I wasn't born wiv a silver spoon in my gob, neither have I got a plum in it. I worked bloody hard to get somewhere and got head hunted while doing it, so I bettered myself until the late 80's / 90's recession whereupon I was made redundant; got another post just like that and was then made redundant again within 6 months; got another position and within weeks that company was taken over and down the road we all went again....... .....unfortunately the pressure caused a marital split; ultimately I ended up living on my own in rented accommodation, with sod all assets and cash. Eventually I started my own company and worked long hours; it took off far quicker than I anticipated and I ended up working a minimum of 18 hours a day seven days a week..........sometimes 48 hours or more in one go. I was able to buy a decent house and was basically better off than I was before the sh*t hit the fan. OK, maybe overwork has put me in the position I am currently in healthwise, but I'm buggered if any ministerial prick is going to tell me in what type of house I should live in.
In general, western liberal democracies are in thrall to the politically inspired fantasy that consumption fuelled growth is the road to prosperity and that civilised existence is insupportable without a vast unfunded social welfare programme so ruinously expensive that each generation must roll over the bill for its time on earth to the next generation or even the one after that. That is why so many of them are either bankrupt or heading inexorably in that direction. If each generation cannot pay for its own old, sick, unemployed and infirm it is fiddling while Rome burns. Living within one's means is not "austere", Dickensian, cold-hearted or uncaring, it is the only ethical option. Robbing the unborn by dumping your debts on them to prop up a failed social, political and economic model because doing so is easier than reforming it, is catastrophically irresponsible and morally indefensible.
For some their means is food from the bin and sleeping in a doorway, if we seriously think it acceptable to cut this infestation from our society
I agree with you on this bradders, those at the top have been taking too much and they should be held to account. The only problem though is that you could tax those at the top at a punitive rate and it wouldn't significantly add to the total tax take. The bulk of the tax comes from people like me, and I assume you, those firmly in the middle.
Well said. The old model is broken, we desperately need a new one, a return to socialism is the last thing we need.
We already spend £105 billion a year more than we earn. Our national debt is running at £1.4 trillion and rising, which is a staggering 77% of GDP. That is the equivalent of earning £30,000 a year and borrowing an additional £23,000 each and every year to fund your lifestyle. No sane individual would continue doing that and expect ever to climb out of the hole. They would get themselves to the county court by ten o'clock on a Tuesday morning with their £600 and throw in their cards. By any stretch of the imagination we are fiscally bankrupt. Yet for all this astronomical largesse/profligacy (delete according to political prejudice) we have more people sleeping in doorways and eating out of bins than ever before and the debts we bequeath our descendants will absolutely guarantee there will be far more doing so in the future.
Thanks for the clarification - and an interesting converse of interest rate increases on RPI is that, IF we have house price inflation (as we have now) but reducing interest rates, the effect of the house price inflation on RPI is mitigated... thus "hiding" what is in my view a problem. I know that the BoE base rate has not reduced for some years, but all of the government fiddling around with "Funding for Lending", "Help to Buy" etc has had the effect of making mortgage money cheaper than it otherwise might be and thus partly masks what is happening with prices. Problematic inflation is not just 1970s-style, with wages and prices chasing each other upwards, but it occurs also when, in an era of static earnings (for most), house prices start to escalate beyond the reach of ordinary people - even if CPI and RPI can create an illusion of "there is no problem with inflation".
Another point I have never understood is how we ever came to think that the best way to care for our old, sick and impoverished is to institutionalise them. Why must we farm out all our responsibilities to central government? A Pakistani or a Chinese family would be appalled at the idea of abandoning their sick and old to the care of the state. Yet we demand it as a right.
Some leftie politician today, who's name I didn't catch, was suggesting that social care for the elderly could come under the remit of the NHS. Clearly another aspiration prior to a General election.
I think it was "Andy" Burnham that you may have listened to - tipped by some as a potential replacement for Miliband one day. What he didn't say (and if it was the BBC he won't have been asked very hard) is how he would pay for the huge cost of "Integrated Social Care and NHS" but I think in the past the Labour Party has floated the idea that they could fleece the estates of deceased people of some extra contribution (perhaps £50K+) to fund universal "social care" - separately from Inheritance Tax. Obviously he will keep quiet about this in the run up to an election!
My mother's estate has already been fleeced to the tune of about £75,000 to pay for her entirely self funded residential care , and she isn't even dead yet. Few if any of the other residents pay a penny. And don't even think about Continuing Health Care, despite Stage 7 Alzheimer's and requiring help with every single aspect of her life. The good news is that she is being well looked after.
John, my sympathies to you. I have been in that boat or a similar one. Your mother's "estate" is entitled to keep about £24K - at that point, she can be funded through public funding (with caveats regarding the cost of the residential care to be provided). Until she is down to her last £24K, she (or her family) must foot the bill. This is more or less as it should be but yes, it is galling that other residents pay nothing, particularly if they have been "clever" with how they have kept/disposed of their life savings.
you know, all this is still sounds v.familiar. and sorry to bore you to death on the subject, Scotland apparently would of been short 4bill a year so couldn't afford independence. Britain is short 100bill a year. hmm. 10th of the population yet 20+ times the debt.yet we have higher social dependency. i ordinarily wouldn't say any more in a serious fashion, as i am saving it for those that matter, but some of the nay Sayers are commenting on this thread.
There you go then...your poor old mum invested in her house,and now she's using the funds to take care of herself,and not be a burden on the state...you'd think that kind of canny investment would be applauded,even if it's a horrible,awful situation to be in... PINT OF BEER Average in 1971: 15p Average now: £3.18 What it should be (using inflation figures since 1971): £1.80 LOAF OF BREAD Average in 1971: 10p Average now: £1.24 Where it should be (using inflation figures since 1971): £1.20 PINT OF MILK Average in 1971: 6p Average now: 46p Where it should be (using inflation figures since 1971): 72p PACK OF 20 CIGARETTES Average in 1971: 27p Average now: £7.98 Where it should be (using inflation figures since 1971): £3.24 1KG OF SUGAR Average in 1971: 9p Average now: 98p Where it should be (using inflation figures since 1971): £1.08 2.5KG CHICKEN Average in 1971: 1.17p Average now: £6 Where they should be (using inflation figures since 1971): £14.02
Firstly, relatives by law (National Assistance Act amendment...can't recall which section at the moment), cannot be made to pay for a person's care in a home. If anyone wants to make recovery of a relative's assets which has been used for care home costs.....speak to Cate Searle of Martin Searle Solicitors.....Google her.... She worked wonders with my relative's case.............saved a fortune and may be well on her way to recovering assets already spent. Can't say more here but if anyone needs some initial thoughts, PM me.
Employees aged 21 in 1995 earned 40% more after adjusting for inflation by the age of 39 than those aged 21 in 1975 did up to the age of 39 • Average hourly earnings peaked at older ages in 2013 compared to 1975 • The difference between male and female average pay for the under 30s has decreased dramatically since 1975. • Since 2011 the top 10% of full-time earners have had the largest falls in wages after adjusting for inflation. • Since 1975 average earnings for full-time employees have more than doubled after accounting for inflation. • Since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, wage growth at the bottom of the earnings distribution has been strong for both full and part-time employees. • Almost a third (32.6%) of those in the top 10% of earners worked in London in 2013 while 12.3% of the bottom 10% of earners worked in the North West • Hourly wage inequality has fallen across the regions and devolved countries of the UK since 1998 UK Wages Over the Past Four Decades Employees aged 21 in 1995 earned 40% more after adjusting for inflation by the age of 39 than those aged 21 in 1975 did up to the age of 39 On average, individuals who were 21 in 1975 have fared worse in terms of average pay over their career to 2013 than those who were 21 in 1985 and 1995. Adjusting for inflation to put wages into a 2013 equivalent and comparing the age range 21 to 39 shows that those who started work in 1995 earned 40% more than their counterparts who started work in 1975. A similar comparison of the age range 21 to 49 shows that those who started work in 1985 earned 18% more than their 1975 counterparts.03 July 2014 Office for National Statistics | 2 The difference in earnings between the 1975 and latter cohorts means that those who started work in 1975 had to work between three and four years longer than those who started in 1985 to accumulate the same amount of earnings and between five and six years longer than those who started in 1995.
