The Budget 22/11/17: Stamp Duty Stopped

[arista]

He said it will be for 95% of all buyers.


Many builders Said this was needed


up to 300,000
From Today

[Livia]

Only for first time buyers.

[arista]

Only for first time buyers.


Yes True

[Cherie]

first time buyers are the key to the housing market without them no one moves

[arista]

Corbyn is shouting away now.

The Next General Election
is re set to 2022.

So long time to go.........................................

[arista]

first time buyers are the key to the housing market without them no one moves


Yes very true.

[Livia]

£300 is quite a lot for a first time buyer... although you'd get a bedsit for that in some parts of London. I suppose it's a start, but more help is needed for those getting on the housing ladder.

[arista]

From ITV1HD News ends at 2PM

BBC2HD ends at 3:30PM.

Positive from 3 of 4 panel
Live in Fareham. just now (ITV)
Massive Giveaways ITV just said


SkyNewsHD started early.

[Livia]

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland:
£650m extra for NI.
£2bn extra for Scotland.
£1.2bn extra for Wales.

Another disproportionate rise.

[James]

Summary of Budget 2017: Key points at-a-glance

16 minutes ago

Philip Hammond has delivered his second Budget as chancellor. Here are the key points of his speech.


Housing


Stamp duty to be abolished immediately for first-time buyers purchasing properties worth up to £300,000

In London and other expensive areas, the first £300,000 of the cost of a £500,000 purchase by first-time buyers will be exempt from stamp duty

80% of all first-time buyers will not pay stamp duty

Long-term goal to build 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s

£44bn in government support, including loan guarantees, to boost construction skills

100% council tax premium on empty properties

Compulsory purchase of land banked by developers for financial reasons

Review into delays in permitted developments going forward

£28m for Kensington and Chelsea council to provide counselling services and mental health support for victims of the Grenfell fire and for regeneration of surrounding area

New homelessness task force


Alcohol, tobacco, gambling and fuel


Tobacco will rise by 2% above Retail Price Index (RPI) inflation while the minimum excise duty on cigarettes introduced in March will also rise, as will duty on hand-rolled tobacco

Duty on beer, wine, spirits and most ciders will be frozen

But duty on high-strength "white ciders" to be increased via new legislation

Vehicle excise duty for diesel cars that do not meet latest standards to rise by one band in April 2018

Tax hike will not apply to van owners

Existing diesel supplement in company car tax to rise by 1%

Proceeds to fund a new £220m clean air fund

Fuel duty rise for petrol and diesel cars scheduled for April 2018 scrapped



Personal taxation


Tax-free personal allowance to rise to £11,850 in April 2018

Higher-rate tax threshold to increase to £46,350

Short-haul air passenger duty rates and long-haul economy rates to be frozen, paid for by an increase on premium-class tickets and on private jets



The state of the economy


Growth forecast for 2017 downgraded from 2% to 1.5%

GDP downgraded to 1.4%, 1.3% and 1.5% in subsequent years before rising to 1.6% in 2021-22

Productivity growth and business investment also revised down

Annual rate of CPI inflation forecast to fall from peak of 3% to 2% later this year

Another 600,000 people forecast to be in work by 2022



Brexit

£3bn to be set aside over next two years to prepare UK for every possible outcome as it leaves EU



Public borrowing/deficit/spending


Annual borrowing £49.9bn this year, £8.4bn lower than forecast in March

Borrowing forecast to fall in every subsequent year from £39.5bn in 2018-19 to £25.6bn in 2022-23

Public sector net borrowing forecast to fall from 3.8% of GDP last year to 2.4% this year, then 1.9%, 1.6%, 1.5% and 1.3% in subsequent years, reaching 1.1% in 2022-23.

Debt will peak at 86.5% of GDP this year, then fall to 86.4% next year; then 86.1%, 83.1% and 79.3% in subsequent years, reaching 79.1% in 2022-23.



Pensions, savings and welfare


£1.5bn package to "address concerns" about the delivery of universal credit

Seven-day initial waiting period for processing of claims to be scrapped

Claimants to get one month's payment within five days of applying

Repayment period for advances to increase from six to 12 months.

New universal credit claimants in receipt of housing benefit to continue to receive it for two weeks



Business


VAT threshold for small business to remain at £85,000 for two years

£500m for 5G mobile networks, fibre broadband and artificial intelligence

£540m to support the growth of electric cars, including more charging points

A further £2.3bn allocated for investment in research and development

Rises in business rates to be pegged to CPI measure of inflation, not RPI

Income tax to be applied from April 2019 on digital economy royalties relating to UK sales which are paid to a low-tax jurisdiction, raising about £200m a year



Education (England only)


£40m teacher training fund for underperforming schools in England. Worth £1,000 per teacher

8,000 new computer science teachers to be recruited at cost of £84m

Secondary schools and sixth-form colleges to get £600 for each new pupil taking maths or further maths at A-level at an expected cost of £177m



Nations/infrastructure/transport/regions/science


£320m to be invested in former Redcar steelworks site

Second devolution deal for the West Midlands

£1.7bn transport fund for city regions

£2bn for Scottish government, £1.2bn for Welsh government and £650m for Northern Ireland executive

Scottish police and fire services to get refunds on VAT from April 2018.



Health and social care


£2.8bn in extra funding for the NHS in England

£350m immediately to address pressures this winter, £1.6bn for 2018-19 and the remainder in 2019-20

£10bn capital investment fund for hospitals





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42056452

[arista]

Thank You James.

[bots]

The snippet I heard in passing was the number of home owners in the 25-35 age range had dropped by 20% in the last 15 years. That's not acceptable, end of.

[arista]

The snippet I heard in passing was the number of home owners in the 25-35 age range had dropped by 20% in the last 15 years. That's not acceptable, end of.


Lots of giveaways
Its getting good reviews.

No money left now

Brexit is Next


Next General Election
is re set to 2022 May 5th.
Lots of Folk are not aware of that.

[Oliver_W]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42056452

Pretty good Budget tbh

[DemolitionRed]

Three things jumped out at me:

100% council tax premium on empty properties.

Compulsory purchase of land banked by developers for financial reasons.

Review into delays in permitted developments going forward.

For the man who told me on here last week that this isn't a problem, the government obviously think it is!

As for the rest. Where are the big numbers like the £350million a week for the NHS? They are getting their £350million but that has to see them through the entire winter.

No mention about how we are going to find the huge costs for Brexit. The only clue that they are expecting trouble ahead is the expected fall in growth to 1.3% in two years time. To suggest a piddling £3bn is going to see us through any crisis is baffling.

As expected, its a cautionary budget of very low numbers.

[michael21]

Lots of giveaways
Its getting good reviews.

No money left now

Brexit is Next


Next General Election
is re set to 2022 May 5th.
Lots of Folk are not aware of that.


The queen as the head of state has the power to call an election when ever she want utter fact

[smudgie]

:bawling: looks like hubby and I will have to split up...
Unless lovely daughter comes home and stays in the bungalow.
100% extra council tax on top of already having to pay 2.:fist:
I can see the reasoning behind it though.

[Kizzy]

If they are lifting so many out of tax as well as those currently on the higher rate how is the govt making money?

'a higher-rate payer will save £340 a year.'thinks it's odd that diesel cars are being targeted but not vans? :/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/budget-much-income-tax-will-pay-personal-allowance-goes/

[smudgie]

If they are lifting so many out of tax as well as those currently on the higher rate how is the govt making money?

'a higher-rate payer will save £340 a year.'thinks it's odd that diesel cars are being targeted but not vans? :/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/budget-much-income-tax-will-pay-personal-allowance-goes/

I think the reason is that vans are usually used for business as against cars for personal use.:shrug:

[Kizzy]

I think the reason is that vans are usually used for business as against cars for personal use.:shrug:

Unless you're a taxi...
But how is a van driven for commercial use cause less pollution than a car driven for personal use?

[Kizzy]

Another glaring omission for me was social care... remember when they announced council tax hikes were said to be for the shortfall in social care budgets? Well central govt has forgotten them again what does that mean another 4% hike in April?

What was the reaction to the question of social care? Jeers what an uncaring shambles we have in govt!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2017-jeremy-corbyn-tory-jeering-social-care-funding-angry-response-statement-philip-hammond-a8069656.html

[arista]

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/CB8B/production/_98870125_metro-p1-nov-23.jpg

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/A47B/production/_98870124_pink_budfront_20171123_100.jpg

[Kazanne]

Lets face it whatever he did would not please everyone, it didn't seem a bad budget to me.

[bots]

i don't think it was a bad budget, lets face it, it could have been a lot worse.

[DemolitionRed]

We have never had growth fall below 2% This budget was made a few tiny shifts but the real budget here was a future forecast for further cuts in growth and that's before Brexit!

The majority tend to be happy if they see something on a budget that will help them without caring or even understanding about future forecasts of our failing economy. Hammond simply gave us all a carrot which is enough to take our eye away from the white cliffs of Dover.

[Cherie]

:bawling: looks like hubby and I will have to split up...
Unless lovely daughter comes home and stays in the bungalow.
100% extra council tax on top of already having to pay 2.:fist:
I can see the reasoning behind it though.


would it apply to you though Smudgie as the house is technically not empty it is undergoing refurbishment, same for holiday homes which are empty at certain time, I think they need to clarify what "empty" means..

[bots]

would it apply to you though Smudgie as the house is technically not empty it is undergoing refurbishment, same for holiday homes which are empty at certain time, I think they need to clarify what "empty" means..

Empty usually means unvisited/unoccupied for an extended period, like more than 3 weeks. If work is actually ongoing making a home habitable, i don't see that counting.

[Cherie]

Empty usually means unvisited/unoccupied for an extended period, like more than 3 weeks. If work is actually ongoing making a home habitable, i don't see that counting.

I would have thought that too, a house isn't empty if it is undergoing a refurb

[smudgie]

would it apply to you though Smudgie as the house is technically not empty it is undergoing refurbishment, same for holiday homes which are empty at certain time, I think they need to clarify what "empty" means..

Empty usually means unvisited/unoccupied for an extended period, like more than 3 weeks. If work is actually ongoing making a home habitable, i don't see that counting.

I would have thought that too, a house isn't empty if it is undergoing a refurb

The bungalow could be empty for a good 5/6 months.
As our local ruling stands, it can be empty up to two years before a 50% premium is charged, if this goes up to 100% that is fine, just as long as the two year rule still applies. It is if the two year rule alters that bothers me.
Unless the bungalow is substantially furnished and lived in it will be classed as empty.
It is literally a three minute drive away, so it will be lived in one way or another.:hehe:

[joeysteele]

It is a budget that highlights if nothing else the failure of the Cons to achieve near all their targets.
Their promises on clearing the deficit.
Now expected not to be cleared,if even then,by 2030,instead of 2015.

The continued,as Labour never did enough here too,neglect as to a looming housing crisis.
Earnings not expected to just be in real terms back to 2007 levels until the mid 2020s.

Utter failure after over 7 years of hard austerity.
No compassion,no real vision of substance and growth in the UK expected to remain lagging behind most other major Countries.

Not a bad budget,what on earth is good about 7 years of failure,near across the board.
Which is all that this budget is now hoping to just begin to start to address.
I say hoping because it's no way certain that will be its effect at all.

[bots]

It was not a bad budget in the sense that it was not filled with deferred, misleading stealth taxes familiar in Gordon Brown's day. It was not a bad budget in the sense that new money is being found for some areas, as distinct to labour counting the same money several times and implying greater help than was actually given. It was a better budget in that pension funds haven't been robbed, gold reserves haven't been sold off, crown property hasn't been sold. Telecoms companies haven't been forced to bankrupt themselves to compete in the market at the governments gain.

So yes, not a bad budget :shrug:

[Kizzy]

It was not a bad budget in the sense that it was not filled with deferred, misleading stealth taxes familiar in Gordon Brown's day. It was not a bad budget in the sense that new money is being found for some areas, as distinct to labour counting the same money several times and implying greater help than was actually given. It was a better budget in that pension funds haven't been robbed, gold reserves haven't been sold off, crown property hasn't been sold. Telecoms companies haven't been forced to bankrupt themselves to compete in the market at the governments gain.

So yes, not a bad budget :shrug:

Are we in a world wide recession?..... No,
It was a bad budget for anyone just about managing, and if you aren't managing tough!
How can you read it any other way?

[smudgie]

It was not a bad budget in the sense that it was not filled with deferred, misleading stealth taxes familiar in Gordon Brown's day. It was not a bad budget in the sense that new money is being found for some areas, as distinct to labour counting the same money several times and implying greater help than was actually given. It was a better budget in that pension funds haven't been robbed, gold reserves haven't been sold off, crown property hasn't been sold. Telecoms companies haven't been forced to bankrupt themselves to compete in the market at the governments gain.

So yes, not a bad budget :shrug:

I have to agree.
Not exactly a sack of Christmas presents but no major changes for the worse either.

[DemolitionRed]

Empty usually means unvisited/unoccupied for an extended period, like more than 3 weeks. If work is actually ongoing making a home habitable, i don't see that counting.

They are saying that vacant up to a year without penalty but second properties won't get that same privilege. The main people this should affect are the offshore property investors but that's not going to happen because foreign property investors often don't bother filling in the required forms with Her Majesties Revenue and Customs and at this moment in time, nobody bothers chasing them and they don't bother chasing them because they often don't have any record of who they are.

[DemolitionRed]

It was not a bad budget in the sense that it was not filled with deferred, misleading stealth taxes familiar in Gordon Brown's day. It was not a bad budget in the sense that new money is being found for some areas, as distinct to labour counting the same money several times and implying greater help than was actually given. It was a better budget in that pension funds haven't been robbed, gold reserves haven't been sold off, crown property hasn't been sold. Telecoms companies haven't been forced to bankrupt themselves to compete in the market at the governments gain.

So yes, not a bad budget :shrug:


Come off it! Cameron invented tax competition for the filthy rich. He spent his entire time in office lining his family fortunes and trying to make Britain into a tax haven and to a great extent he succeeded. Thanks to Cameron, tax avoidance, from privately owned wealth and large corporations is greater than its ever been.

Before Cameron came to office he wrote to every newspaper in the land and was even included in Murphy’s book, “The Joy of Tax” hammering on about the unfairness of Gordon Browns stealth taxes on the poor and how we had to get tough with tax avoidance. And he said all that with the full knowledge that Viscount Astor (Cameron’s step-father) had and still does have a 20,000 acre estate in Scotland that’s owned by a company registered in the BVI’s and has avoided £hundreds of thousands in tax. Not only did Cameron pave the way for Viscount Astor and Osbornes family wallpapering business by drastically reducing corporation tax but he carried on as normal with Browns stealth tax on the poor.

[DemolitionRed]

This budget has been cleverly engineered. Most of the giving ideas were Labour ideas, though Labour had much bigger figures in mind. It just amazes me that some people aren't questioning these figures.

[Kizzy]

This stamp duty idea was nicked from Labour in 2015!

[Cherie]

This stamp duty idea was nicked from Labour in 2015!

Fancy you making this a Left v Right issue

[DemolitionRed]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/budget-philip-hammond-jeremy-corbyn-labour-policies-ed-miliband-manifesto-a8070511.html

[Kizzy]

Fancy you making this a Left v Right issue

The budget is a left v right issue Cherie :/

[DemolitionRed]

Budget Meltdown (http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=586&v=dKiYz3xGiQ0)

The Resolution Foundation has calculated that the past decade has actually been the worst for the UK’s productivity growth since 1812. https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/933640782128603136

Our national debt stood at £700billion in 2010. It now heading towards £2trillion because this government has been driving austerity in a false economy.

Its not a good budget because there are no drastic measures to save our economy.

[Kizzy]

What did dimblebore say on QT worst budget for decades?.... shame the 'glass half full' guys can't see that Hammond took their glass, tipped out what was in it, smashed it and stuck it in their face!

[Kizzy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councils-cash-reserves-social-care-funding-crisis-health-budget-a8074911.html

What did that tory shout out again (they blanked out who it was shouting) Oh yeah... NOTHING ON SOCIAL CARE!!!!!

[DemolitionRed]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councils-cash-reserves-social-care-funding-crisis-health-budget-a8074911.html

What did that tory shout out again (they blanked out who it was shouting) Oh yeah... NOTHING ON SOCIAL CARE!!!!!

This 'social care' issue is a real problem. There are massive plans to cut back on this industry early next year. Temps who were promised permanent employment are now being told they are probably going to lose their jobs. Every lost job thats seen as surplus to requirement filters down to the end user.

I really don't know what's going to happen but one things for clear, its reached crisis levels.

[Kizzy]

We know what will happen, more people will die that's the goal, if you can't work ...Die.

[Cherie]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/shadow-chancellor-john-mcdonnell-fails-to-explain-spending-figures-because-thats-what-ipads-and-a3699386.html


Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell refuses to answer questions on how Labour would handle national debt because 'that's why we have iPads'


because everything would be so much better under Labour, none of the parties have answers unfortunately

[Cherie]

We know what will happen, more people will die that's the goal, if you can't work ...Die.

I am sure this will be controversial and not very popular as it means we might have to put our hands in our own pockets, but whatever happened to looking after our own rather than expecting the State to cough up, if more of us who are in a position to, looked after our elderly relatives and spent some time/money supporting their needs in addition to what the state can provide, maybe we wouldn't have a social care crises

[Kizzy]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/shadow-chancellor-john-mcdonnell-fails-to-explain-spending-figures-because-thats-what-ipads-and-a3699386.html


Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell refuses to answer questions on how Labour would handle national debt because 'that's why we have iPads'


because everything would be so much better under Labour, none of the parties have answers unfortunately

Hang on Mcdonnell has answers ... can the solution to an issue of this magnitude be addressed in a soundbite though? I shouldn't think so.
I'm sure that interviewer had a vast knowledge of macroeconomics, we are already after 7yrs of austerity in debt to the tune of £800billion....Time to try something else.

While we are on this subject of interviewers have a look at this jumped up stuffed shirt Andrew Neil taking on a kings college economics professor ... it's tragic

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/11/24/bbcs-andrew-neil-picks-fight-economics-professor-doesnt-go-well-tweets/

[Kizzy]

I am sure this will be controversial and not very popular as it means we might have to put our hands in our own pockets, but whatever happened to looking after our own rather than expecting the State to cough up, if more of us who are in a position to, looked after our elderly relatives and spent some time/money supporting their needs in addition to what the state can provide, maybe we wouldn't have a social care crises

Isn't that what income tax is for? we do pay for our own...During a recent survey it was found that people are in favour of tax rises to save the NHS, and yet Hammond just lifted millions out of tax... so how are they being funded?

Unless you mean your own as in you pay for your own granny/disabled family member/ mentallly ill relative and screw anyone else?

[Cherie]

Isn't that what income tax is for? we do pay for our own...During a recent survey it was found that people are in favour of tax rises to save the NHS, and yet Hammond just lifted millions out of tax... so how are they being funded?

Unless you mean your own as in you pay for your own granny/disabled family member/ mentallly ill relative and screw anyone else?

if you read my post carefully and digest it you will see that is not what I am saying at all

I thought lifting the poorest low income earners out of tax was a good thing? no? I should have known that it would become a negative at some point.

NI and now council tax is what pays for social care and everyone pays that..

[DemolitionRed]

Many elderly physically and mentally disadvantaged people have no relatives. For those that do, should we insist they care for those elderly relative? What if they never got along? what if they live long distances away? What if they don't have a caring nature?. What if that family member has a record of financial abuse? What if the user has complex needs and the relative has no formal training?

Nearly everyone who uses social care has to financially contribute. If a person (and they don't have to be elderly) come out of hospital, can't manage and have nobody, the government has to provide a free service for a limited time. During that time (normally 2 weeks) an enabling team encourages that person towards independence. If that person isn't enabled within that designated time and its proven that they can't manage on their own and can't afford private care, a financial assessments is carried out and funds for private care are applied for and paid for by the local council. The local council will have to pay for their care through the private sector, a sector which is much more expensive than the old style of social care. Private care has the monopoly in all of this.

Fortunately, under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the government have a legal obligation of care. If they didn't then we'd be like America, with the poor elderly abandoned and forgotten.

[Cherie]

Any chance you could read what I have written ....I said where people CAN they should help shoulder the burden of caring whether that be providing time or paying towards extra hours for carers on top of what the state provides, thereby freeing up hospital beds and care home spaces for those who have no family or are no longer in touch, too many people want to pass the buck of the care of their relatives onto the state instead of taking some responsibility themselves,

[DemolitionRed]

Any chance you could read what I have written ....I said where people CAN they should help shoulder the burden of caring whether that be providing time or paying towards extra hours for carers on top of what the state provides, thereby freeing up hospital beds and care home spaces for those who have no family or are no longer in touch, too many people want to pass the buck of the care of their relatives onto the state instead of taking some responsibility themselves,

You use words like 'expecting the state to cough up' and 'passing the buck' that's emotive language that makes one feel we are living in a soulless, greedy society. Your blaming society and forgiving the government.

The problem with your suggestion is, its not reliable. There are plenty of sons and daughters, family members and even neighbors who do this. They don't do it because its a legal requirement; they do it for three reasons, because they can, because they care or because they feel its a moral obligation but Its wholly voluntary and often unreliable.

I couldn't look after my parents if god forbid, then needed that care. I could pop in a couple of times a week but they wouldn't want me to give up a career I've worked hard for to make that hour... often two hour journey to them once or twice a day. That doesn't mean I don't care or I'm passing the buck. Most families don't live in the same town, never mind the same street as their parents. Most families can't afford to give up work or become a part-timer so they can sit mum on a commode when she needs to. If most couples can't afford to cut their working hours when their children are pre-school, how can they afford to do that when their parents need them?

[Cherie]

You use words like 'expecting the state to cough up' and 'passing the buck' that's emotive language that makes one feel we are living in a soulless, greedy society. Your blaming society and forgiving the government.

The problem with your suggestion is, its not reliable. There are plenty of sons and daughters, family members and even neighbors who do this. They don't do it because its a legal requirement; they do it for three reasons, because they can, because they care or because they feel its a moral obligation but Its wholly voluntary and often unreliable.

I couldn't look after my parents if god forbid, then needed that care. I could pop in a couple of times a week but they wouldn't want me to give up a career I've worked hard for to make that hour... often two hour journey to them once or twice a day. That doesn't mean I don't care or I'm passing the buck. Most families don't live in the same town, never mind the same street as their parents. Most families can't afford to give up work or become a part-timer so they can sit mum on a commode when she needs to. If most couples can't afford to cut their working hours when their children are pre-school, how can they afford to do that when their parents need them?

There are ways around it like taking annual leave or or helping towards paying for extra carer hours to help them get back on their feet if they needed it after a stay in hospital. if someone has to put their parent on a commode on a regular basis I suspect the best place for them is a care home. Maybe the government needs to look at some kind of leave similar to paternity leave so that people can look after a relative to get then over a stay in hospital, I am not absolving the government of anything, but I do think we are developing into a society that want them to do everything for us and that isn't healthy pardon the pun

[smudgie]

There are ways around it like taking annual leave or or helping towards paying for extra carer hours to help them get back on their feet if they needed it after a stay in hospital. if someone has to put their parent on a commode on a regular basis I suspect the best place for them is a care home. Maybe the government needs to look at some kind of leave similar to paternity leave so that people can look after a relative to get then over a stay in hospital, I am not absolving the government of anything, but I do think we are developing into a society that want them to do everything for us and that isn't healthy pardon the pun

It is a tough one.
I don't want my kids burdened with me if anything happened to hubby, fortunately barring very bad luck I will be long gone before him.
If they want our fortune:joker: then it would pay them to put some care in, rather than paying for a home.
Everyones circumstances are different, but if my kids have ever needed anything over the years, we have been there for them, dropping our plans etc.
My daughter is home for xmas and is looking into staying up here for up to 6 months so she can help her dad juggle the refurb of the bungalow and looking after me, we haven't asked her to but she won't hear of any argument against it, she is packing her very well paid job that she loves down south up and will hopefully get some supply work as and if it comes up.
All a question of give and take :shrug:

[DemolitionRed]

There are ways around it like taking annual leave or or helping towards paying for extra carer hours to help them get back on their feet if they needed it after a stay in hospital. if someone has to put their parent on a commode on a regular basis I suspect the best place for them is a care home. Maybe the government needs to look at some kind of leave similar to paternity leave so that people can look after a relative to get then over a stay in hospital, I am not absolving the government of anything, but I do think we are developing into a society that want them to do everything for us and that isn't healthy pardon the pun

Many people don't have surplus funds and sadly, in this modern age, families often live some distance apart. Finding a good provider takes time and is often difficult depending on where the person lives. People are often left in a situation where they take what they can, even if its overly expensive and not ideal.

What we need is government funded respite care facilities. This would speed up hospital beds whilst still giving much needed enabling care to those who need it. What happens atm is, an elderly person is hospitalized after, say a pelvic injury. Social services within the local council are contacted and agree to take her on, often on the day she is discharged home and even though that person is on red alert and will see someone fairly quickly, she is still going to arrive home, often to an empty house, with no immediate equipment or facility to help her. If she has a family that has arrived to help... great. If she doesn't, she must feel very frightened and alone.

The tragic thing is, many of these people have worked hard all their lives. They've paid their taxes and NI and they've saved enough money for a rainy day and hope to leave something for their family but are suddenly faced with not having enough or losing it all. Domiciliary care has become so expensive, even though the actual carers get a pittance, that the elderly people who need that care, often choose to manage without it and that in itself is a huge problem.

We are all hopefully going to grow old. None of us know if we will need home care in the future but wouldn't it be awful if we reached a stage where that care comes subject to affordability?

[Kizzy]

if you read my post carefully and digest it you will see that is not what I am saying at all

I thought lifting the poorest low income earners out of tax was a good thing? no? I should have known that it would become a negative at some point.

NI and now council tax is what pays for social care and everyone pays that..

How about you stop telling me what you're not saying and tell me what you are saying explain 'looking after your own' please.

No, it's not a good thing neither is it a positive thing... how are we to pay for our public services, NHS, welfare and social care with no taxes?
How are they going to make back the money they just lost lifting people out of tax...flog more arms to the saudis?

They get a percentage from central government too

[DemolitionRed]

It is a tough one.
I don't want my kids burdened with me if anything happened to hubby, fortunately barring very bad luck I will be long gone before him.
If they want our fortune:joker: then it would pay them to put some care in, rather than paying for a home.
Everyones circumstances are different, but if my kids have ever needed anything over the years, we have been there for them, dropping our plans etc.
My daughter is home for xmas and is looking into staying up here for up to 6 months so she can help her dad juggle the refurb of the bungalow and looking after me, we haven't asked her to but she won't hear of any argument against it, she is packing her very well paid job that she loves down south up and will hopefully get some supply work as and if it comes up.
All a question of give and take :shrug:

Its really nice that your daughter is going to do that for you. Unfortunately, not everyone is in your daughters position. Many families, including my own, still have children at home. They have pets that may not be welcome at their parents house. They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business in a particular area and so on.

[Kizzy]

Care in the community.... LOL care in a private unregulated nursing home from some unqualified 0hr contract part timer, and that's if you can afford it if not it's, yes you've guessed it be sent home to die or bedblock.

[smudgie]

Its really nice that your daughter is going to do that for you. Unfortunately, not everyone is in your daughters position. Many families, including my own, still have children at home. They have pets that may not be welcome at their parents house. They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business in a particular area and so on.

Indeed.
It is up to the individual to decide what they want out of life, and what they can or can't sacrifice.

[Cherie]

Its really nice that your daughter is going to do that for you. Unfortunately, not everyone is in your daughters position. Many families, including my own, still have children at home. They have pets that may not be welcome at their parents house. They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business in a particular area and so on.

that seems like a long list of excuses to me than more anything else, if people have a good relationship with their parents and they needed care for a few weeks post op which seems to be one of the main reasons for bed blocking in the the NHS, I am sure a lot of people could work around it, particularly if it is a two parent family unit, not everyone has to up sticks and move, just one adult would do for starters, and if it is only for a matter of weeks, not a permanent arrangement it is doable, as Smudgie said it is up to the individual what they want to sacrifice but it seems to be a lot of people don't want to sacrifice anything they want the state to pick up "because they have paid in".

[Cherie]

It is a tough one.
I don't want my kids burdened with me if anything happened to hubby, fortunately barring very bad luck I will be long gone before him.
If they want our fortune:joker: then it would pay them to put some care in, rather than paying for a home.
Everyones circumstances are different, but if my kids have ever needed anything over the years, we have been there for them, dropping our plans etc.
My daughter is home for xmas and is looking into staying up here for up to 6 months so she can help her dad juggle the refurb of the bungalow and looking after me, we haven't asked her to but she won't hear of any argument against it, she is packing her very well paid job that she loves down south up and will hopefully get some supply work as and if it comes up.
All a question of give and take :shrug:

I would agree with that Smudgie, if you had a happy upbringing and your parents were there for you, imo its your turn to be there for them when they are vulnerable, I don't think any parent wants their kids to be burdened, but it is not a burden when you love them and that is what families are all about, looking out for each other especially when the going gets tough, I sound like a Disney movie :hehe:

[bots]

I can only speak from my own experience, and things like the NHS are great for some aspects of care, and absolutely dreadful for other aspects. Family members are the only ones that can provide certain types of care at its best, public services just can't do it. So there just isn't a generalised solution for everyone, and many just wouldn't want it. Of course there should be some default level of care that the state provides, but beyond that its up to individual families

[smudgie]

I would agree with that Smudgie, if you had a happy upbringing and your parents were there for you, imo its your turn to be there for them when they are vulnerable, I don't think any parent wants their kids to be burdened, but it is not a burden when you love them and that is what families are all about, looking out for each other especially when the going gets tough, I sound like a Disney movie :hehe:

Not a Disney movie, just the way it is in some families.

[DemolitionRed]

that seems like a long list of excuses to me than more anything else, if people have a good relationship with their parents and they needed care for a few weeks post op which seems to be one of the main reasons for bed blocking in the the NHS, I am sure a lot of people could work around it, particularly if it is a two parent family unit, not everyone has to up sticks and move, just one adult would do for starters, and if it is only for a matter of weeks, not a permanent arrangement it is doable, as Smudgie said it is up to the individual what they want to sacrifice but it seems to be a lot of people don't want to sacrifice anything they want the state to pick up "because they have paid in".

Surely when I said, "They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business". It was obvious I wasn't talking about just few weeks?! Social care is often a permanent thing and therefore, from what I said, I was meaning on a permanent basis.

[DemolitionRed]

I would agree with that Smudgie, if you had a happy upbringing and your parents were there for you, imo its your turn to be there for them when they are vulnerable, I don't think any parent wants their kids to be burdened, but it is not a burden when you love them and that is what families are all about, looking out for each other especially when the going gets tough, I sound like a Disney movie :hehe:

That leaves out all those who didn't have a happy upbringing.

[DemolitionRed]

I can only speak from my own experience, and things like the NHS are great for some aspects of care, and absolutely dreadful for other aspects. Family members are the only ones that can provide certain types of care at its best, public services just can't do it. So there just isn't a generalised solution for everyone, and many just wouldn't want it. Of course there should be some default level of care that the state provides, but beyond that its up to individual families

The problem with social care is, its hugely variable. Social care for children and adults with learning disabilities is quite outstanding. Gone (or at least almost) are the days when LD children and adults were put in institutionalized environments where they didn't even own their own clothes. Now its mainly supported living with a very holistic team. The government grants for these people is fantastic. They often own their own cars (which are driven by their key worker). The housing complexes are modern and personal to each individuals requirements and so on. everything is geared around empowering such individuals to be as independent as they possibly can. Just like any of us, they enjoy family popping round but like the rest of us, they often enjoy living independently too and why wouldn't they?

Unfortunately there isn't the same amount of money or anywhere near enough safeguarding available for people with mental illness or the ailing elderly. Health teams recognize that a person centered approach is the way forward, which is great, but they aren't given anything like the same funds to train staff or facilitate those needing good support.

[DemolitionRed]

Everything needs to be geared around promoting independence. Yes, its lovely for families to step in or to even go and live with their adult children but many elderly people don't want that, regardless of how well they get along with their children, because its giving up their independence.

After my grandma died, my grandfather went to live with my parents. They had enough room to set up an on-suite bedroom and a small living room for him. What they did though, was take him away from his familiar surroundings. The very surroundings where he'd lived, loved and laughed with his life partner. He never complained and he was grateful but he only lived for one more year and that year was filled with a sense of loss and sadness. No matter how good family are with an elderly parent, taking away their 'sense' of independance isn't always in their favor.

[Kizzy]

Right let's have a real life scenario, your mother in law just got diagnosed with dementia at 79, she wanders and has been brought home by the police 4 times in 3 months it is made apparent she can no longer live independently.

Your daughter is working in new Zealand and your son at uni in Newcastle. Your husband just got promoted to floor manager at marks and spencers homewares a 34 mile round trip from home, you work as a doctors receptionist a 16 mile round trip away. you remortgaged the house 3yrs ago for uni fees an extension and a cruise.

The only other relative lives in Devon and you live in York.... what do you do?

[smudgie]

Right let's have a real life scenario, your mother in law just got diagnosed with dementia at 79, she wanders and has been brought home by the police 4 times in 3 months it is made apparent she can no longer live independently.

Your daughter is working in new Zealand and your son at uni in Newcastle. Your husband just got promoted to floor manager at marks and spencers homewares a 34 mile round trip from home, you work as a doctors receptionist a 16 mile round trip away. you remortgaged the house 3yrs ago for uni fees an extension and a cruise.

The only other relative lives in Devon and you live in York.... what do you do?

Then you would need the help of a secure care home.
If she can no longer live independently then her dementia will probably mean she needs 24 hour care.
Regardless of who lives where and works whatever hours.:shrug:

[Cherie]

Right let's have a real life scenario, your mother in law just got diagnosed with dementia at 79, she wanders and has been brought home by the police 4 times in 3 months it is made apparent she can no longer live independently.

Your daughter is working in new Zealand and your son at uni in Newcastle. Your husband just got promoted to floor manager at marks and spencers homewares a 34 mile round trip from home, you work as a doctors receptionist a 16 mile round trip away. you remortgaged the house 3yrs ago for uni fees an extension and a cruise.

The only other relative lives in Devon and you live in York.... what do you do?


Obviously they are people who CAN'T who might be helped by more people who CAN it's not rocket science :laugh:

Although there does seem to be some issues understanding the word CAN :think:

It's not any different to people working to support those who are unable to work

[Kizzy]

Obviously they are people who CAN'T who might be helped by more people who CAN it's not rocket science :laugh:

Although there does seem to be some issues understanding the word CAN :think:

It's not any different to people working to support those who are unable to work

So who can?... These elderly people have worked, and paid national insurance all their lives are they now expected to be treated like a burden on their family or whoever?

[Cherie]

So who can?... These elderly people have worked, and paid national insurance all their lives are they now expected to be treated like a burden on their family or whoever?

Why would they be a burden? what a negative way to look at it, just bizarre rationale

[Kizzy]

Why would they be a burden? what a negative way to look at it, just bizarre rationale



They feel like a burden, it's documented now that the elderly are concerned about becoming a burden, I don't deny it's damning for our 'civilised' society to have it's aged population feeling this way but it doesn't make it any less true.
It's not a bizarre rationale, that's just a way of curbing the debate by inferring one side is being irrational... I'm not in the scenario I painted earlier should an elderly or infirm relative be dependent on them as a family how would they cope?... That family is not dissimilar to 1000s of families across the UK.

Is is such an ask to have a fully functional social care system to take the stress from both the elderly and the families?

[DemolitionRed]

They feel like a burden, it's documented now that the elderly are concerned about becoming a burden, I don't deny it's damning for our 'civilised' society to have it's aged population feeling this way but it doesn't make it any less true.
It's not a bizarre rationale, that's just a way of curbing the debate by inferring one side is being irrational... I'm not in the scenario I painted earlier should an elderly or infirm relative be dependent on them as a family how would they cope?... That family is not dissimilar to 1000s of families across the UK.

Is is such an ask to have a fully functional social care system to take the stress from both the elderly and the families?

The bizarre rationale is to not fix the hole in the bucket. This shouldn’t and can’t be about an individuals moral obligation but about the government properly funding local council so they can balance the needs of the suffering.

The elephant in the room here is about the drop in living standards for those unfortunate enough to need ongoing care.