Meanwhile the world is actually awash with money. The rich get richer still on a daily basis. Apparently, 62 people now hold half of the Worlds's wealth.

 

What's happening, and why?

 

When a few people went into care it was affordable.

When a few people went to uni it was affordable.

When the minority lived to a very old age pensions were affordable.

They all become less affordable as the numbers increase.

 

We are keeping more people alive for longer than they would have lived in the 70's, more kids go to uni than did in the 70's, more people are classified as disabled than were in the 70's, this is what makes these things less affordable for the state.

 

If you want the state to pay for these things the numbers need to decrease.

[dutch]

When a few people went into care it was affordable.

When a few people went to uni it was affordable.

When the minority lived to a very old age pensions were affordable.

They all become less affordable as the numbers increase.

 

We are keeping more people alive for longer than they would have lived in the 70's, more kids go to uni than did in the 70's, more people are classified as disabled than were in the 70's, this is what makes these things less affordable for the state.

 

If you want the state to pay for these things the numbers need to decrease.

 

You are not a number. Treating the elderly, disabled like living human beings who need help and support is not done by calling them a statistic number waiting to die.

 

Well you are number 1476583092978C

 

It is very surprising to see how we are given accounts passports memberships and then told how this all statistically fits together.

Maybe so many people are miserable depressed anxious committing suicide because they are treated like numbers and not as living human beings anymore who simply want to be numberless again and live a normal life without being seen as some average statistic.

It is very easy to realize you are not a number but from very childhood at school your presence is labelled with ID and you are told how you compare with others from other days gone by and how much you are worth etc. etc. etc.

This is why babies often seem to be very happy and more free, then get controlled as they grow older as they start to see themselves as an itemised label treated like some national financial problem that is only paid a living wage that does not pay the bills.

Edited April 5, 2016 by dutch

[tzijlstra]

What do you suggest? Serious question.

 

All the things you mention in your second paragraph were state administered and funded in the 1970s, when we were hardly well off. The fact is few people can afford £500 per week to 'look after' old people (I use the words loosely...)

We are supposed to be the fifth richest country in the world, yet seem to be descending fast into third world status. The cost of living (and dying) goes inexorably upwards, people are working their butts off, and yet still can't afford the basics.

 

Meanwhile the world is actually awash with money. The rich get richer still on a daily basis. Apparently, 62 people now hold half of the Worlds's wealth.

 

What's happening, and why?

 

 

First off - we don't live in the 70s anymore, that soon is 50 years ago. There is absolutely no point comparing; the demography and economy has changed entirely. Not due to who holds the wealth (which is one of your favourite lines it seems) but due to all sorts of macro-economic effects related to globalisation. (And not all of it bad - living standards across the world are going up, ours are going down as a result).

 

What I would change to fix things is pretty straightforward - take people out of paying so much tax and get them to make their own decisions on later life care. State pensions are a thing of the past, it is only years down the line from here that they will get abandoned, might as well be honest and come up with a reasonable transition plan now.

 

State-care (NHS) is slowly becoming a thing of the past, I would localise care (as in truly localise it) - a hospital in Sheffield costs considerably less to run than a hospital in Westminster - and create care cooperatives that operate on a local basis only, owned and governed by those that pay into it. The NHS can provide a safety-net until that system exists.

 

Both of these solutions get paid for by an increase in the NI - money saved by the government will be used to cut down tax-rates/create a higher tax-foot. I don't think people earning under 30K a year should pay income tax, at all.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 08:15 ----------

 

If you want the state to pay for these things the numbers need to decrease.

 

This is where you and I diverge massively again.

 

Those numbers can't decrease. It is naive and petty to point at population increase as the main-cause and fascistic to point at it as the main-solution.