Campaigner welcomes elderly-care scheme
Saturday 23rd July 2011, 2:58PM BST.
Age Concern chairman Daphne Minihane
A PENSIONERS’ rights campaigner has welcomed a landmark States decision to dramatically reduce the cost of long-term care in Jersey.
Members this week unanimously approved a new scheme to share the cost of elderly care across the community.
Under the scheme, Islanders’ social security contributions will increase by 1.5 per cent to create a fund which will be used to pay for long-term care. The States will also allocate an extra £30 million to be paid into the fund each year.
The new system will significantly reduce the cost of care and will prevent many elderly Islanders from selling their homes and draining their life savings to fund their long-term care.
Age Concern chairman Daphne Minihane, who has campaigned for the new system for ten years, said that the scheme would come as a ‘huge relief’ to pensioners.
‘It is wonderful that elderly people, including many who lived through the Occupation, will no longer have to worry about going into care,’ she said.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Once again, this woman does herself no favors. The people who worked through the occupation are all dead by now, and those who remember the occupation as children enjoyed working through the good years of the 1960′s and 70′s watching their properties quickly rise in value through inflation and enjoying good standards of living. Many now enjoy indexed final salary pensions, and openly boast how lucky they have been
The workers of today now face 20 means 20, none of the generous tax allowances and increased social security contributions. Home ownership, stable family life is a luxury that many can no longer aspire to, and sadly, many have even given up trying. But its OK for Daphnie and her followers, because they can leave their assets to their children, or so they think.
The day will come when Jersey introduces Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains tax – Mark my words.
Report abuse
Has anyone else noticed the extraordinary resemblance of Ms Minihane to a leading pensioner in the United Kingdom (sic) who also intends to leave her property to her family without hindrance?
Are they by any chance related?
Report abuse
Yes everybody pays towards the elderly who can now keep their nice little nest eggs such as Jersey properties that they bought back in the 60′s and 70′s when they were actually affordable.
Report abuse
Well said Geeky
Cake and eating
Report abuse
I don’t understand why people object to individuals retaining their assets in the event that they need care. If you earnt a good wage and presumably you would need a reasonable income to be a home owner then you would have paid more tax & social security. Why then is your entitlement less if you’ve paid more?
Also many people worked hard and went without to own their own home, me among them. I’ve never had a new car, don’t take holidays abroad, I’ve worked and gone without to afford my home. If my colleague earns the same amount but has 2 foreign holidays each year, drives a new car and lives it up then is automatically entitled to the care that I would need to liquidate my prime asset to obtain – hardly fair is it.
The politics of jealousy methinks.
Report abuse
It’s right that those who save should be protected, as those with the ‘someone else will pay for me attitude’ get the same benefit, i.e free care home places, at tax payers expense.
Life isn’t fair and some have never had the chances that others enjoyed, but a significant section of society cares little about contributing only in what they get out of the system.
Therefore i’m glad that those thrifty people will be able to keep what they have struggled to save.
I hope that once again, when i get to retirement age and eventually need help there will be something of my taxes left. I already look at the increasing retirement age and see all my social security pension contributions have already been spent on the current pensioners.
Report abuse
Nice to see another SOJ move to protect the over valued property on this Island and thus our politicians protect their own financial interest.
However, whoever thought up and executed this one, hats off to you. Marketed as a fair for all scheme and now you have a little old lady as your poster child.
Little old Lady says “I like having money” – yes that’s rite you do but you don’t understand the economics of it all which makes you perfect.
And if you want to bring up the occupation deary then lets just say Propaganda is obviously well and truly still here!
Well spun my good man. Well spun indeed!
Report abuse
Here is a crazy idea – politicians will love this one! *sarcasm* as we all know your the ones with the most to lose!
100% inheritance tax – and I mean 100%, no trust schemes or give it all away 2 years before you die – 100% – madness?
stop… breath.. think about it for a second.
You will still be able to prosper from your own hard work within your lifetime, and provide benefits for your children as your circumstances allow. But family wealth will no longer exist, assets will not be horded as they currently are and thus disparity within society will be reduced as nobody will be effectively born with any distinct advantage.
Steps would have to be made to negate inflation from mass spending. Enough money would be available for Social education, retirement planning etc, but steps would need to be made to avoid state dependency by ensuring investment in state infrastructure and not hand-outs but overall it has merits.
Oh but your dreaming if this would ever happen – at least correctly because the Elitist would HATE it and SOJ if anything is Elitist.
Report abuse
There is a generation war brewing and decisions like this do not help. The elderly have too much political power particularly as we can expect a flock of retirees to throw their hats and bonnets into the ring for the next election. The workday voting favours those with time on their hands and the elderly turn out in droves while mums with kids barely get the chance.
There needs to be rebalancing as democracy is being replaced by gerontocracy. Is it fair that a person with a life expectancy of 10 to 20 years should have the same voting power as someone with a life expectancy of 40 to 50 years? The latter group will probably have children too young to vote.
Leave things the same and something will crack.
Report abuse
Two points that have been completely overlooked:
1) The scheme, as approved by the States, will allow those with homes worth UP TO £750,000 to benefit, yet even the average cost of a 4-bedroom home is currently less than £700,000. So the taxpayer will be subsidising elderly resident households (which in nearly all cases would consist of no more than 2 people) who have chosen to remain in properties that are FAR LARGER than their actual needs. The equivalent situation in the private sector rent rebate scheme (now part of Income Support) is that single people or couples without children can only receive subsidy for up to a maximum one-bedroom property. This £750k limit MUST be revised downwards as it will do nothing to ameliorate the housing situation. We ought to be actively DISCOURAGING owners from staying in properties that are too large for them so that they can be freed up for young families who need them.
2) All former Jersey residents (whether property owners or not) who were locally qualified for Housing (eg. A-H) before moving abroad (potentially thousands of islanders) will only have to spend 12 months back in the island before becoming entitled to this benefit from 2013 onwards. If the residential care regime happens to be a lot less generous in the countries where they emigrated to (particularly the southern European PIIGS countries with their long-term debt problems), there is a real possibility that the numbers deciding to return to the place of their birth to receive long-term care will force social security rates a lot higher than the planned 1.5% surcharge and lead to an excess of demand over supply in the residential care sector (resulting in higher care costs and presumably more young foreign workers being imported into the island to work in this very underpaid sector).
It is a huge plane crash just waiting to happen, but luckily for retired folk like Mrs. Minihane, she need not worry about the costs on the public purse 10-20 years down the line.
Report abuse
Re #5, I would guess that todays current generation may be jealous of the previuos generation because the following are no longer available :-
Provision of States Loan homes, with payments to suit your level of income
Full tax relief on morgtage interest payments
Full tax relief on personal loans / car finance / credit card interest etc etc
Generous personal tax allowances
Final Salary pension schemes
In addition :-
No GST
No ‘environmental’ taxes
No tax on benefits in kind
Rather than preserve the future for our children and further issue, I would say that we have actually messed up their future.
With only 48% of the population being owner / occupiers, it is unfair to say that all of those in rented accomodation are ‘living for the moment’ Many of those renting will be paying rent for life, compared to those who have their own homes being able to take life easy once they are on top of the morgage payments.
Report abuse
How can you begeudge the elderley who mostly have had to work hard all their lives, scrimp and save in order to pay for their houses. Throughout this time they have paid their taxes and social security and probably contributed a lot more to society than future generations ever will. To Warren J who proclaims that those who worked during the occupation are all dead now, try telling that to my 89 year old neighbour who looks after himself and always has done . He does not claim benefits or ask for handouts. He also spent time in a German prisoner of war camp and still bears no grudges, if anyhting he says it made him tough. I think he deserves to spend the rest of his days in his own home for as long as he can and if and when he does need to go into care I think he deserves to be looked after. Just remember one day we will all be old, see how your opinions change then !!!
Report abuse
Warren J,
I had a conversation with my grandfather (89) last night regarding your nonsensical comment that ‘The people who worked through the occupation are all dead by now’ he laughed, as he did not realise he was dead. My grandfather started out as an aprentice printer. His period of working life was interuppted by his deportation to Laufen Internment camp in September 1942 during the Occupation of the Channel Islands, at the age of 20, he was there for a duration 3 years. Upon his return to Jersey he returned to his printing job and retired age 71. He has his own home and continues to live in it, enjoying excellant health. He has worked hard all his life, and continues to contribute in a number of ways including with the local scouting movement. My grandfather is a shining example of what is good about this Island.
Report abuse
Re #10: Jerry Gosselin says under point 2 that anyone with “qualies” living outside the island will be able to return and become entitled to the new benefit after just a year’s residence. Is this correct? The commentary to the draft law states: “the individual seeking care will have to have at
least 10 years’ continuous residence in Jersey as an adult at any time and one year’s residence immediately before claiming the benefit”.
Report abuse
Fair comment #13, and I have relatives who have lived well into their late 80′s, one who fought in both world wars. But the gist of my postings is to point out that todays younger working generation are being totaly screwed, with all traces of help being withdrawn (tax allowances), and at the same time having a significant additional burden placed on them through increased Social Security to assit thouse who I still maintain had a better lifestyle. Coupled with the fact that there is a downward pressure on salaries !
Society will reap what it sows !
Report abuse
Re Jerry Gosselin
Don’t fully agree with you on point 2,If someone who has paid full social fo 50 years,and wants to retire for a few years in the sun before coming back to see out their final days why shouldn’t they? Maybe if someone has been away for 20 years charge them a pro rata style fee when they come back for SS contributions missed.Also someone who has only been here for 10 years buys a house then gets full benefits and doesn’t have to sell the house.In a case like this they should have to pay extra to cover the shortfall,like a pension the longer you pay in the more you receive.
Report abuse
No 3 – now now thats not nice, is that sour grapes, dont you own your own property. The houses may have been cheaper, but what do you think peoples wages were. We had £200 to last the month and 2 children to provide for. If you want to get on the property ladder, work hard and go without thats what all us did in the 70s, it wasnt handed to us on a plate.
Report abuse
Re #17 – If you look at my posting under #11, considering the benefits that have dissapeared, I think todays younger generation are justified in having sour grapes. I close relative of mine got married in the 1970′s and with the help of a states loan, they were very nicely settled within 5 years, children and all, and they were not in high paid professions by any means.
I personally dont think property owners live a life of scrimping and saving ALL of their lives. Staying in rented accomodation long term is actually the expensive option.
There is a perception amongst the more senior generation that the youngsters of today have it easy. Yes a colour TV only costs £300 today, the same price as one cost in the 1970′s – Indexed against inflation, a TV would cost £5,000 now !
Report abuse
look just get on with life, yes things are different, 70th you buy a house you do without, no hoildays no takeaway meals unless it was a very special occasion, but u want it all for nothing.Nowadays a takeaway is the norm, oh its saturday night lets have a takeaway .we have worked hard all our married life, paid a big morgtage, put 2 children through uni and no help from the states, ok we had good jobs but that is because we worked hard and didnt take from the states. I know people that dont do a days work and can go on holiday for a week, paid for by us. stop and think about all the things you put on this page. home owners are not all bad, we just work hard and dont exspect handouts.
Report abuse