ELDERLY Islanders could avoid selling their homes to pay for long-term care under a plan to increase social security payments by 2% in 2012.
All working Islanders would face increased charges – worth around £32m per year – under the scheme about to be proposed by Social Security Minister Ian Gorst.
The scheme follows the long-standing Guernsey model and would bring an end to old-age pensioners having to sell off the homes they have worked all their lives to buy in order to be looked after in their final years.
Article posted on 28th July, 2010 - 3.00pm
78 Article Comments
I may sound mean but I would begrudge paying extra social to pay the care of those who are sitting on assets worth 000ks. I think its right and fair for the elderly to sell their property to pay for care, or to sell up and move in with family. I fully intend to do the same with my house when I am older, as my grandparents did and as I am sure my parents will.
Of course those who cannot afford or do not that the assets to sell should be looked after, but this idea does not sit right with me.
Report abuse
What a first class idea – should have happened ages ago.
Report abuse
I completely agree that elderly people should not have to sell their homes to pay for residential care whilst those that didn’t buy get it for free but…
Rather than make us pay why can’t they take out insurance against it as is currently being proposed in the UK.This is fairer as those that will benefit pay. I absolutely agree that you should not be penalised for buying your own home but neither should the average taxpayer suffer for it either, if those that stand to benefit pay wouldn’t that be fairer.
If we are taxed any more there will be nothing left.
Report abuse
Interesting concept; I am going to have to pay an extra 2% in social security contributions (I suppose the employer will as well) so that someone can inherit their parent’s house when they die?
If they are in long term care one would assume that they are not going to come out of it so do not need the house.
This is only going to benefit those who actually own their own property and they rest of us are going to subsidise their estate planning to make sure their biggest asset is passed unmolested to their children.
How does that work?
If you only paid the extra social security contribution if you owned a property that would make sense.
Otherwise this really is robbing the poor to pay the rich!Again!
Lets face it social security is not going to cover old age pensions in the future and we are going to raid the pot to protect a child’s inheritance before we sort out that particular problem.
This really does beggar belief
Report abuse
This is a short-sighted plan which epitomises the muddled thinking of our COM. The proposed increase only hits the dwindling working population making creating jobs more expensive. Furthermore as we move through the next few decades, the number of non-working members of the community will rise quickly while the working population falls. What will they do then, raise Social Security by 10%.
We need to be realistic. Jersey is broke and radical proposals are needed to change that. We need to seriously consider raising the retirement age and not by one or two years and making the pension means tested. Quite simply those who have other pensionable income in excess of say £50K (to be index linked) should get a reduced pension and those above £100K none at all.
Continually hitting the working population alone will have unintended consequences which could be significantly worse than the current situation
Report abuse
Think about it Sensible, so you think it is fair that someone who can work and plays the system and cannot be bothered to work, pays no social gets benefits all their lives, gets their rent paid and contributes nothing to the social fund has the same rights to people who are working hard , pay taxes, and social, and if they own their own homes after paying mortgages should be forced to sell their homes to get the same as the lazy lot i think not
Report abuse
I agree whole heartedly with ’sensible’. Again the lower income people, like myself, will be paying for those more fortunate. Would it not be better to raise the capping level on contributions? A fairer distribution of wealth.
Also, I know personally of two collegues who pay less mortgage than I do rent and one who’s mortgage free at 49! We all earn similar. They may have had to scrimp at the beginning but later on reap the benefits. Should they not save that for their twighlight years to enjoy or to fall back on if needed.
The whole proposal is toally unfair.
Report abuse
no, im sure the states will suggest that the home is sold once the oap dies and a % goes to the states as a tax. fair all round.
Report abuse
I do not agree with ’sensible’ who seems to forget that these old age people have already paid for their retirement benefit and care all their working life. If they have bought their own property often with great sacrifice then it should not be held against them in their old age. There are many who have spent all their money on other things and never made any effort to save for their future retirement but expect the state and those who have saved to pay for them via income tax etc.
Report abuse
ok now this is ludicrous.. the elderly need looking after but how much value has been added to their properties since they bought/inherited them most of them are worth 10 to 20 times more than they were years ago get real!!!! There are elderly people who dont own their own property who are far worse off..
Report abuse
Agree with 1 entirely. I really don’t see the problem of having to sell one’s home to pay for care in old age. Yes, you have worked for it over your working lifetime, but you cannot take it with you. If your family want an inheritance, they should assist you in old age, not the State and not by burdening further the younger working population with additional taxes.
Report abuse
To “Sensible”. What you seem to be saying is that if people have worked hard and saved all their lives to look after themselves they should be penalised if they are taken into care while those who have made no effort get looked after anyway. Hardly an incentive for a healthy society!
Report abuse
Borris #4
I’m pretty sure this scheme would stretch to movable assets such as savings as well as property, otherwise it would not be equitable.
Some of the comments are focussing on the “I’m not paying for the rich to keep their assets, or for their relatives to inherit them” and have missed the fact that those working people with the assets, now or in the future, will be paying the extra 2% as well. Much like we all pay for the hospital, prescriptions, sick days etc despite some of us never or rarely using the services.
This system WON’T protect the rich either because they already know how to play the system by setting up trusts and transferring ownership of immovable assets so that the state cannot touch them. This system WILL protect those who have worked hard, saved and have some assets for their sunset years but do not have enough to make it worthwhile paying for trust administration etc.
Granted the younger generations will be paying for the older generations initially but this can be offset by phasing in the increase in the minimum value of assets someone is allowed to keep. The current system encourages anti Darwinist tendencies by punishing those who have worked hard all their lives, have saved and who have not relied on the system and benefits those who have chosen live off the state. That is not fair.
Not sure why people are talking about insurance as this scheme IS insurance, much like current social security payments are insurance if you need sick benefits etc.
For the first time in ages ‘middle Jersey’ are being looked after to offset the fact they are screwed by paying disproportionate amounts of tax etc.
Report abuse
12 Harry – No I am not saying that they should be penalised, I am saying that if someone needs care later in life and if they have the assets to sell in order to pay for it then I believe that they should pay for it. You have it spot on, “people have worked hard and saved all their lives to look after themselves”…is the sale of this asset in order to fund a better quality of life not the definition of “looking after themselves”? For the record I do own my own home, but I would fully expect to either sell it in order to pay for care, or as J Warren excellently put it, would expect my family to look after me if they expected an inheritance. Social Security should be used first and foremost for those who cannot afford to look after themselves (and yes they will be people who play the system but that is another topic), we and future younger generations should not pay for care of those who are sitting on an asset worth £000s.
Report abuse
This is a shocking idea, their houses are work thousands and WE (taxpayers) will be paying for them to stay there. Yet another great idea by the States.
I cant afford to buy a house, may i propose increasing GST by an additional 1% so I can use it as a deposit!!!!
Report abuse
Far to sensible – doesnt stand a chance
Report abuse
How about this then, the pensioner moves into a care home, keeps there property for family to inherit at the same time lets it and money from the let goes for the up keep of pesioners home And the remainer sub’s the care home.
Report abuse
Would it be not be possible to use some of the money gained from stopping mortgage interest relief to cover the cost of care for the elderly instead of putting all the money into general revenue.
And don’t get me started on all the money wasted. Just come back from a weekend in Guernsey. The passenger ferry terminal looks exactly as it has done for ???years and is absolutely fine for travellers. Out the door and on the boat and vice versa. The money spent on Jersey terminal could have paid for a lot of elderly care.
Report abuse
As all the money involved is really the ultimate property of the Government(after all, they printed it), at the end of someone’s life it should all go back into the communal kitty.
This happens with board games like ‘Monopoly’. No one would suggest that next time Monoploly is played, the previous winner’s children should be given a head start.
If people want to work harder in order to spend more while they are alive, so be it. Let their children make their own living in turn.
Ideally I would like to go with only enough left to give the undertakers and solicitors bouncing cheques.
Jersey certainly appears to top the league where treating money primarily as something to be stashed is cocerned.
Report abuse
So everyone has to pay extra social security so that some people can inherit houses almost tax -free.
This is the same thinking that gave us GST-free private education and GST-free marine fuel.
Report abuse
Will workers paying Soc. Sec. not owning there own houses have to pay the extra two % ? My siblings and I pay for our parents’ care should we also have to pay the extra two % ? This is another looney idea by someone who could not make it in real life.
Report abuse
No way they can sell their homes. I,m not paying for them to lead a life of luxury i cant even own my own home here and live in third world squat that you!YES YOU JERSEY PEOPLE call a flat!!!!!
Who will look after me in the future, and yes i,m local born and bred and don,t give me that i,ve saved up for years rubbish to own a home as nowdays its alot more difficult.
Report abuse
14 Sensible. Sorry but you’re wrong.
My wife and I have worked hard all our lives, have paid shedloads of money in Income Tax and Social Security. We now bumble along on a fairly modest pension, having given most of our savings to help support members of our family who would otherwise have received some form of support from the States. We have saved the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds by doing this.
We cannot afford private care if either of us needs it – our only asset is our house which we can’t afford to maintain properly. We know of three families who have never contributed to central funds who live the life of Riley – none of the adults have ever worked and they have more disposable income than we do. I look forward to your reply.
Report abuse
What a great idea. Finally a fair system. Something which our sister Island sorted years ago! I for one would be happy to pay the extra.
Report abuse
Harry 23 – while I can empathise with you seeing people on benefits with more disposable income than you, there will always be people like that. That is their choice of lifestyle, and while they look like they live the life of Riley, I know I would (and I hazzard you too) feel ashamed to live like that if I could work. Still, as a society we deem that we should pay to keep the worse off living a decent life. Therefore it is my opinion that it would be wrong for me to depend on the state to look after me outside the norm (I.e. Pension, health care, bus pass etc) if a have a house which could be sold. What I mean by that is if I needed to move into a home, I would see it as my responsibility to sell my house and pay myself. I would also suggest that by paying for myself I would have a better standard of care than those depending on the state (which is not right either). And that is my opinion on the matter, which is not wrong as you suggest but different to yours. Life would be pretty boring if we all had the sake ideas and opinions.
Report abuse
The problem at the moment is that no one has focused on the surviving spouse. With the current system they are the forgotten ones. At the very least the states should foot the bill until the person needing the care is the only Survivor (as they do in the UK currently.) At the moment although the states wont admit it the surviving spouse is forced out of their own home which they have also helped to pay for. A fairer system is needed before this happens to other surviving spouses!
Report abuse
Joker #13
Spot on someone talking sense. A lot of people here seem to have the ‘it’ll never happen to me attitude.’ It’s about time the middle income earners on this Island saw some reward for their hard work. They pay tax and Social security all their working lives and are not a drain on the system what so ever. As you say the rich hide it those less fortunate get it free anyway. I have worked it out and I’ll only be paying an extra £4 a month. That’s the cheapest insurance policy I’ll have!! The sooner this system is implemented the better all round otherwise what is the point of trying to better yourself! (Something the states encourage!)
Report abuse
#17 ‘..the pensioner moves into a care home, keeps there property for family to inherit at the same time lets it and money from the let goes for the up keep of pesioners home And the remainer sub’s the care home.’
What remainder, Peter?
Surely care homes cost far more per week than anyone pays rent. If they didn’t, it would make more sense to live in a care home than pay rent, wouldn’t it?
Report abuse
So hand over your property to your children before you die.Simple. Old person now has no assets.
Report abuse
#29 rudolph – if only it were that easy… no, even our authorities are not dim enough to get caught out by that side-step and the property will still be deemed as the parents own regardless of when it was handed over.
unfortunately, should you wish to have something left to hand to your kids, you need currently to either a> drop dead suddenly or b> be really rich enough to afford estate planning
this proposed scheme of raising soc sec by 2% points is not perfect, but at least a step in the right direction. since the dawn of mankind the biological imperative has been to provide for ones offspring, theres nothing wrong with that.
for those of you griping about how its not fair you cant afford a house – tough. nor can i, but i am determined to leave my modest flat to my kids. they wont have a life of luxury off of that by the time its split 2 ways, but at least they will have the option of working hard and staying in the island of their birth, paying tax and soc sec to keep most of us posting here cared for in our declining years
Report abuse
It seems unfair that prople who are trapped paying high rents and are unable to get on the housing ladder will have to pay higer social security to enable others to keep and pass on their houses.
The average house is worth approx 500,000, and the people who will benefit from this are not the elderly, it is the people who inherit their estates.
Report abuse
You cant rent out your home to pay for care home fees. They cost £1600 a week plus charges for paper towels and Family nursing dressings. My family have tried that. I have no siblings to share the burden. The worst of it is that although my mum is looked after in a home, my Dad has nothing. He is at home still and living a healthy normal life. Except that the states take all their pension and little savings and give it all to the care home. My Dad is left with nothing. They wont kick him out of his home but he has no money to live there! In effect his life is over too through no fault of his own. That is why this archaic system needs to change. She is one of a small minority in that home paying for herself. She gets no extras. In fact many of the other patients there regularly laugh at her and ridicule her for having her own home. They all get their paper towels and dressings for free! My Dad has spent this winter freezing cold, too scared to put the heating on. Since Mum is in a home he has become very ill. It has been so distressing for me to see my parents go through all this. Hard on the whole family. It needs to change and soon!
Report abuse
Perhaps these OAP’s should have planned better for their retirement and pulled together a decent pension pot.
Report abuse
It also seems unfair that those who have gone without holidays, cars, sky, etc to afford their modest house have to lose it whilst many fritter their money away and get the same care for free. It is all about priority.
Report abuse
34 Anon – well said, my grandfather worked and paid social and tax for 75 years and when he went into a home they made him sell his house to pay. He was the only person paying there, not to mention one of the only people that spoke English! He used to sit there and tell the family that he wanted to die because he wanted to leave us all something after 75 years hard work. It was heartbreaking.
Report abuse
Lots of resentment here against people who own their own homes, Mulvie No 3 makes the most sense suggesting that we adopt the system being discussed in the UK whereby people take out insurance against the need for residential care. Cost is approx £8000 per person which can be spread over a working lifetime – simple only the person benefitting from the care pays.
Of course the home owner might argue that he has paid social security contributions his whole working life and is no less entitled than those that don’t own houses. No doubt the counter argument would be that he is lucky/fortunate. I would say hard working and has made sacrifices, speaking personally as a home owner I don’t go on holiday, buy new cars, drink, smoke, gamble, take drugs, all my money goes into the house, that’s the choice I’ve made. This means that I don’t need states housing subsidised by the tax payer, am I to be penalised for being prudent.
This needs to be addressed to provide a fair and equitable solution for all.
Report abuse
Ok, OAP’s, go and steal a couple of werther’s toffees or something, get banged up in La Moye and live the life of riley.
Report abuse
Sell your house to your kids for a rediculously low price on the proviso that you can still live in it for a peppercorn rent until such time as you have to leave.
You could do this as soon as the mortgage is paid off as long as the price you receive is enough to give you a comfortable retirement (and you trust your children to not give you notice to get out!).
That way the house legally belongs to someone else and you are just a lucky tenant living in very cheap but good rented accomodation.
When you have to go into a home you will have no substantial assets, your care will be free and you can have the pleasure of being alive to see your children enjoy their inheritance.
I know someone who did this years ago. Has a good pension, a small nest egg and has been paying £5 a month rent for the last 12 years. When she has to go into a home she will get whatever everyone else will get.
Report abuse
#38 Nioleux
‘Sell your house to your kids for a rediculously low price on the proviso that you can still live in it for a peppercorn rent until such time as you have to leave…(and you trust your children to not give you notice to get out!).
That’s the trouble Nioleux, they don’t trust their children (even though they want the children rather than the States to get the money).
Such is the state of trust and family values in this mercenary age!
Report abuse
#38 Nioleux, it’s good in theory but I would advise anyone to be very careful about trusting their kids THAT much. With old age can come conditions that would push even the most devoted of children to breaking point, but they aren’t always aware that it is a condition causing it. I have had friends take their parents in to live with them, but in a few cases it has turned out horribly and has resulted in the old person passing on with their children bearing them a lot of resentment. And these are good people, just put in an unbelievably difficult situation where, what I would believe to be some form of dementia, has caused the old person to become very nasty and even physically abusive towards their children but just not to great enough a level for authorities to step in and offer them support.
Report abuse
danielle coom 35.
Re: “He (grandfather) used to sit there and tell the family that he wanted to die because he wanted to leave us all something after 75 years hard work. It was heartbreaking.”
Not so heartbreaking, obviously! Why did no-one think about taking him out of the ‘home’ and back into the midst of the family?
I just don’t understand this ‘pack-off-the-ageing-and-pick-up-the-inheritance-but-not-the-bill’ attitude.
If the offsprings want the house, then they should keep the elderly parent at home with them.
Report abuse
Rozel and Leah
I take your point but then I suppose if you cannot trust your children in this way, why the hell would you want to leave them anything in your will! If it is that bad I might suggest selling your house to pay for your care and stuff the kids.
Report abuse
I am 23, I AM DISGUSTED BY THIS PROPOSAL. Why should I pay an extra 2% for the care of these people – they didnt have to pay that extra social security
Its not a case of them not being able to pay for their own care, its that they dont want to sell their valuable house to pay for it. Get real. This is something you must live with. I recently had to sell my car to help pay for my house – I dont expect the States to contribute towards that!!
This is a ridiculous idea, completely unfair to the majority, and I hope it is chucked out the States without further thought
Report abuse
Ridiculous – You should pay an extra 2% as you will also want to be cared for in the future. What is an extra 2%.
I come from a hard working back ground,and why when I become old should I have to sell my house to pay for care. When people that claim off our states for their whole lifes get free care, that all us tax payers pay for now! We all have to make sacrifice in life but selling a car to become a property owner is nothing. On the upside there is always the buses which I hear now days are pretty good.
I think that people which are not working an claiming who could work should be given nothing.
Why should the rich be penalized for life time of hard work when everyone gets the opportunity to make it.
Report abuse
In response to #43, he has a point. The people who are retired now had the benefit of high inflation during the 1960’s and 70’s which very quickly increased their income, though their mortgage commitments stayed the same, while they enjoyed a significant increase in the asset value of their property. (And they got full tax relief on their mortgage interest)
#43’s generation face high property costs, and with low inflation and mortgage commitment will represent a significnat proportion of your income for many years to come.
In response to #44’s comment, its only 2% – this is at a time when people are payinga greater proportion of their incoem in tax, and are not geting salary increases
Finally, yes I accept that there are thouse who will spend all they earn and more, but they actually contribute to the economy by the velocity of their spending, and boosting the profits of thouse companies in which the thrifty invest their savings.
Report abuse
warren j can i point out that high inflation came with high mortgage rates and sometimes you were paying as much as fifteen per cent and believe me paying that rate was far from easy
Report abuse
About time too – it’s disgusting that the elderly have had this extra burden of worry at their most vulnerable time for all these years.
If you need permanent residential care then your home effectively (not legally, but clearly in effect) belongs to those who stand to inherit it. If the State steals it from the patient then effectively the inheritees are having to pay for the patient’s care. Why should they have to, when someone without a home doesn’t have their children penalised in such a way?
Provide care at the same cost for everyone. If the politics of greed come into play then you’re simply being jealous of those who worked and saved hard to own their own home. If that is a problem for you, why not campaign for a fairer tax system? That’s where the heart of most injustices lies.
At present you can sign over your home to your descendents, but be quick about it because you have 7 years to do it. If you need longterm care within 7 years of such a move, they will overturn the sale and still take it off you.
It’s like Income Support – they want to reduce everyone to the level of a pauper before they’ll help you. There is an inbuilt resentment of accumulated wealth, as if the frugal living that lead to that wealth was a bad thing and should be penalised!
Whatever our society hands out should apply to everyone across the board, irrespective of wealth. If you resent the richer strata of society taking the same benefits then for goodness sake rectify the situation some other way, via a just tax system – but DO NOT pile worry upon worry for the ill precisely when they don’t need it!
We can’t choose how we end our days. Some of us are relatively fortunate to pass on suddenly, some of us linger on in pain and anguish, it’s the luck of the draw and stealing our property at random simply isn’t fair.
Report abuse
Great, so I do not own a house so when I retire I can go straight into one of the top residential homes as well! . Must waste some more money.
Report abuse
Nioleux, thankfully I don’t have kids. But I’m not saying the kids are to blame, if you get dementia as an elderly person your personality can completely change and you can end up making your kids hate you. Obviously if there is more openness about these conditions they would hoepfully get diagnosed but not everyone does get diagnosed and some people die with their children hating them because they were so nasty in their later years. It’s very sad.
#45 Warren, remember that some suffered due to dodgy advice regarding endowments!
#43 Ridiculous, I have to agree that this 2% will protect you in the future. It’s not just about the aged now. And, since governments refuse to deal with overpopulation, when you are retired (in your 90s probably) the younger generations will have another 2% added on to look after the older generations.
The population issue is making itself known and we still aren’t dealing with it.
Report abuse
Fran Blake
Re: “If you need permanent residential care then your home effectively (not legally, but clearly in effect) belongs to those who stand to inherit it. If the State steals it from the patient then effectively the inheritees are having to pay for the patient’s care.”
What is wrong with that?
A lot of people seem to want the inheritance, but not the elderly parent nor the bill for care.
If relatives want the house/inheritance then they should at least have the goodness to allow the elderly person to stay and be looked after in their ‘own’ home.
Of course, a little help from the States wouldn’t go amiss – in the form of a monthly allowance (equal and not above the minimum wage). This allowance would help pay for a ‘Carer’ (if the inheritees can’t be bothered or haven’t time) and thus allow the elderly person to remain in a familiar environment in their last years.
Report abuse
I am an home owner. Both my husband and I lived in overpriced rented accommodation for many years and for this reason decided not to have children (pets and children not allowed). We worked hard and at times had evening jobs after our day jobs. We had to save very hard to be able to buy our house like a lot of other people in this island (not all house owners are rich)and for this reason I object having to sell my house to pay for my old age care. I could just have spend all my money going on holidays, pubs and restaurant and end my life in a nice resident home free of charges. Well I now know I got it all wrong all those years!
Report abuse
There are more owners out there than renters, so if democracy actually prevails for once then this proposal should be adopted.
Besides, most states members own property, as do the voting minority, so we can guess which way it should go!
If you don’t like it, you the majority who don’t vote, get off your backsides and visit the polling stations when you are allowed the privilege of putting an X in the box of your choice!
Report abuse
Have recently spoken to someone who works in a care home. They charge more for those paying privately than they do the states, for the same standard of care!!
Report abuse
No. 50
Its all very well saying that now, but could you really mop up your parents faeces all the time? From my experience in this there is next to no help from outside agencies and you are pretty much alone. Meanwhile your beloved parent is telling you how useless you are. Not actually very easy day in day out with no break! Having said that (from what I’ve seen) there are far too many people in care homes receiving it for free who do not seem to need to be there!
Report abuse
4 Boris..spot on HOMEOWNERS ONLY….! it would be iniquitous for others to subsidize inheritors and must be resisted….
Report abuse
51
Agree.
Why should the thrifty be penalized.most had to struggle without hand-outs from gov,unlike now when hands-outs are thrown to them from every direction.
IMO better to let the states keep you from cradle to grave,live the life of riley without having to worry about bills maintenance or where the next penny is coming from. work is for mugs,wish i had my life again,would do things different
selling the house,blowing the lot hols cruises,rent an apartment,seems a better option than letting gov take my property!
When the lot is blown,they will have to keep me.
I just hope i never reach the stage when i can no longer be independent and look after myself-a fate worse than death IMO
Report abuse
Why is there a belief that the wealthy have all worked hard?
Some may be lazy but clever enough to get others to work for them, some dishonest, some meaner than a junkyard dog and in Jersey where there is no tax on inheritance, some have merely had to sit back while a succession of relatives have died in a favourable sequence and left them money and property. Oh, and many (I’ve tried to be fair with my proportions) may have worked hard and been thrifty.
On the other hand, many of the lower paid without any wealth or property have to sweat their bits off for their entire working lives simply to make ends meet.
Before anyone starts, I do know that there are also some scroungers playing their end of the system. Of course there are no systems for the rich to play, are there?
Report abuse
Jon 54
My family has already dealt with ageing relatives ‘at home’. There was no question of packing off my dear old Grandmother…and the ‘pickings’ were far from rich.
In such situations, the only answer is a trained Carer (who knows how to look after and keep the elderly person company).
Admittedly, it’s hard and Carers have a cost, but the pleasure of seeing my Grandmother chatting happily to herself (she didn’t recognise any of us towards the end) surrounded by the people and things she once treasured was priceless.
And, it’s not all ’soiled daipers and ingratitude’, there are some bright moments. We had many a good laugh at her antics and, today, we have the knowledge that we did our best for her.
Report abuse
Why was Euthanasia not considered in the consultation paper ? No I am not part of the Hilter youth. But when I am too old and infirm to look after myself I do not want to be forced into a nusring home, sell my home, force feed, eat mouth full of pills to keep me from a certain death. This should be the idiviuals choice not the states. No government should be allowed to deny it’s citizens the right to a ‘good death’ on their own terms and I do not want to travel to Swizterland, to leave my love ones open to prosecution. Yes prescription charges should come back to help with finances, but Euthanasia is not posted here to help with finances. It is because Ian Gorst did not consider it ethical to put it on the consultation paper.
Report abuse
Anything that is neither fair or equitable is simply that,why should I chip in for someone elses inheritance..? as a single self employed person I am hammered for Tax,Social,and resent paying for other peoples kids,schooling etc etc..as those who play the system churn out sprogs and other assorted dependants,have mortgage relief and profits on property or rent rebate wher we subsidise greedy landlords,the middle earners and self employed should have that taken into consideration on their tariffs..but do not and are subsidising everyone else..it’s diabolical.
Report abuse
59
Anon couldn’t agree more,exactly how I feel.
Report abuse
It is interesting how many of you are missing the point. The tin is labled social security. It does not do what it states on the tin. Clearly life changes and envolves but the truth as I see it is that if the Government stopped paying layabouts not to work, stopped wasting money, and stopped paying for people to have loads more children ( including teenage girls ) then we would not be in the mess we are in.
It is the Governments that has messed up through poor management. I like many above was promised that if I pay social security and my taxes I will be looked after in later life.
The fact that houses go up in value, is good luck after lots of hard sweat and work. How dare the Government try and grab it off an old person to pay for what they were actually promised by being part of the SOCIAL SECURITY scheme with no choice for opt out if you work.
Davey
Report abuse
Sorry that’s life if they need to sell their home so be it I don’t see why I should be paying more into the system so they can leave it to their children and family.
Report abuse
There are 3 things you need to do if you want to avoid a cold and miserable retirement:
1) Work hard
2) In a well paid job
3) and save like mad.
If you don’t, you will end up poor. It’s not complex and don’t fool yourself otherwise.
If you want to retire at 65 and be cnfident you’ll have enough to get by you need at least £500,000 saved. Otherwise, prepare for poverty.
Report abuse
As far as I can see, nobody complains about the usual health system – we all pay our way (although the contributions ceiling could arguably be raised or disposed of) and then healthcare is free. If you break your leg, you go to hospital, it’s set for you, you walk (hobble) out without having paid a thing – whether you’re rich or poor. Same treatment for all in principle (even if the rich may go private but let’s not cloud the argument).
If you’re gravely ill and end up in intensive care for a month, it matters not whether you’re rich of poor. We all understand the system and it’s not a problem.
So what’s the difference between that month in ICU, or longterm residential care? Should be the same, right? That’s why this proposal is perfectly fair, and long overdue. As I’ve said, if you have a problem with some people having more wealth than others, then please find other ways to make life fairer! And good luck to you!
Report abuse
Fran (65)
Don’t come round here with your sensible, well argued ideas again. Unsubstantiated digs at minorities (the rich, those with children, those on welfare) are the order of the day here.
Report abuse
About time. Old age care should be covered just like sick and disability is covered now.
Why should anyone be against paying more to be looked after in old age if needs be? What is 2% to have security against this? I’d say very little.
Report abuse
As I see it, we are all now to be taxed more to preserve the inheritance of the children of those going into care. I object to this. Many working people are struggling to save the deposits for their own homes, and home-owners have already benefitted from the taxpayer through their mortgage relief. (see the examples on the front of the Tax Return! Rent (paid to multiple home-owners!) does not carry tax relief, and that difference in taxation may well prevent the saving of a deposit. I see no reason if you have saved the money, via a property, then spend it. Don’t ask us to pay to preserve your kids’ legacy, especially if we don’t have one!
Report abuse
Since it seems to be generally acknowledged that the objection to selling the home to provide care is that it deprives the heirs of their legacy, just think of it as forcing the heirs to take care of their elderly relatives as they should. Don’t push it on to the rest of us!
Report abuse
Longevity is determined by social class.
Quote Telegraph 3/8/10 by Rebecca Smith
TITLE- Life expectancy gap ‘widest since Great Depression’
The poorest people in Britain are twice as likely to die before the age of 65 than the richest..
…..read it for yourself on-line.
So are the rich paying anymore?
Yes, a little.
But their contributions are capped at £3646 per month. So in effect those earning more than this sum (the rich) are proportionally paying less than 2%.
Oh I forgot, this is Jersey so we can expect this in-built protectionism towards the wealthy.
Report abuse
While all the varying comments each have merits from whichever side of the fence you’re on, the point being missed is the fact the States will pull in £32m each year.
Ozouf a co are’nt interested in who needs care how it’s provided or who pays….they are just looking at the big number. If they cared, they would be sorting out the over inflated costs charged by care homes, you could stay at L’Horizon
Hotel cheaper.
I dare say there are those who could put comments on here relating to the care given to relatives and non positive either.
Report abuse
Things are getting confused.
We need better healthcare. Soc sec should be moved sharply up – 10% without a cap would still be lower than competitors. Use it to clean up hospital and provide better care for elderly.
Those who say “why raise tax to preserve people’s inheritance” miss the point. We may all need care in future. So we should all pay. Otherwise you encourage people who get ill to spend all their wealth before they need care.
We could think about inheritance tax if we don’t want kids to inherit all ther parents wealth. But that’s not the same as finding an affordable way for everyone to have late-life healthcare.
Report abuse
Poor die before rich.
Poor also smoke more than rich
eat worse
exercise less
whatever we save by them dying early they use up in prison and healthcare costs before
a better idea
why do we need lots of old age healthcare in jersey
its a small island, low crime, families living near each other, lots of people know each other
we dont need to copy uk model of bunging oldies in smelly homes
could try to work with what we have
encourage more community based schemes
too hard. uk consultant said didn’t work in welwyn garden city
Report abuse
I do not want to pay for other peoples kids,dogs or granny’s…The principal of User Pays is easy to apply…if you have a house and do not want to have to sell it on departure…opt to pay in more…those who want kids educated should pay,single people should not have to.etc etc.
Report abuse
truthseeker
the principle of user pays means that if you are diabetic, you should pay for all your drugs. if someone who is uninsured runs over you and leaves you a paraplegic, you should pay all your costs. if you are raped and end up HIV, guess what?
single people who complain about educating kids forget that they already have received the benefits of being educated. if you don’t want to pay to educate others, then at least have the decency to pay back what you took from the system. because taxes don’t pay just for the stuff you might want right now – they cover what you have already taken and what you might need in future.
looks like you have a lot of seeking before you get anywhere near the truth.
Report abuse
truthseeker must have been educated
but he doesn’t use his education.
under the user pays principle, should he pay for it?
Report abuse
@Brian #66
Thanks, hehe
@all the selfish
If we’re going to begrudge residential care from the public purse, let’s just scrap the whole healthcare system as well, why not?!
Need an operation? Pay for it! Heck, why not charge HMP La Moye inmates too, get the crims to sell their property to pay for their care as well!
Lovely caring society some of you lot live in.
Report abuse
truthseeker 74.
I credited you with a greater social conscience than that…but maybe you’re not the original truthseeker…maybe you’re just another name stealer!
Report abuse