Scotrail

[19QOS19]

Who is punishing them?  They are receiving a service and paying for it as they can afford to.  

A service they'd receive whether they were paying for it or not. There's something a bit off about Mrs X having to pay £500 a week for her care and Mrs Y paying nothing yet both receive exactly the same care. The system is a bit mental in that regard IMO.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

2 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

42 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Who is punishing them?  They are receiving a service and paying for it as they can afford to.  

A service they'd receive whether they were paying for it or not. There's something a bit off about Mrs X having to pay £500 a week for her care and Mrs Y paying nothing yet both receive exactly the same care. The system is a bit mental in that regard IMO.

How is that different from someone receiving Housing Benefit vs people who can afford to paying for rent/mortgage?

[19QOS19]

How is that different from someone receiving Housing Benefit vs people who can afford to paying for rent/mortgage?

I don't suppose it is. It doesn't make it any less fair IMO though.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

50 minutes ago, virginton said:

I don't recall many pensioners complaining about the injustice when a decade of austerity was imposed exclusively on the working age poor, disabled and their dependents since 2010 - while state spending on their welfare benefits was maintained at the same rate as before and triple-locked to inflation. Their political decisions in that decade certainly don't indicate their belief in your stance either. 

It's funny how the universal solidarity card only ever gets played when it's boomers on the receiving end of scrutiny and cutbacks. 

Spot on, apart from the first line - there were still plenty of pensioners mewling about how great benefits were for working age folk and how "we never had that in my day", whilst of course being completely unaware that they themselves were getting about double the weekly equivalent of JSA in the form of state pension which went up every year, whilst working age benefits stagnated. They certainly complained a lot if anyone dared to remind them State Pension was in actual fact a social security benefit. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

21 minutes ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

How is that different from someone receiving Housing Benefit vs people who can afford to paying for rent/mortgage?

I don't suppose it is. It doesn't make it any less fair IMO though.

I don't get the logic here at all. What's unfair about someone with (for example) a fully paid-for £200,000 property and £50,000 in savings moving into accommodation costing £1200 a week and being expected to pay for it? 

[Bairnardo]

I don't get the logic here at all. What's unfair about someone with (for example) a fully paid-for £200,000 property and £50,000 in savings moving into accommodation costing £1200 a week and being expected to pay for it? 

I think the mindset of fairness in this regard is rooted in several generations of it being drilled in to folk that "your home is your castle" and that your property is your inheritance/what you plan to hand on to your kids in lieu of actual wedge.

It's a hard mindset to shift tbh. And nowadays folk are making moves to get round it even when they are still young.

It doesn't stand up to a huge amount of scrutiny really, but its a really well ingrained thing, that you hand on what you have to your kids.

[19QOS19]

I don't get the logic here at all. What's unfair about someone with (for example) a fully paid-for £200,000 property and £50,000 in savings moving into accommodation costing £1200 a week and being expected to pay for it? 

I just think it's unfair on folk who have managed to save all their life to presumably leave something to their children, only for it to be taken away from them due to a (likely) horrible disease forcing them into a carehome. I'm not saying they absolutely shouldn't contribute towards it but to take away someone's entire life savings is very harsh to say the least.

It's a system that's well known now anyway so folk in that position will try and hide/give away their money in different ways I suppose.

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

 

I just think it's unfair on folk who have managed to save all their life to presumably leave something to their children, only for it to be taken away from them due to a (likely) horrible disease forcing them into a carehome. I'm not saying they absolutely shouldn't contribute towards it but to take away someone's entire life savings is very harsh to say the least.

It's a system that's well known now anyway so folk in that position will try and hide/give away their money in different ways I suppose.

 

 

^^^ Tory

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 minute ago, 19QOS19 said:

I just think it's unfair on folk who have managed to save all their life to presumably leave something to their children, only for it to be taken away from them due to a (likely) horrible disease forcing them into a carehome. I'm not saying they absolutely shouldn't contribute towards it but to take away someone's entire life savings is very harsh to say the least.

It's a system that's well known now anyway so folk in that position will try and hide/give away their money in different ways I suppose.

 

 

That's a whole other argument that's been done to death (lol) here previously. Basically it boils down to why should the state shoulder the burden of £Millions of care costs to enable well-off people to leave houses to children who have done absolutely nothing to earn them, other than wait for their parents to die. This of course exacerbates the housing crisis as many of these properties end up being rented out by new private landlords. 

There are rules in place to prevent sudden transfers of assets etc, so it's not an easy workaround. 

[19QOS19]

^^^ Tory

f**k up.

That's a whole other argument that's been done to death (lol) here previously. Basically it boils down to why should the state shoulder the burden of £Millions of care costs to enable well-off people to leave houses to children who have done absolutely nothing to earn them, other than wait for their parents to die. This of course exacerbates the housing crisis as many of these properties end up being rented out by new private landlords. 
There are rules in place to prevent sudden transfers of assets etc, so it's not an easy workaround. 

It's not always well off people though. It happens to anyone. I find it sadder when it's someone who has about £3000 in bank tbh. They have that taken which will cover 3 months or so treatment, then continue on with the exact same care only have nothing to their name. It's just a mental system IMO.

[RiffRaff]

Getting this thread back on track; it looks like Scotrail are bringing back their normal timetable from the first week in July, RMT strikes permitting.

 

[Bairnardo]

back on track
 

Nice

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Just now, 19QOS19 said:

It's not always well off people though. It happens to anyone. I find it sadder when it's someone who has about £3000 in bank tbh. They have that taken which will cover 3 months or so treatment, then continue on with the exact same care only have nothing to their name. It's just a mental system IMO.

 

 

Folk are offered financial assessments - you wouldn't be expected to pay for your own care unless your savings were over £23,500. At that point you're assessed for a contribution, the percentage of which will depend on how much capital over that you have, value of any property owned outright etc. A lot of folk will refuse to be assessed because they don't want anyone knowing how much money they have, in which case they will be fully self-funding. I wouldn't say any of that is particularly unfair tbh. 

I may not be totally correct here as debt and welfare benefits are my area, but that's a relatively rough idea. 

[19QOS19]

Folk are offered financial assessments - you wouldn't be expected to pay for your own care unless your savings were over £23,500. At that point you're assessed for a contribution, the percentage of which will depend on how much capital over that you have, value of any property owned outright etc. A lot of folk will refuse to be assessed because they don't want anyone knowing how much money they have, in which case they will be fully self-funding. I wouldn't say any of that is particularly unfair tbh. 
I may not be totally correct here as debt and welfare benefits are my area, but that's a relatively rough idea. 

I wasn't aware it was over £23k, in which case it's a lot fairer. Surely even being allowed to leave £5K to family is fair enough?

I know someone who is going through this the now and was advised to move money around so they don't take it. I asked him and he said he only had about £6K in the bank so I don't know why she has told him to do that if what you say is correct

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

 

f**k up.





It's not always well off people though. It happens to anyone. I find it sadder when it's someone who has about £3000 in bank tbh. They have that taken which will cover 3 months or so treatment, then continue on with the exact same care only have nothing to their name. It's just a mental system IMO.

 

 

Erm no, they are well off. Wealth accumulated in the form of property contributes just as much to their net wealth as income from regular wages/pensions or cash sitting in a bank account. 

The UK's failure to perceive its enormous issue with wealth inequality while fixating on income is precisely why the country is a fucking basketcase.

Edited June 23, 2022 by vikingTON

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Just now, 19QOS19 said:

I wasn't aware it was over £23k, in which case it's a lot fairer. Surely even being allowed to leave £5K to family is fair enough?

I know someone who is going through this the now and was advised to move money around so they don't take it. I asked him and he said he only had about £6K in the bank so I don't know why she has told him to do that if what you say is correct

Capital includes stuff like shares, bonds, property owned outright etc. It's not just cash in the bank. I have some vague recollection of there being a 5 year limit on this stuff. IE moving money and capital about, changing house ownership etc a year before someone goes into residential care wouldn't fly. 

[mozam76]

21 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

 

I just think it's unfair on folk who have managed to save all their life to presumably leave something to their children, only for it to be taken away from them due to a (likely) horrible disease forcing them into a carehome. I'm not saying they absolutely shouldn't contribute towards it but to take away someone's entire life savings is very harsh to say the least.

It's a system that's well known now anyway so folk in that position will try and hide/give away their money in different ways I suppose.

 

 

I suppose the argument there is "save for what"? In my experience it seems that a lot of folk only save for the good stuff like extensions and holidays and the like, and then assume that if they become incapacitated, then f**k it, something/somebody will bail them out. 

 

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, RiffRaff said:

Getting this thread back on track; it looks like Scotrail are bringing back their normal timetable from the first week in July, RMT strikes permitting.

 

About fucking time, and then they can start providing a real Sunday service instead of the nonsense effort that they've stuck to for decades. See also the Glasgow Subway which shuts down at 6. 

[RiffRaff]

12 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

 

 

Nice

 

I thought so.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Just now, Day of the Lords said:

Capital includes stuff like shares, bonds, property owned outright etc. It's not just cash in the bank. I have some vague recollection of there being a 5 year limit on this stuff. IE moving money and capital about, changing house ownership etc a year before someone goes into residential care wouldn't fly. 

IIRC the period where you could hand over property to a relative for example used to be 7 years, once this time had elapsed the property was untouchable.