Should Britain be ashamed of being 17th out of 20 for money spent on older people?

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:05 pm

Successive governments have betrayed Britain’s pensioners by spending less on social care for the elderly than almost any other country in Europe.

Research which campaigners say ‘should shame us as a nation’ has found that Italy and France spend twice as much on their pensioners as we do in the UK.

Britain comes 17th out of the 20 major European countries surveyed, behind wealthy Germany as well as former Communist countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic.

Miserable: Proportionally the UK spend less than half of the what Italy do on the elderly

The shocking betrayal of the elderly, many of whom fought to defend Britain’s freedom in the Second World War, is revealed in a damning report by the over-50s group Saga.

They say it shows that the UK simply does not respect and care about the elderly as much as our EU neighbours do.

The tiny amount of public spending committed to the elderly – 5.8 per cent of national income compared to 11.7 per cent in Italy – is a key reason behind the scandal of tens of thousands of people having to sell their homes every year to pay for their residential care.

The UK rank a lowly 17th out of 20 nations, with Italy way out in front

Other countries fund care home fees through taxes or national insurance systems, meaning care is available when people need it. The report warns that our low spending rate has also led to an enormous burden on family members, who are left having to take on roles as unpaid carers because the state does not step in.

And it means thousands of pensioners are isolated in their own houses because not enough home helps, meals on wheels services and day centres are available.

Director general of Saga, Ros Altmann, said our low spending on elderly social care could explain why women in Britain die earlier than those in any other major country in Western Europe.

The two countries at the top of the care funding table – France and Italy – have the longest life expectancy for women in Europe. They live to an average of more than 84 years, compared to 81 in England – lower even than Slovenia.

‘These figures show how generations of British politicians have betrayed our increasingly ageing population and have failed to fund properly the care so many of them will clearly need..

‘It should shame us as a nation that other European countries seem to take the needs of their older population more seriously than we do.’. also due to low State pensions,-

Cold kills 180 British pensioners a day during winter

Please go to this link and sign this petition on the Government’s web site.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All elderly people should receive residential care free, via the State, and a much higher basic State pension free of means testing

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

The Government must fund elderly people's rights to free residential Care paid for by the State because our elderly people have paid into the system all their working lives, and Government must also pay all pensioners now and in the future, a much higher basic state pension by restoring the National Insurance Act born of a Labour Government in 1974 which linked increases in the State pension to male average earnings, or The Retail Price Index ( RPI), whichever the greater. In 1975, the then Labour Government passed the "Social Security Act", introducing a State Earnings Related Pensions Scheme, this was considered in the pensions industry, the most cost effective scheme ever.

Please sign this petition.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:32 pm

League tables are unhelpful in the context of Welfare payments, as the cost of living varies considerably from Country to Country. People who "demand" more assistance for the vulnerable must explain who is going to pay for it if they are not volunteering to do so themselves.

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:44 pm

oftenwrong wrote:League tables are unhelpful in the context of Welfare payments, as the cost of living varies considerably from Country to Country. People who "demand" more assistance for the vulnerable must explain who is going to pay for it if they are not volunteering to do so themselves.

This generation have already paid when they were working. In principle they should not be in the situation they are in.

European residential care is funded through income tax and NI contrbutions. This is what we should be doing.

By using the usual "whose going to pay for it" ?, suggests our elderly people are a burden on the State, which of course they are not, they are our most beloved citizens, the oldest of whom fought for this country during the way years.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:32 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:League tables are unhelpful in the context of Welfare payments, as the cost of living varies considerably from Country to Country. People who "demand" more assistance for the vulnerable must explain who is going to pay for it if they are not volunteering to do so themselves.

This generation have already paid when they were working. In principle they should not be in the situation they are in.

European residential care is funded through income tax and NI contrbutions. This is what we should be doing.

By using the usual "whose going to pay for it" ?, suggests our elderly people are a burden on the State, which of course they are not, they are our most beloved citizens, the oldest of whom fought for this country during the way years.

Re-arrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying: Blood, stone, get, you, of, out, can't, a.

Quote: " This generation have already paid when they were working."

The money they paid when they were working went to pay the Pensions of those who had already retired. There isn't any of that money left.

You feel betrayed? What else did you expect from Politicians? Who do you think is paying THEIR pensions?

by keenobserver1 Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:03 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:League tables are unhelpful in the context of Welfare payments, as the cost of living varies considerably from Country to Country. People who "demand" more assistance for the vulnerable must explain who is going to pay for it if they are not volunteering to do so themselves.

This generation have already paid when they were working. In principle they should not be in the situation they are in.

European residential care is funded through income tax and NI contrbutions. This is what we should be doing.

By using the usual "whose going to pay for it" ?, suggests our elderly people are a burden on the State, which of course they are not, they are our most beloved citizens, the oldest of whom fought for this country during the way years.

Re-arrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying: Blood, stone, get, you, of, out, can't, a.

Quote: " This generation have already paid when they were working."

The money they paid when they were working went to pay the Pensions of those who had already retired. There isn't any of that money left.

You feel betrayed? What else did you expect from Politicians? Who do you think is paying THEIR pensions?

That's an exceptionally blunt response OW

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:09 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:League tables are unhelpful in the context of Welfare payments, as the cost of living varies considerably from Country to Country. People who "demand" more assistance for the vulnerable must explain who is going to pay for it if they are not volunteering to do so themselves.

This generation have already paid when they were working. In principle they should not be in the situation they are in.

European residential care is funded through income tax and NI contrbutions. This is what we should be doing.

By using the usual "whose going to pay for it" ?, suggests our elderly people are a burden on the State, which of course they are not, they are our most beloved citizens, the oldest of whom fought for this country during the way years.

Re-arrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying: Blood, stone, get, you, of, out, can't, a.

Quote: " This generation have already paid when they were working."

The money they paid when they were working went to pay the Pensions of those who had already retired. There isn't any of that money left.

You feel betrayed? What else did you expect from Politicians? Who do you think is paying THEIR pensions?

I am not thinking of me. I'm thinking of all those pensioners who were promised cradle to grave care based on a working life of taxes and NI contributions. I am not looking at the politics. I am looking at the principle.

by astra Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:03 pm

Folks like me who started work in 1969 seem to be doing OK

and yes, I retired early on ill health.

The people I worry for are those who started work around about 1984 - where jobs started to be rare, where long term employment, ie working for one employer for life virtually ended, where every few years a new job, if one is found is embarked on.

How have all these payments been calculated, and registered? When "Winterthur" bought out CML, they didn't half bollox up my payments, to the extent that they gave me a cheque for the sum, instead of adding it to my pension fund!

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:27 pm

astra wrote:Folks like me who started work in 1969 seem to be doing OK

and yes, I retired early on ill health.

The people I worry for are those who started work around about 1984 - where jobs started to be rare, where long term employment, ie working for one employer for life virtually ended, where every few years a new job, if one is found is embarked on.

How have all these payments been calculated, and registered? When "Winterthur" bought out CML, they didn't half bollox up my payments, to the extent that they gave me a cheque for the sum, instead of adding it to my pension fund!

You dont get it do you ?

Im in my early 60's. Right wing Tory government's do not make policy by calculations. They make policy via ideoligy.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:49 pm

That's an exceptionally blunt response OW.

Moral argument has never held much significance for Politicians once they find themselves in power. For starters, their career is only stable for a period of four years, so they tend to make hay while the sun shines.

Complaining about their broken promises is futile, and there is unlikely to be any improvement until someone develops a better paradigm for government.

Until then, complaint is only whining.

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:26 pm

oftenwrong wrote:That's an exceptionally blunt response OW.

Moral argument has never held much significance for Politicians once they find themselves in power. For starters, their career is only stable for a period of four years, so they tend to make hay while the sun shines.

Complaining about their broken promises is futile, and there is unlikely to be any improvement until someone develops a better paradigm for government.

Until then, complaint is only whining.

It's not moral from their point of view. It's moral from our point of view. And promisers are made to children, the night before Christmas. Human decency has gone from Britain.

by LWS Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:31 pm

True enough OW a very honest response in my opinion. The political paradigm is for pre-election promises in the form of manifestos to be broken. i don't just refer to right wing Tory governments but the centre right leaning labour one of 1997 - 2010 also. Sorry for my inbuilt cynicism.

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:56 pm

LWS wrote:True enough OW a very honest response in my opinion. The political paradigm is for pre-election promises in the form of manifestos to be broken. i don't just refer to right wing Tory governments but the centre right leaning labour one of 1997 - 2010 also. Sorry for my inbuilt cynicism.

When New Labour under Blair and Brown came in, in 1997, they embraced Thatcher's fundamental right wing free market policies.

I believe the country thought they were voting for a return of traditional Labour's core vales, but instead got more Thatcherism.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:22 am

Hope springs eternal in the human breast
Alexander Pope

by astra Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:38 am

You dont get it do you ?

Well thank you very much Buster!

From '70 till '84, there's 14 years of regular paying in.

Who was it who bu88ered up the pension pots of BA, the Post Office and ALL the rest when she (clue) allowed ALL companies to take a "Pension Holiday"
Who was it who found when he was having a Currie (clue) that Pension "Black Holes" were on the horizon?
Then who was it who raided the pension companies (no more boom an' bust)

Anyone coming through those assaults unscathed gets my admiration.

Most of you on here, will be like me, not even thinking about pensions - until the sad day looms that you actually need them.

Then you will find what gubmint meddling - Tory AND Liebour (well urkchully since 1979, ALL WE HAVE HAD IS RIGHT WING TORY GOVERNMENT!!)

This present shower are meddling with Employment Support Allowance (Incapacity Benefit is a thing of the past and no longer exists, thanks to Pa Broon) and thank God that the Lords have chucked out the proposals.

by atv Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:12 pm

"Ivanhoe wrote,
I am not thinking of me. I'm thinking of all those pensioners who were promised cradle to grave care based on a working life of taxes and NI contributions. I am not looking at the politics. I am looking at the principle.

Personally I blame all governments of the last 60 years for the way they've run the welfare state as they've all pretty much failed to properly apply the Beveridge Report.
For example William Beveridge said that all benefits should be time limited to one year to ensure people didn't become lazy and idle but still to this day that hasn't happened.
He also said that only those who paid taxes should receive benefits but there clearly isn't the case.
The welfare state in it's current form makes the 5 evils WB recognised worse not better, and I for one don't trust any one least of all Labour to do anything about it.

by Ivanhoe Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:51 pm

atv wrote:
"Ivanhoe wrote,
I am not thinking of me. I'm thinking of all those pensioners who were promised cradle to grave care based on a working life of taxes and NI contributions. I am not looking at the politics. I am looking at the principle.
Personally I blame all governments of the last 60 years for the way they've run the welfare state as they've all pretty much failed to properly apply the Beveridge Report.
For example William Beveridge said that all benefits should be time limited to one year to ensure people didn't become lazy and idle but still to this day that hasn't happened.
He also said that only those who paid taxes should receive benefits but there clearly isn't the case.
The welfare state in it's current form makes the 5 evils WB recognised worse not better, and I for one don't trust any one least of all Labour to do anything about it.

We dont need welfare reform in Britain. We need to return an industrial and manufacturing base and council housing, with a decent minimum wage.

Welfare reform can only appeal to abject losers who have no pity for the long term unemployed.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:26 pm

The majority of postings on this facility are critical of Politicians. Even the most partisan comments betray unease with the political system.

It isn't working for the vast majority of us, so what can we do about it?

by **Ivan** Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:27 pm

thank God that the Lords have chucked out the proposals..

Just five Liberal Democrat peers had sufficient conscience to vote against plans to stop benefits to cancer sufferers after one year, stop making cancer sufferers receiving chemotherapy go for a fitness-to-work test, and stop means-testing severely disabled young people before they receive benefits. That proved sufficient to send the bill back to the House of Commons, but Cameron and his evil shower of public school thugs still intend to press ahead with their sick and evil proposals.

Just as Hitler came to power without a parliamentary majority, Cameron and his velvet glove fascists are determined to act as if they have a mandate to do whatever they want, regardless of what they said during the election campaign. Why? Because they think they were born to rule, and they have royal backing - that's how Cameron was found a safe seat in Parliament. He is, after all, the Queen's fifth cousin twice removed, because he's descended from the bastard line of William IV.

The Tories have made it clear that they hate everybody except their elitist inner circle of Chipping Norton, Eton and Bullingdon Club scum. They represent no more than 1% of the population, but as far as they're concerned, the rest of us can go to hell. Anyone who can't see that must be bloody thick.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:32 pm

There is a technical device by which the Government can legally disregard their Lordship's dissent. That is by declaring the proposals to be "a money matter" over which the House of Commons has priority.

Would the coalition members support such a guillotine measure?

by Ivanhoe Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:50 pm

Ivan wrote:
thank God that the Lords have chucked out the proposals..
Just five Liberal Democrat peers had sufficient conscience to vote against plans to stop benefits to cancer sufferers after one year, stop making cancer sufferers receiving chemotherapy go for a fitness-to-work test, and stop means-testing severely disabled young people before they receive benefits. That proved sufficient to send the bill back to the House of Commons, but Cameron and his evil shower of public school thugs still intend to press ahead with their sick and evil proposals.

Just as Hitler came to power without a parliamentary majority, Cameron and his velvet glove fascists are determined to act as if they have a mandate to do whatever they want, regardless of what they said during the election campaign. Why? Because they think they were born to rule, and they have royal backing - that's how Cameron was found a safe seat in Parliament. He is, after all, the Queen's fifth cousin twice removed, because he's descended from the bastard line of William IV.

The Tories have made it clear that they hate everybody except their elitist inner circle of Chipping Norton, Eton and Bullingdon Club scum. They represent no more than 1% of the population, but as far as they're concerned, the rest of us can go to hell. Anyone who can't see that must be bloody thick.

Bloody well said Ivan.

by Redflag Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:34 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:League tables are unhelpful in the context of Welfare payments, as the cost of living varies considerably from Country to Country. People who "demand" more assistance for the vulnerable must explain who is going to pay for it if they are not volunteering to do so themselves.

This generation have already paid when they were working. In principle they should not be in the situation they are in.

European residential care is funded through income tax and NI contrbutions. This is what we should be doing.

By using the usual "whose going to pay for it" ?, suggests our elderly people are a burden on the State, which of course they are not, they are our most beloved citizens, the oldest of whom fought for this country during the way years.

I have just been watching the BBC Parliament channel which was debating the NHS Health Bill, this gov't is turning over 49% of our NHS to the private sector and believe you me it does not look pretty, if you can afford to pay you will be treated first and if you can't TOUGH you may have to die before the NHS can treat you because the private sector will be using our NHS hospitals and theatre's to do private work they are taking us back to the days of Charles Dickens when men and women died of pneumonia.

So if you want too see the end of our NHS don't do anything sit on your hands if it is the oppose the take over of the NHS contact your local Labour MP and ask what you can do as the more people protesting the more chance we will have of stopping our NHS going down the plug hole and all this for Tory IDEOLOGY.

I am sorry Ivan for posting this on here it was the only one that seem apt enough for this post.

by LWS Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:41 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
Ivan wrote:
thank God that the Lords have chucked out the proposals..
Just five Liberal Democrat peers had sufficient conscience to vote against plans to stop benefits to cancer sufferers after one year, stop making cancer sufferers receiving chemotherapy go for a fitness-to-work test, and stop means-testing severely disabled young people before they receive benefits. That proved sufficient to send the bill back to the House of Commons, but Cameron and his evil shower of public school thugs still intend to press ahead with their sick and evil proposals.

Just as Hitler came to power without a parliamentary majority, Cameron and his velvet glove fascists are determined to act as if they have a mandate to do whatever they want, regardless of what they said during the election campaign. Why? Because they think they were born to rule, and they have royal backing - that's how Cameron was found a safe seat in Parliament. He is, after all, the Queen's fifth cousin twice removed, because he's descended from the bastard line of William IV.

The Tories have made it clear that they hate everybody except their elitist inner circle of Chipping Norton, Eton and Bullingdon Club scum. They represent no more than 1% of the population, but as far as they're concerned, the rest of us can go to hell. Anyone who can't see that must be bloody thick.

Bloody well said Ivan.

I can't disagree with this Ivan, in fact 100% agreed.

There is something despicable and quite horrible about this Tory right wing government.

I just hope Cameron will rot in hell. Such an horrid, nasty and evil specimen of humanity.

by Redflag Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:54 am

LWS wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
Ivan wrote:
thank God that the Lords have chucked out the proposals..
Just five Liberal Democrat peers had sufficient conscience to vote against plans to stop benefits to cancer sufferers after one year, stop making cancer sufferers receiving chemotherapy go for a fitness-to-work test, and stop means-testing severely disabled young people before they receive benefits. That proved sufficient to send the bill back to the House of Commons, but Cameron and his evil shower of public school thugs still intend to press ahead with their sick and evil proposals.

Just as Hitler came to power without a parliamentary majority, Cameron and his velvet glove fascists are determined to act as if they have a mandate to do whatever they want, regardless of what they said during the election campaign. Why? Because they think they were born to rule, and they have royal backing - that's how Cameron was found a safe seat in Parliament. He is, after all, the Queen's fifth cousin twice removed, because he's descended from the bastard line of William IV.

The Tories have made it clear that they hate everybody except their elitist inner circle of Chipping Norton, Eton and Bullingdon Club scum. They represent no more than 1% of the population, but as far as they're concerned, the rest of us can go to hell. Anyone who can't see that must be bloody thick.

Bloody well said Ivan.

I will second that LWS the only thing I hope he dies in the most horrible agony for what he has done to this country of OURS and I hope his friends in the City join him and there all sent to HELL in a bucket no coffin allowed.

I can't disagree with this Ivan, in fact 100% agreed.

There is something despicable and quite horrible about this Tory right wing government.

I just hope Cameron will rot in hell. Such an horrid, nasty and evil specimen of humanity.

by jackthelad Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:57 am

Should Britain be ashamed of being 17th out of 20 for the amount of money being spent on old people, that was the question wasn't it.

Well the government can't be doing that bad when they are concidering spending 60million on a boat just for two old people.

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:00 am

jackthelad wrote:Should Britain be ashamed of being 17th out of 20 for the amount of money being spent on old people, that was the question wasn't it.

Well the government can't be doing that bad when they are concidering spending 60million on a boat just for two old people.

The right wing Tory's do not believe in the role of the State, or the State pension.

Their entire outlook is that of the low income tax, private pensions, and privatisation. That's it in a nut shell. It's nowt to do with expenditure. It's everything to do with ideoligy.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:22 pm

What we need is someone like that Port Official at Isola Giglio who told the cowardly Captain his fortune when he hopped off leaving the passengers to sort themselves out.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mind if Cameron/Clegg/Osbourne decided to desert our sinking ship - and good riddance.

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:56 pm

oftenwrong wrote:What we need is someone like that Port Official at Isola Giglio who told the cowardly Captain his fortune when he hopped off leaving the passengers to sort themselves out.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mind if Cameron/Clegg/Osbourne decided to desert our sinking ship - and good riddance.

Methinks we will all have to wait for a full Parliamentary term for our two leader to leave this sinking ship.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:28 pm

Perhaps it's time to stage a full-scale MUTINY, me hearties!!

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:35 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Perhaps it's time to stage a full-scale MUTINY, me hearties!!

Even if we suddenly had the guts, it's far too late for that. We British are too easily divided and the politicians know it.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:49 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:Successive governments have betrayed Britain’s pensioners by spending less on social care for the elderly than almost any other country in Europe.

Research which campaigners say ‘should shame us as a nation’ has found that Italy and France spend twice as much on their pensioners as we do in the UK.

Britain comes 17th out of the 20 major European countries surveyed, behind wealthy Germany as well as former Communist countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic.

Miserable: Proportionally the UK spend less than half of the what Italy do on the elderly

The shocking betrayal of the elderly, many of whom fought to defend Britain’s freedom in the Second World War, is revealed in a damning report by the over-50s group Saga.

They say it shows that the UK simply does not respect and care about the elderly as much as our EU neighbours do.

The tiny amount of public spending committed to the elderly – 5.8 per cent of national income compared to 11.7 per cent in Italy – is a key reason behind the scandal of tens of thousands of people having to sell their homes every year to pay for their residential care.

The UK rank a lowly 17th out of 20 nations, with Italy way out in front

Other countries fund care home fees through taxes or national insurance systems, meaning care is available when people need it. The report warns that our low spending rate has also led to an enormous burden on family members, who are left having to take on roles as unpaid carers because the state does not step in.

And it means thousands of pensioners are isolated in their own houses because not enough home helps, meals on wheels services and day centres are available.

Director general of Saga, Ros Altmann, said our low spending on elderly social care could explain why women in Britain die earlier than those in any other major country in Western Europe.

The two countries at the top of the care funding table – France and Italy – have the longest life expectancy for women in Europe. They live to an average of more than 84 years, compared to 81 in England – lower even than Slovenia.

‘These figures show how generations of British politicians have betrayed our increasingly ageing population and have failed to fund properly the care so many of them will clearly need..

‘It should shame us as a nation that other European countries seem to take the needs of their older population more seriously than we do.’. also due to low State pensions,-

Cold kills 180 British pensioners a day during winter

Please go to this link and sign this petition on the Government’s web site.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All elderly people should receive residential care free, via the State, and a much higher basic State pension free of means testing

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

The Government must fund elderly people's rights to free residential Care paid for by the State because our elderly people have paid into the system all their working lives, and Government must also pay all pensioners now and in the future, a much higher basic state pension by restoring the National Insurance Act born of a Labour Government in 1974 which linked increases in the State pension to male average earnings, or The Retail Price Index ( RPI), whichever the greater. In 1975, the then Labour Government passed the "Social Security Act", introducing a State Earnings Related Pensions Scheme, this was considered in the pensions industry, the most cost effective scheme ever.

Please sign this petition.

The question ought to be, "What has prevented old people from accumulating sufficient during their working lifetime as to be self-supporting in retirement?"

by Ivanhoe Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:18 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:Successive governments have betrayed Britain’s pensioners by spending less on social care for the elderly than almost any other country in Europe.

Research which campaigners say ‘should shame us as a nation’ has found that Italy and France spend twice as much on their pensioners as we do in the UK.

Britain comes 17th out of the 20 major European countries surveyed, behind wealthy Germany as well as former Communist countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic.

Miserable: Proportionally the UK spend less than half of the what Italy do on the elderly

The shocking betrayal of the elderly, many of whom fought to defend Britain’s freedom in the Second World War, is revealed in a damning report by the over-50s group Saga.

They say it shows that the UK simply does not respect and care about the elderly as much as our EU neighbours do.

The tiny amount of public spending committed to the elderly – 5.8 per cent of national income compared to 11.7 per cent in Italy – is a key reason behind the scandal of tens of thousands of people having to sell their homes every year to pay for their residential care.

The UK rank a lowly 17th out of 20 nations, with Italy way out in front

Other countries fund care home fees through taxes or national insurance systems, meaning care is available when people need it. The report warns that our low spending rate has also led to an enormous burden on family members, who are left having to take on roles as unpaid carers because the state does not step in.

And it means thousands of pensioners are isolated in their own houses because not enough home helps, meals on wheels services and day centres are available.

Director general of Saga, Ros Altmann, said our low spending on elderly social care could explain why women in Britain die earlier than those in any other major country in Western Europe.

The two countries at the top of the care funding table – France and Italy – have the longest life expectancy for women in Europe. They live to an average of more than 84 years, compared to 81 in England – lower even than Slovenia.

‘These figures show how generations of British politicians have betrayed our increasingly ageing population and have failed to fund properly the care so many of them will clearly need..

‘It should shame us as a nation that other European countries seem to take the needs of their older population more seriously than we do.’. also due to low State pensions,-

Cold kills 180 British pensioners a day during winter

Please go to this link and sign this petition on the Government’s web site.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All elderly people should receive residential care free, via the State, and a much higher basic State pension free of means testing

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

The Government must fund elderly people's rights to free residential Care paid for by the State because our elderly people have paid into the system all their working lives, and Government must also pay all pensioners now and in the future, a much higher basic state pension by restoring the National Insurance Act born of a Labour Government in 1974 which linked increases in the State pension to male average earnings, or The Retail Price Index ( RPI), whichever the greater. In 1975, the then Labour Government passed the "Social Security Act", introducing a State Earnings Related Pensions Scheme, this was considered in the pensions industry, the most cost effective scheme ever.

Please sign this petition.

The question ought to be, "What has prevented old people from accumulating sufficient during their working lifetime as to be self-supporting in retirement?"

The question is, just what did they pay their years and years of NI contributions and taxes for ?. And come to that, what are we still paying our taxes and contributions for ?

Your posting was a disgrace.

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:22 pm

First, choose your target carefully.... Surprised

by astra Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:38 pm

"What has prevented old people from accumulating sufficient during their working lifetime as to be self-supporting in retirement?"

iVANHOE

you know about the two world wars.
You know about all the women in Newcastle and Liverpool - the two areas with the HIGHEST number of OAP'S in the country.
You know that women until recently were paid much less than their male colleagues even when performing exactly the same tasks. (6 years ago, the law was changed, women in Hartlepool are STILL awaiting setlement!!)
You know that the taxes we pay, and the NHS Stamp as was is NOT put into a separate fund, but since Ted (He HE HE ) Heath all collections of tax and welfare payments have been put into a single pot to be distributed at the troughites personal whims!

No more Hypothecation

Question, then, What DID prevent the present elderly from aquiring their own pot? They were assured of "Care from Cradle to Grave" and PAID UP according to the rules of the time. The politicians bled this dry saying you do not NEED more money, WE will take care of you!

Like the dimwits we are in the UK we swallowed this hook line and sinker.

I do NOT think that post was a disgrace.

by jackthelad Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:50 pm

As an old age pensioner, i don't think oftenwrongs post was a disgrace, it was just a question that deserves an answer.

We paid our taxes, and NI contributions, my first wage as a 14 year old was £2 a week, you can't buy a pint of beer for that nowadays. I am surviving today because i paid into a private pension scheme as well when i was 17years old, one shilling and nine pence a week. After nationalisation of the coal mines it became compulsary for all miners to be in the scheme. When i was 19 years old i worked on the coalface, for thirty nine shillings a day, we worked a five day week but got a six days pay, it didn't come to twelve pounds, then we had the stoppages, NI insurance, tax, one penny for the pit brass band, two pence for Dr Barnadoes, and union fees. You must realise not a lot of money was going into NI insurance and pension funds, not when you consider what it is costing to day. My sons and Daughter are paying more into their private pensions a week thn i was earning for an whole year.
I will be eighty years old in March, they have informed me that i will be getting a 20 pence a week rise for my 80th birthday. I am getting an headache thinking about what i can spend it on.

by astra Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:11 pm

OK Jack, you say you were a miner, an horrible job, but reasonably steady employment when nationalisation came along.

Most of the pensioners did NOT have that security, jumping job to job for more pay (Merit Money as it was known in the printing trade)
Non Tradesmen and Women had a hard enough time keeping the wolf from the door and 3 square meals on the table, to look at the future (which is ALWAYS a loooong time from now!)
Private pension funds are a bunch of highway robbers even now, berfore, when there was little legislation it was a feeding fest - the collector who came to your door made more from your money than you ever will!

I never heard MacMillan Wilson Heath That (her) or any of the rest say that pension funds have to be a priority, WHY? coz they knew darned well that a separate pay round would have to be embarked upon, and neither Lab or Con(Spit) could have that!

Governments got us into this malaise, and as usual, it is left to the taxpayer to get them out of it!

by bobby Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:25 pm

Dear o dear Ivanhoe. It seems youve found someone else to have a fight with. Keep it up, there still a few more left.

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:33 am

bobby wrote:Dear o dear Ivanhoe. It seems youve found someone else to have a fight with. Keep it up, there still a few more left.

Well maybe its high time we sort the Tax system out first

£30 billion per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year and benefit fraud just over £1 billion.

Based predominantly on 2008 data, the National Fraud Authority’s first ever Annual Fraud Indicator found fraud against the public sector accounts for 58% of the total fraud in the UK per year.

Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure.

In the private sector, the report shows the financial services industry recorded the highest loss to fraudsters, estimated to be £3.8 billion, with £1 billion in mortgage fraud and over £2 billion lost in insurance fraud.

As someone who has his own company and employ some 29 people and who pays my Tax in full each and every year. this drives me so mad its hard to even write about it. This was posted by Posted by Mark Jenner - 25 November 2011 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] This makes by blood boil too. as all the Tory party cut will only cut our debt by £53 billion based on there own OBR figures. yet In the UK's case £69.9 billion is lost on a yearly basis in what the Tax Justice Network call the "shadow economy."

In March earlier this year The Spectator published an article 'Debunking UK Uncut' over their campaign against tax avoidance. The author -- Nick Hayns from the Institute for Economic Affairs -- pleaded with readers not to let "UK Uncut get away with throwing all logic out of the window." But as nations across Europe feel the sting of reduced living standards, the true extent of global tax avoidance -- as revealed today by the Tax Justice Network -- will act to bolster feelings that such injustice can no longer be swept aside with the kind of insouciance Hayn displays.

The research, based on data from 145 countries, shows that tax evasion costs those nations $3.1 trillion annually. In the UK's case £69.9 billion is lost on a yearly basis in what the Tax Justice Network call the "shadow economy." That figure, they point out, "represents 56% of the country's total healthcare spend."

On the back of this report the Tax Justice Network has launched its campaign to Tackle Tax Havens. An initiative aimed at propelling tax avoidance up the political agenda by highlighting, in simple terms, the sheer scale of the sums involved and how they translate into increased cuts in public services for the rest of us.

But is tax avoidance immoral? Toby Young wrote for The Telegraph back in February that "Tax avoidance isn't morally wrong. It's perfectly sensible behaviour." While it might be true from a purely business point of view that tax avoidance is a great way to boost profits, Young conflates what is logical for a business to do, with what is the right thing to do from a societal or moral point of view.

by oftenwrong Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:21 am

Ever since "Revenooers" spent their time chasing smugglers, the tax system has been adversarial. It's always been the quick wits of the Trader against the determination of a government department.

Ideally, fair taxation should be unavoidable for everybody - as it already is for employees of the State, obviously. Possibly someone may decide that all gross income from whatever source should be funnelled through HM Treasury who would then distribute the nett proceeds. But isn't that Communism?

by Ivanhoe Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:41 pm

We need an attitude change in Britain about how we feel about the elderly, because for far too long the attitude has been, out of site, out of mind.
Europe shames Britain on care for the elderly as we rank 17th out of 20 in list of money spent on our elders
Successive governments have betrayed Britain’s pensioners by spending less on social care for the elderly than almost any other country in Europe.
Research which campaigners say ‘should shame us as a nation’ has found that Italy and France spend twice as much on their pensioners as we do in the UK.
Britain comes 17th out of the 20 major European countries surveyed, behind wealthy Germany as well as former Communist countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic.
Miserable: Proportionally the UK spend less than half of the what Italy do on the elderly.
It shows that the UK simply does not respect and care about their elderly people as much as our EU neighbours do.
The tiny amount of public spending committed to the elderly – 5.8 per cent of national income compared to 11.7 per cent in Italy – is a key reason behind the scandal of tens of thousands of people having to sell their homes every year to pay for their residential care.
The Pensioners Winter Fuel Payment has been cut by this right wing Tory lead coalition.
For the over 60’s, the annual payment has been cut by £50, leaving £200.
For the over 80’s, the annual payment has been cut by £100, leaving £300. This is to supposedly save money.
Please go to this link, and listen to my plea to help the elderly, and then please sign my pensions petition on the Government’s web site.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

100,000 signatures need to be gathered for this issue over the next 6 months, for the issue to be raised by the politicians and voted for or against in the House of Commons.

Please play your part.

Thank you

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:53 pm

Throughout their working life, most people have a choice between hissing it up the wall, or saving for their old age.

A few unfortunates find themselves on hard times despite their best efforts, and for them the State (that's all of us) has a responsibility to maintain minimum standards of dignity.

A larger proportion however have always spent their income faster than it came in, allowing themselves the pleasure of nights out with the Lads, foreign holidays, a nice car and Christmasses they can't remember. For those, I wouldn't cross the road to help any further than the basic pension they already receive, and which is all they deserve.

For all the petitions on offer, there will always be Oliver Twists among the signatories. "Please, Sir, I'd like some more."

by Sponsored content