BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

How should social care be paid for?

11:31 UK time, Monday, 8 November 2010

A poll commissioned by BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme and BBC Local Radio, shows that 82% of people don't think it's fair to sell their homes to fund care. What would be a fairer system?

The survey shows many people underestimate the cost of social care, and their chances of needing it. Statistics show that 20% of people will need basic social care costing more than £50,000 over a lifetime, with 5% requiring care costing more than £100,000. You can find out more about the cost of care with the You and Yours care quiz.

Some councils in England fear budget pressures will hit care services. Out of 87 English councils surveyed, 46 said they were concerned about funding for services.

Care includes help with daily tasks such as washing, dressing and cooking. However, more than 40% of people have not made any financial plans for care in their old age.

So what is the fairest way of providing social care? Do you think the social care support is adequate? Are you, or is someone in your family in receipt of social care?

Read more about the BBC's Living Longer season.

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    Those who have contributed via income tax and NI throughout their lives, should pay zero pounds and zero pence.

    Those that have not, should pay for it themselves.

  • Comment number 2.

    The current system is absurd-where you have 2 people in a care-home getting identical service/room etc when 1 person has paid into the system all their life and had to sell their house to pay for their care, alongside another person who hasn't paid a penny to the system. Utterly disgusting.

  • Comment number 3.

    How should social care be paid for?

    With a hefty tax on the super-rich tax-evaders & non-doms.

    Or alternatively the coalition could make the long term unemployed work as carers in return for their benefits, along with all the other local authority jobs that they're about to take on...

  • Comment number 4.

    Can they sell their houses if squatters have taken over? Many empty properties belong to old people in long-term care homes or hospital.

  • Comment number 5.

    maybe we should legalise assisted suicide? i mean if they want to die and it save us 100's of thousands of pounds why not? its better for everyone? especially with the over population storm broodin.

    however i have no problem with my tax money going to support these people if it was me in there shoes id be so grateful for the same

  • Comment number 6.

    Social Care has to be right for those who have contributed to our country, that is paid taxes and raised children. Forcing people to sell their family home for care when others who have perhaps spent their money on other things and have no assets and get the same care for free is a stain on this country.
    If special funding is required for Social, then a specific tax should be raised on wage earners and those on benefits, all pay as all may benefit.

  • Comment number 7.

    So, as so often, it will be a race between the grave and the workhouse.

  • Comment number 8.

    People have been paying all of their working lives for social care and for pensions. Suddenly people are talking about young people having to bare the burden of the cost. These people have already paid for their care and pensions - a succession of useless Governments has blasted the money. It seems immoral to take away any savings or their home. Give elderly people what they have earned already.

  • Comment number 9.

    One thing we need to understand is that there is a majority of people whom are never going to be in a position to pay for any never mind all of their care...still in 2010 millions needing care do not own their own homes...
    The OH! so easy solution is that care has to be always paid by the individual or family concerned...Home-Owners and Non-Home-Owners alike have for years paid what we call Tax and National Insurance...they get old and infirm and some for similar reasons as well as dissimilar reasons need some specialist care...It has now become a failure in our system to give that care because of 'COST'...thus our system of care that we all pay into is failing them at a time they really need it...they haven't become Old and Frail on purpose...many haven't become immobile just to prove a point to someone...it has happened due to circumstance and not one of them has planned for it...
    We really should be ashamed that in our so-called Christian Country of Great Britain that our Old and Frail population is only deemed to be worthy of criticism because of the cost involved...what happened to Compassion for our fellow Men and Women?
    Forcing the well off to sell their homes to then be able to receive care because they can now pay for it is not the solution...the value of every home will not always bring in the needed readies to pay for care...perhaps getting rid of other things our successive Governments pay for like Nuclear Weapons would release money where it is really needed; alas our Politicians speak with forked tongues...

  • Comment number 10.

    If forty percent or more have made no financial plans for care in their old age, it suggests rather strongly that wage rates during their working lives might just have been a bit on the low side. Given increasing costs as the population becomes older, it may not be unreasonable to ask for some contribution towards those costs, over and above those already paid through taxes, but to lose the home goes a bit too far.

  • Comment number 11.

    Surely you have to have some sort of incentive. If a person with savings has them all stripped to pay for care, yet their neighbour blows all their cash and gets paid for by the state from day 1, what's the point in making provision?

  • Comment number 12.

    The system in this country is so mishandled and corrupt I'm surprised successive governments haven't had those needing care being put in tents on a roundabout! If people have paid via their contributions for health care on retirement it should be - No Fee! For economic immigrants and those who haven't paid into the system, means tested care.

  • Comment number 13.

    Having paid national insurance contributions for 50 years, I thought I'd paid up in full for all the care I would ever need. Has the government been obtaining money under false pretences? When I paid my first national insurance contribution, at that point, I had signed up to the welfare state which promised me care from the cradle to the grave. It's high time a British government started honouring it's commitments by putting the money up front for those who have paid all their lives in to the welfare system, and stop guaranteeing help for those that have never paid a nickel, and that includes immigrants

  • Comment number 14.

    "How should social care be paid for"? is the clumsy and offensive HYS question.

    With the constant ageist venom pouring out of all media right now, especially the BBC - who knows?

    Social care isn't just about age - it could be about disability that strikes you out of the blue. Had you thought about that?

    Disability and ageist crime is increasing. This media and ConDem wave of the 'burden on society' has to stop right now.

    If you don't care about the relentless and increasing ageist and disability brainwashing - then God help you when it happens to you.

  • Comment number 15.

    "
    4. At 11:55am on 08 Nov 2010, Rufus McDufus wrote:

    Can they sell their houses if squatters have taken over? Many empty properties belong to old people in long-term care homes or hospital.
    "

    At least the squatters, who have contributed nothing, can enjoy their old age free of charge in some drug induced stupor, which is a bit like how they lived the rest of the their life before.

  • Comment number 16.

    Of course it is fair to sell a home to fund the care needed in old age if the accommodation is no longer required to accommodate the person(s) to be cared for. If the home is required to accommodate the eldery requiring care and that care can be brought to them within the accommodation and paid for through say releasing equity on the property then those requiring care can have the dignity of seeing out their lives in their own homes.
    Why should the children of those who need care profit from the state paying for their parents or relatives care? The alternative is for such children or beneficiaries to care for their relatives themselves and not burden the state with the cost of such provision.
    The State is not a facility to allow families to perform inheritance pplanning at the cost of the taxpayer at large.
    The money which I save or is available through the capital appreciation of my house or incvestments is mine while I live, not my childrens and as long as I need that cash then I have every right (not to say the obligation) to spend it on my care. This is not health treatment which is free to me at the point of need, this is simply being able to live, hopefully independently or in worst case scenario in a care establishment.
    If I have no savings or no capital appreciation because my wages were so low during my working career I could not afford private housing or save for my retirement then I can look forward to the State doing that for me.
    I personally would rather be in charge of my iown care rather than from the State which is always going to be diluted to the lowest common denominator for it will be the absolute minimum available for the funds provided. Why should I live like that simply so my children can get cash for doing tiddly squat, they can have my money if they will look after me until I pass on but not otherwise.

  • Comment number 17.

    Don't you just love it. The vast majority of people in the country have paid their way and asked for nothing in return. However, when you need the support of social care you'll have to pay.

    I agree with the contributors who say of you have paid your way you should pay NOTHING.

    If NI contributions are not to be taken into account for anything then they should be refunded to those who have made their contribution to the welfare system. I personally am fed up paying for wasters and I don't mean the sick or disabled.

  • Comment number 18.

    How should social care be paid for ? - It is simple The Government's duty upon election is to care for the Country - it's Economy - it's Security - it's Peoples and it's communities , so why is it in the face of an economic crisis we are talking about how to fund social care !!

    The Government and it's policies have - Decimated our Industrial Manufacturing Base - Virtually allowed our Fishing,Agriculture and Farming industries also to be decimated - Continue to allow our Companies to be taken over,closed down or sold to the highest bidder - Have the audacity to allow new ships to be built in Italy - Have the blatant arrogance to say we will create a new Entrepreneur visa, and will support foreign companies to establish themselves in our Economy etc. etc. etc.

    Our Economy has the biggest debt crisis ever - Continually rising unemployment - A Continuing destruction of our industrial strength - An appalling and continuing waste of our finances an extra £ 400 million into Europe - etc. etc. etc

    I wonder why this question needs to be asked at all !!!!

    The Government urgently must eat humble pie - Get back to basics - and Get our Country BACK TO WORK urgently.

    There is no other alternative !!!

  • Comment number 19.

    Because of the manner in which the United Kingdon and Greece and Portugal and Spain and Ireland, etc. got into this financial mess, I don't think its fair that people should have to sell off their personal assets to fund care. It's asking the innocent to not only bail out the investment banks (too big too fail AND GETTING BIGGER) through taxes, but also down the line, to "fund" what these investment banks (too big too fail AND GETTING BIGGER) took away. i.e. security in old age or disability.
    A fair system would be a FTT (Financial Trainsaction tax) and/or a FAT (Financial Activity Tax). It has already been estimated that even a very small tax on this financial transactions could raise billions of dollars.
    This is where the funding should come from. The investment banks (too big too fail AND GETTING BIGGER) should be taxed, the funds going to
    a) vital social programs under threat and
    b) a pertagage to a FAIL fund that should be called: Investment Banks (too big too fail and having failed, bail yourselves out, restructure, go bankrupt - play your own games, but do not dare touch are social programs.)
    Sure social care is costly, but not nearly as costly as bailing out the investment banks (too big too fail AND GETTING BIGGER).
    Do the investment banks (too big too fail AND GETTING BIGGER) need public money to wash themselves, dress and cook. No, but they might need it for first-class airfare, limosines, and bonuses - especially bonuses.
    So, if your representatives return from the G-20, having failed to support an FTT or FAT, the public should be on the streets and demanding answers.

  • Comment number 20.


    We need to get away from the notion that we have some kind of inalienable right to pass on property to the next generation. Property is just another form of stored wealth and should be used when necesscary to purchase the services we require as we grow old.

    It is no different than having 200k in the bank, if we are going to require to live for years in a care home we should expect to pay for it if we can afford to do so. That means tested principle is as true for workshy teenagers claiming dole money as it is for little old biddies in their care home.

    To expect hard working young people to fund us in our dotage simply isnt fair given the increasing numbers of oldies that our fantastic NHS is creating.

  • Comment number 21.

    Make the poor and middle income group pay, why shouldn't they? After all they are daft enough to vote wealthy tax dodgers into power. If the electorate really cared they would stand up against these multi millionaires taking their money and saying "Wer'e all in it together" but they do nothing

  • Comment number 22.

    This is the product of having an income tax rate that is too low, if you want free care in your old age reasonale student fees good healthcare then you are going to have to pay for it.

    Better to pay 5p in the £ more now than be thrown out of the nursing home you have lived in for years when the money runs out, having sold all you own (except of course for the money they leave you with to pay for your own funeral)

  • Comment number 23.

    Why should someone with a modest home, who has contributed to the tax and welfare systems all of their working life, have to sell their only asset to pay for care for which they have already paid? It's immoral, especially when the disgustingly rich can wriggle out of paying their contributions to the self-same system with impunity.

  • Comment number 24.

    People who have worked all their lives - and paid their taxes - have ALREADY paid for any social care they may need in old age.
    It is NOT a 'drain on the young' - these peoples' taxes also paid for the following generations' school education and healthcare. They are OWED (financially and morally) a decent, dignified later life. Simple.

  • Comment number 25.

    Can you lefties stop assuing that those who do not save are on low pay. I know plenty of people who earn more than I do, who do not save or have pensions, but prefer 2 holidays a year and flash cars and tv's.
    So from your point of view, I should then use my savings for care and they should get it paid for by the state and move their widescreen tv's into their care homes.
    Stop Nu Labour unfair means testing, one rule for all, either we all pay or we don't, if we have to pay and can't, TOUGH.
    Let's face it, we all had the same state education, and we all know the one's who were going to end up in low paid jobs and we know why. As long as we keep having apologists for them failing, they will keep taking the handouts. When you stop the handouts, that is when the parents have t say to their children, work is the only way, as apposed to look how well I am doing living off Nu Labour benefits.

    PS, I came from a council house background where it was instilled in you that you had to work and that was the only way to get on.

  • Comment number 26.

    Social care for those who have paid their full UK taxes and NI should be a right, and free. You should not be forced to sell everything just to enjoy the benefits that a non-working scrounger is also entitled to. The moral topsy-turvy approach to welfare benefits, dole handouts, incapacity benefit, housing benefit (etc) in this country is insulting to hard-working taxpayers. Social unrest is on its way, unless this government (and future governments) don't start waking up and representing the wishes of the majority. This is just another facet of government policy which shows how out-of-kilter they are with the general public.

  • Comment number 27.

    My father in law is in a care home, and he pays for it by renting out his former home. If he can do it, why can't others in the same position?

  • Comment number 28.

    Those who have nothing and seem to get given everything as benefits etc... are lucky as its those of us who are mugs and own our property (or have a mortgage) and work and pay taxes, are the stupid idiots who then have to pay home care costs.

    It just doesn't pay to provide for yourself is what I have learned. Thats why I am WHOLEHEARTEDLY behind the Government reviewing the benefits system.

    Its time we had a reality check!

  • Comment number 29.

    Typical Condem administration. Is this the latest from them, they want us to work like dogs for the capitalist system, its the workers that make the profit that they enjoy. You cannot make profits without exploitation somewhere along the production line. But as soon as you are old and needy you are expected to clock out on your last working day and fall into a coffin, after after you have dug the hole.

  • Comment number 30.

    Private Insurance. Premium proportionate to risk and cost. How else should it be ?

  • Comment number 31.

    A complete mess, swept under the carpet by whichever government was in power. There is no quick fix to this problem because there is no justice for people who have saved and invested against those who have not. It is not fair if patients providing for their own care would receive the same care free under a government paid scheme. There is no incentive to save.

  • Comment number 32.

    Social care is precisely the sort of safety net item the welfare state was designed to deliver. All should have access to it.

    In terms of funding this, I would say:

    - People should not have to sell their homes to pay UNLESS they have not paid NI or tax (not sure how that could arise, but am sure it is possible). Otherwise you get the ridiculous system of somebody who worked and paid taxes & NI, and bought a house, being penalised, whilst those that did not don't get penalised. What behaviours are we trying to promote here?

    - Trade offs are needed. This is a real safety net item, but should not have bells and whistles (if people want a higher standard, then they can go private a la the NHS model). It should offer a standard of care, which is similar for all, free at the point of delivery. But no more than is affordable and necessary for a reasonable standard of life.

    - If the state is tight on money, cut benefits for the able or raise taxes...this one is not the area to be mucking around in, either by maintaining current injustices or introducing new ones.


    - And/or levy a new tax purely for Social Care for the elderly (do a better job of ring fencing it than is done for NI....).


    I am sure if common sense, fairness, a return to the core aim of the welfare state, and some economic reality was applied, then a reasonable solution to all benefits / care issues can be reached. However, I suspect it will be down to dogmatic self interest, media fuelled politicking, scare stories, and so on...democracy is the best system out there but it does not allow problems like this to be addressed!

  • Comment number 33.

    6. At 11:59am on 08 Nov 2010, Mike Hall wrote:
    Social Care has to be right for those who have contributed to our country, that is paid taxes and raised children. Forcing people to sell their family home for care when others who have perhaps spent their money on other things and have no assets and get the same care for free is a stain on this country.
    If special funding is required for Social, then a specific tax should be raised on wage earners and those on benefits, all pay as all may benefit.

    ----------------------------------------------------
    I think we're on dodgy ground here. Absolutely people that have paid into the system should have rights to social care however I question why you would include raising children as a qualification to recieve social care. Apart from the couples or individuals who are unable to have kids, there are many who have made the choice not to, for all kinds of reasons. Making having children a qualifying factor will encourage those that have made this decision to bring unwanted offspring into the world which is never a wise idea.
    I am also slightly confused by the idea that if I do not have children or own my own home that I have somehow squandered my money. I object to this, the reason myself & my husband can't get a house is because of the artificially inflated market, the ridiculous deposit required & the fact that private rent is sky high. (can anyone explain why, when I can pay £880 pcm & have done for the last 5 years they won't give me a mortgage for the same bloomin amount!?) We have had to come to terms with the fact we will never own our own property. However I will not see myself as a second class citizen just because I don't own bricks or sprogs. I have always paid into the system & never taken a penny back so I struggle to see why people like me should be excluded.
    It is an urban myth that childless couples like us are swimming in disposable income. At the end of the month I am as cash strapped as anyone else & despite paying into both work & private pensions I am seriously concerned about what will happen to us when we are old. It would be nice to think that a system I have supported my entire working life will be there to help me when I need it but I very much doubt that.
    Apologies if I have misunderstood your post.

  • Comment number 34.

    1. At 11:41am on 08 Nov 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
    Those who have contributed via income tax and NI throughout their lives, should pay zero pounds and zero pence.

    Those that have not, should pay for it themselves.
    .......................................................................
    I don't think I have much to add to this. Spot on.

  • Comment number 35.

    Effectively people who save and are penalised relative to those who don't. This cannot be right in a society that needs to motivate people to take responsibility for themselves.

    The solution is to provide a very basic form of care (less than is currently provided and even if it causes some although not absolute hardship). People could then choose whether they want to top up their own care through their assets.

  • Comment number 36.

    How should social care be funded ?

    Like it or not - general taxation.

    What worth a civilisation that cannot properly look after its young, sick or elderly. It's about time one of our governments bit the bullet and got on with it. Shame on us all for allowing them to get away with anything else.

  • Comment number 37.

    Everyone will be old and in need of care at some point, unless theydie early. If necessary, there should be an extra penny on tax to pay for what all will need in the future, and no one would object to this, i am sure. If we are humans we care for other humans, surely.......

  • Comment number 38.

    "3. At 11:53am on 08 Nov 2010, Damian_Wayne wrote:
    How should social care be paid for?

    With a hefty tax on the super-rich tax-evaders & non-doms."

    Now there's an intelligent and helpful comment!!!

    Tax evasion is illegal, and wherever it's found to happen should be prosecuted.

    Non-doms by definition aren't liable to UK tax, or only so in a limited way.

    The super-rich ... well would that there were enough of them to make a significant difference. Of course, Mr Wayne's hefty tax might produce something worthwhile, apart that is from driving them all abroad.

    Past Labour governments tried the hefty tax approach. It didn't work. Nobody liable to high tax rates is going to hang around in the UK, not when there are such relatively benign tax regimes elsewhere.

  • Comment number 39.

    It should be under the NHS, and if they haven't got enough money then fund it by giving less in Foreign Aid and even less to fund Eurocrat junkets.

    Charity begins at home.

  • Comment number 40.

    "21. At 12:33pm on 08 Nov 2010, Lucy Clake wrote:
    Make the poor and middle income group pay, why shouldn't they? After all they are daft enough to vote wealthy tax dodgers into power. If the electorate really cared they would stand up against these multi millionaires taking their money and saying "Wer'e all in it together" but they do nothing"

    -------------

    Since you obviously have evidence that they are tax dodgers, I suggest you inform HMRC accordingly. Or stop bleating.

  • Comment number 41.

    I believe this is one of the most difficult areas of social policy since the law must be seen to be fair and it isn't.

    But there are two sides to the coin.

    Person X has paid a mortgage and owns their property. It has a value that has limited means of realisation. X needs a service, the property value is considered as an asset, they are required to pay. They sell or seek other means of realising the value of the property.

    Person Y has paid rent to a landlord all their life. They have nothing but the landlord has plenty. Y needs a service. The service costs money and they have only a pension. They contribute most of the pension to their care and receive 'pocket money' only. The State pays the rest of the cost.

    The real problem with X and Y is the latter paying out much more in rent in real terms than X does in mortgage. If rental was considerably cheaper than a mortgage then there is an argument for pricing all social care realistically and making people pay for it. But rentals are not cheaper and they are going to be much more costly soon. Saving money is not an option for most people who rent especially in the private sector.

    I wish there was a happier medium for social care but I cannot see one.

  • Comment number 42.

    I rember the halceon days before Margret Thatcher, they may not have been perfect but we were aiming for fairness. Don't even joke about assisted suicide, after a certain age, the Con-Lib government may be taking notice!!!

  • Comment number 43.

    A very real problem has emerged in recent times, and that is an increasingly older population which receives, at the drop of a hat, medical and social care that simply was not available fifty years ago.

    Then, people in their 60s and 70s died naturally from common illnesses; a couple of weeks in bed at home, and they were gone. Both sets of my grandparents went in this way, without inflicting any costs on the social services budget. Senile dementia was rarely, if ever, heard of. The pattern started changing at the time of my late mother's death, when she was kept in hospital and nursing home for tests and observation. She hated it there, and wanted to go when she wanted, not when medical opinion said so.

    Today, the elderly are popped into all sorts of care services, often condemning them to a prolonged life in bed, drugged to the eyeballs and looking at the ceiling for years on end. They remain at vast expense, in that condition for years, instead of being allowed to die naturally when their body and brain tell them it's time to go.

    My wife and I have Advance Decisions already in place, to avoid the suffering and undignified death that so many in palliative care have to endure against their wishes. We have no desire to be given medical treatment if and when we suffer some terminal illness and the pain of it sets in.

  • Comment number 44.

    In a few years this will be a moot point since so few people can afford to buy their own property. I am very concerned about the quality of care for our elderly, with many care/nursing homes providing little in the way of mental/physical stimulation for their residents, instead preferring to drug them up to the eyeballs & sit them in a high backed chair to dribble the day away. I was under the impression that NI contributions were to pay for our health/ care needs, but it's yet another pot that has been pilfered by the politicos. I already care for my disabled partner & would do for anyone I knew because I just don't trust state run 'care' facilities to provide the quality care & assistance to vulnerable people.

  • Comment number 45.

    the care system like all uk benefit systems are unfair , a friend of mine was offered a council home last month, he advised them he was being made redundant...their answer its ok, we need to take this off our list , you will get the rent/council tax paid...so he took it. like the care system , i for one will ensure all my assets are transfered once i need care, or more likley a bit prior to this, this way no one can take anything . i have paid NI, council tax blah blah blah and many havent paid a penny. i will use the system when i need it. i will too syphon my pension from them as i have paid NI .the lifelong unemployed should not be entitled to a government pension as they havent paid into any NI scheme, its harsh but its life.

  • Comment number 46.

    "82% of people don't think it's fair to sell their homes to fund care" = "82% of people think it's fair for other people to be forced to fund their care, instead of paying for it themselves"

    Gold-plated pensioners again.

  • Comment number 47.

    @27. At 12:54pm on 08 Nov 2010, Len Day wrote:
    My father in law is in a care home, and he pays for it by renting out his former home. If he can do it, why can't others in the same position?

    Nothing wrong with that, Len. Perhaps there should be an agency that carries out this service on behalf of care home residents, whereby income over-and-above the care home costs are pocketed by the residents themselves. If the rental income doesn't cover the costs, the shortfall would be made good by the government; i.e. the care home residents' N.I contributions. Sounds fair to me and people wouldn't be obliged to sell their homes to cover the cost of their pre-paid care.

  • Comment number 48.

    30. At 12:57pm on 08 Nov 2010, SPEEDTHRILLS wrote:
    Private Insurance. Premium proportionate to risk and cost. How else should it be ?

    =======================================

    How many people do you know who could afford to take that out, bearing in mind that many people are living longer and so the gamble the insurers take in people not claiming will often not work in this instance?

    For a carer to attend at home you are looking at £10 an hour in 2010. For someone unable to perpare meals that is £30 a day, which may or may not include assistance with washing and dressing in the morning. To that you may need to add a cleaner, assistance with laundry and shopping. That is just for someone who is frail with no medical problems nor with the onset of dementia.

  • Comment number 49.

    2. At 11:52am on 08 Nov 2010, Hammy02 wrote:
    The current system is absurd-where you have 2 people in a care-home getting identical service/room etc when 1 person has paid into the system all their life and had to sell their house to pay for their care, alongside another person who hasn't paid a penny to the system. Utterly disgusting.

    ===

    I agree.


    There is almost no point in having aspirations and working hard.

    You may as well pretend to be unemployable, get a free house, free medical care, free council tax, free food, free tv, free everything... or

    You could go to University, get sadled with a £30k debt, get taxed for everything you do,(to pay for the hopleless) struggle all your life to pay off your mortgage, and then, when you get old, the one thing you have managed to keep, your own house, is taken off you to pay your bill, while the bloke in the next bed, who has spent his whole life living off you, continues to do so!

    What is worse, it is often the spongers who complain they dont get enough!

  • Comment number 50.

    It is a national disgrace that care should be provided free to those who have never worked or saved and have sponged off the community all their lives, yet those who have worked and saved have to pay not only for their own care but for the care of these parasites who have never contributed or made any provision to help themselves. In this time of monumental political correctness, surely this is a gross infringement of the human rights of those who have paid tax.

  • Comment number 51.

    20. At 12:32pm on 08 Nov 2010, SotonBlogger wrote:

    We need to get away from the notion that we have some kind of inalienable right to pass on property to the next generation. Property is just another form of stored wealth and should be used when necesscary to purchase the services we require as we grow old.


    ========================================


    I believe in that case all that would happen would be what happens now with wealthier families - properties, cash etc are gifted long before death.

  • Comment number 52.

    A very great number of us do not wish to continue our lives if we become unable to care for ourselves, or significantly disabled by incurable disease. Many of us will probably choose to end our lives using less than reliable methods, considerably earlier than we need to due to the fear that we may not be permitted to do so later, may be forcibly removed from our homes and be incarcerated against our will and any savings we have be confiscated to pay to preserve us in suffering.

    Being told that we should be saving money for this to happen is simply insulting. No doubt there are a few of us who, for whatever reasons, wish to "go into care" when they become too ill to look after themselves. If those of us who wish to die if that happens were permitted to do so then resources whold be available to fund the few who wish to suffer on.

    The full legalisation of voluntary euthanasia the the UK would attract more support than virtually any other policy this government could introduce and would prevent a great deal of suffering and solve the "care" funding and company pensions difficulties at a single stroke.

  • Comment number 53.

    The believe that we arrived at our current income & wealth distribution was fair is ludicrous. A lot of us profited greatly from real asset appreciation by shear chance.

    It is therefore, not unfair that the profit from that shear chance should be invested into shelter homes and care homes to look after ourselves in our old age.

    Our society is a caring one. We need it that way to ensure we feel good about our society & ourselves, which ultimately benefit us through peace and prosperity. It obligates us to look after old people who can't look after themselves.

    A minimum level of care to satisfy our obligation is required. To get higher level of care, we need to dip into our own resource.

    I support the government position completely.


  • Comment number 54.

    So many people screaming 'it should be free'...er yes, that's what the question is getting at. 'Free' means someone other than the person getting the care is paying, not that it costs nothing to provide. Who is this other person who should be paying?

    And as for 'I've paid for my care in old age via taxes and NI in the past' - are there STILL people who think their NI contributions have been put away in a little box somewhere, to be got out when the person who paid them gets old? The way it works, and has ALWAYS worked, is that contributions paid this week go to fund the care of people who need it this week. The assumption being, of course, that when we all get old there will always be younger people coming along to take our places as contributions-payers.

    As a daughter and daughter-in-law of two elderly ladies who both own their own homes and have savings, I cannot see what is wrong with either or both of them being expected to sell their houses to fund care if or when they need it. I've got a house of my own to live in, and I don't want to have to provide the care for either of them. It's a trade-off, and it seems pretty unreasonable to me to expect not to have to do the hands-on stuff but also to inherit their houses. You can't have it both ways.

  • Comment number 55.

    I am surprised that in the country that created the NHS, anyone needs to ask this question. The NHS model is economical and provides the care people need when they need it, and they pay for it when they can afford to, during their working lives. It should be extended to cover social care.

    Why have a private scheme and pay the additional costs of competition and the profits of the company?

    Go to Germany, where they have an insurance based health scheme. Your taxes may be lower, but for most people, as far as take home pay is concerned, the benefit is more than canceled out by the sum deducted for health insurance. Furthermore, when you get ill, the treatment and medicines you are allowed to have free, is restricted by the rules of the insurance company. Because most treatment is private, standards are not so well regulated as in the NHS. Remember the German registered doctor who over prescribed morphine.

  • Comment number 56.

    Cutting the £5 billion cost of universal benefits to wealthy retired particularly higher rate tax payers, would pay for this, does Mick Jagger Need a bus Pass? Does the Queen Need a free TV licence and a winter fuel allowance?

    If income benefits are to be taken away from Children,the ill and the poor this seems only fair.

    Mind you not a lot of Tory votes in the under 18's! Plenty amongst well to do pensioners!

  • Comment number 57.

    "82% of people don't think it's fair to sell their homes to fund care" = "82% of people think it's fair for other people to be forced to fund their care, instead of paying for it themselves


    -------- Wonder if this was the same 82% who thought it fair that families of middle income with children should be made poorer?

  • Comment number 58.

    I absolutely agree with No 2
    “The current system is absurd-where you have 2 people in a care-home getting identical service/room etc when 1 person has paid into the system all their life and had to sell their house to pay for their care, alongside another person who hasn't paid a penny to the system. Utterly disgusting.”

    ****************
    Out of my four grandparents only one is needing care and has the illness Alzheimer’s, she and the other 3 grandparents have paid NI all their lives.
    She and my father went to great sacrifices to pay for their house so that they could pass something on to their grandchildren and governments through National INSURANCE has reneged on the deal and they are in the process of stealing the monies from the sale of her house to fund her care.

  • Comment number 59.

    Here’s an idea!

    Why don’t the Government (both Labour & coalition) actually ring fence National Insurance and use it to pay for what it was meant for, i.e the NHS and care costs!

    The trouble is many years ago the money collected for NI started being used more generally so it ceased to be what it is called. NI is in fact income tax!

    So, this being the case, I think we need a Government honest enough to admit this, and make a new levy to cover the costs of the NHS, and care in general.

    And where people are found guilty of benefit fraud, a very long custodial sentence should be the punishment, something bad enough to stop others from wishing to ever try it. Then we might have a chance of finding the money to care for those that really need and deserve to be cared for!

    And by the way, I think if we had full visibility of the NHS and care costs we might stop living in the fools paradise that it is free! It is the most expensive thing the Government does, and it costs an absolute fortune! Its only free to those who dont pay tax, which often happen to be the ones that get benefits!

    the other thing is that whereas when the NHS was invented, NI covered its cost, the cost of the NHS & care has escalated so much, that roughly £1 in every £5 the Gopvernement spends is on this. So NI isnt enough to cover the cost.

    The whole thing needs radical re-think, but no-one will touch it, because it is political dynamite.

    Consequently the waste escalates year after year after year, and no amount of money is enough.

  • Comment number 60.

    Economicaly, it is very important to plough back asset values of our homes to fund social care. It means more jobs and redistribution of income and wealth.

    Furthermore, we have an accute shortage of houses. Selling up our houses and live in communal homes means we can release houses for sale, so that our younger generation have a place of their own, and also carry on economic activities associated with having their own home.

    Most of our children already own homes, so selling up our homes to fund our retirement makes great sense.

    It is also environmentally friendly, and efficient in utilising labour to have communal homes. It relieves their carers to carry on with their own lives, and to keep the wheels of industry going.

    It is a huge source of funding which must be tapped.

  • Comment number 61.

    We could start looking after ourselves a bit more healthwise, so that we don't need as much social care.

  • Comment number 62.

    How do you make it fair? Make social care free for all or free for none.


    People who live off the state get it for free. Those who work hard, save, and invest in property, have nearly all of it taken away to pay for their own care.

    The government needs to find money from elsewhere, i.e the banking system.











  • Comment number 63.

    "50. At 1:41pm on 08 Nov 2010, kaybraes wrote:
    It is a national disgrace that care should be provided free to those who have never worked or saved and have sponged off the community all their lives, yet those who have worked and saved have to pay not only for their own care but for the care of these parasites who have never contributed or made any provision to help themselves. In this time of monumental political correctness, surely this is a gross infringement of the human rights of those who have paid tax.



    That's the stuff, kaybraes. Throw those grannies out onto the streets. Dementia? Multi-organ failure? Wimps. They didn't get out there and work when they were younger so they can just suffer the consequences now they're old. I look forward to seeing the undeserving wretches sitting on the pavements of Britain begging at the age of 85. Serves them right, oh yes, and I'll just have a Daily Mail and a Telegraph while I'm here.

  • Comment number 64.

    The fairest way is for folk to pay taxes and this is put aside to provide health and welfare whenever needed at whatever age. Oh, but isn't that what we all already do.

    Still, authorities never miss a trick, especially when it comes to squeezing you twice to pay for the same thing. UK public are always willing to put up with it, believe it or not you'll always even find some who approve.

  • Comment number 65.

    I agree with ClaudeBalls, but this is a really tricky question. one of the primary issues is the "pay as you go" model, where the government pays from current receipts (or more likely incurs growing debt) to fund the care. people could perhaps be required to have funded a portion of the amount needed and the state could perhaps match what they have funded up to a realistic maximum, that way the more you save yourself into a retirement scheme, the more you will get. I can see problems with this as well though, so it is far from perfect.

    One thing I must say is that perhaps the UK needs to start limiting foreign immigrants that then use benefits. If they cannot look after themselves (and perhaps learning English would help), then they should stay where they are.

  • Comment number 66.

    One of the goals of the EC when we joined was to give citizens of member states longer lives. In the early '90's I collected and collated the data from the EC on Longevity for the Co I worked for.

    Why the big surprise?? I guess it's because the actuaries and big money boys forgot to check the figures. So now we the poor and pensioned off will have to pay

    It's the rich wot gets .....

  • Comment number 67.

    Ive got a house if I have to go into care it can be sold to pay for that care.

  • Comment number 68.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 69.

    34. At 1:07pm on 08 Nov 2010, suzie127 wrote:

    1. At 11:41am on 08 Nov 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
    Those who have contributed via income tax and NI throughout their lives, should pay zero pounds and zero pence.

    Those that have not, should pay for it themselves.
    .......................................................................
    I don't think I have much to add to this. Spot on.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No need to add anything about severely disabled people who are unable to pay income tax. Just forget about them eh?

  • Comment number 70.

    I think it's pretty appalling that people sgould have to sell their homes, especially when cosmetic surgery AND IVF are doled out on the NHS, we have things very badly wrong in this country, and I can't see a government with the backbone to do anyting about it.

  • Comment number 71.

    why just end it all before you have to go into care so your children can get the house.

  • Comment number 72.

    What do you mean, how should it be paid for? It's been paid for by that little thing we pay called tax. Now if we have paid for the service by law we are entitiled to the goods. You don't go to a shop buy goods and then pay again. Sorry if the Government has spent it that's not the electorates problem. Simple answer is find the money and PAY UP!! How dare these jumped up Pipsqueaks tell older people who put up with so luittle for so long that they need to pay more. I am beginning to think that those killed in the war were lucky, they did not need to live through this.

  • Comment number 73.

    It is morally indefensible that anyone should use their life savings to fund their own care while those with no life savings get it free. This is like having an inheritance tax/death duty rate of 100%. Equally it will be unaffordable to provide free care for everyone without massive increases in tax and/or further cuts in other spending.

    Two suggestions a) payment should only be taken out of income not savings thus you should contribute e.g. your state pension (what else are you going to spend it on) but keep your assets b) on retirement you pay a one -off premium (say £10,000 but this in many cases could come out of lump sum retirement options especially in the public sector final salary pension schemes) and then any subsequent care is free.
    There may be a way to combine a) and b).

    Another thing which many find appalling is the cut off between social care (has to be paid for) and health care (free of charge). The distinction can cost tens of thousands and is a strict all-or-nothing cut off. It is also an insidious way for the health service (who do the assessing) to avoid expenditure. I believe there should be a sliding scale on this. A relative was at one time incontinent, and could not eat or speak, was totally dependent and yet was assigned as needing social care only. They died three weeks later.

    Another relative who never worked in their life and has been in a residential home for years. I don't begrudge that person until you find another person who worked hard and saved up and is now in the same home and is losing their life savings to fund their own care and whose taxes have also funded my relative as well. This is totally immoral.

  • Comment number 74.

    13. At 12:11pm on 08 Nov 2010, Toothpick Harry wrote:
    Having paid national insurance contributions for 50 years, I thought I'd paid up in full for all the care I would ever need. Has the government been obtaining money under false pretences? When I paid my first national insurance contribution, at that point, I had signed up to the welfare state which promised me care from the cradle to the grave. It's high time a British government started honouring it's commitments by putting the money up front for those who have paid all their lives in to the welfare system, and stop guaranteeing help for those that have never paid a nickel, and that includes immigrants

    -------------------
    If only it were as simple as that. Unfortunately, although you've paid in all those years, successive goverments have spent it all, and more besides, to the point that the country is severely in debt.

    For what it's worth I totally agree with you actually, but I fear that future gererations of retirees will not even be as fortunate as you.

  • Comment number 75.

    Of course 82% don`t want to sell their house to pay for care. Their family wants to inherit the property, and have the taxpayer pay for the care.
    And they think that`s ok.

  • Comment number 76.

    Nigel Lawson introduced the measures which force people to sell their homes to pay for care(another device to fund tax cuts for the better off).
    A lot of 'aspirational' Tory voters had their expected inheritance sold out from under them. Of course if they had elected to look after their parents in their dotage, they would have kept the proceeds from the sale.
    Family Values only extends as far as pocketing the value of the family home. Caring for the old folks is best left to some Filipino on minimum wage funded by the tax-payer at large.

  • Comment number 77.

    No I do not think it is fair for people to have to sell their homes or use savings to fund care when people who spend all their money get it for free but I do not suppose we will have a choice. It is either that or even higher taxes.

    I am hoping by the time it gets to be a problem for me or my husband voluntary euthanasia will be an option. We have both said we would rather not live our declining years in a care home with no independence or decent quality of life.

  • Comment number 78.

    if they own property they should pay for home care, it another case of the less well off subsidicing the rich.

  • Comment number 79.

    54. At 1:53pm on 08 Nov 2010, leathersofa wrote:
    So many people screaming 'it should be free'...er yes, that's what the question is getting at. 'Free' means someone other than the person getting the care is paying, not that it costs nothing to provide. Who is this other person who should be paying?

    And as for 'I've paid for my care in old age via taxes and NI in the past' - are there STILL people who think their NI contributions have been put away in a little box somewhere, to be got out when the person who paid them gets old? The way it works, and has ALWAYS worked, is that contributions paid this week go to fund the care of people who need it this week. The assumption being, of course, that when we all get old there will always be younger people coming along to take our places as contributions-payers.

    As a daughter and daughter-in-law of two elderly ladies who both own their own homes and have savings, I cannot see what is wrong with either or both of them being expected to sell their houses to fund care if or when they need it. I've got a house of my own to live in, and I don't want to have to provide the care for either of them. It's a trade-off, and it seems pretty unreasonable to me to expect not to have to do the hands-on stuff but also to inherit their houses. You can't have it both ways.


    ........................................................

    The reason most children don't want parents to sell their homes to pay for decent care is GREED.

  • Comment number 80.

    No, people should not have to sell their homes to get care

    There should be an upper limit on what people have to pay of about £50 000 per person.
    This could be payable after the death of the person concerned perhaps though sale of the property.

    Excess costs would be met by the tax payer through inheritance tax

  • Comment number 81.

    21. At 12:33pm on 08 Nov 2010, Lucy Clake wrote:

    Make the poor and middle income group pay, why shouldn't they? After all they are daft enough to vote wealthy tax dodgers into power. If the electorate really cared they would stand up against these multi millionaires taking their money and saying "Wer'e all in it together" but they do nothing


    The electorate only voted them in six months ago.

  • Comment number 82.

    Person A - works all life and pays NI etc and pays off mortgage.
    Person B - hardly works day in life, everything paid for by the State.
    The present system takes the house and saving from Person A whilst Person B continues to be sponsored by the State.
    So the answer would be for the State to contribute the same to both but Person A could have the option of paying more from sale of house and savings to be in a much higher grade of nursing home/residential home.

  • Comment number 83.

    I just took the little socila care quiz. It seems that every single cost is roughly twice what I would expect. Why does it cost £56k to provide full time in home care? It's not a job requiring several honours degrees, it can be done by pretty much anyone with a little training and we have 5 million unemployed. Add all that up and you have a solution.

  • Comment number 84.

    I personally don't mind selling my home to fund care in my old age. I entered this world with nothing and I aim to leave it the same way. Any assets I have at the end will be left to charity.

  • Comment number 85.

    Much of the trouble is not many people look after their own these days. Years ago people didn't move away from their families - gran and grandad quite often lived in the same house or down the road, often looking after the grandchildren and they were an active part of the family. People took pride in looking after their own - after all your parents looked after you for many years - not much to ask to love and care for them when they become frail. We are a selfish society and expect the state to take on what should be our responsibility. The state should be there for when we absolutely can't care for our older people or if we need assistance or someone hasn't got any family. My parents will not be cared for by the state as long as I am able - it's my turn to care for them and repay them for all the wonderful things they have done for me.

  • Comment number 86.

    42. At 1:24pm on 08 Nov 2010, Roger Smith wrote:

    I rember the halceon days before Margret Thatcher, they may not have been perfect but we were aiming for fairness. Don't even joke about assisted suicide, after a certain age, the Con-Lib government may be taking notice!!!


    Ah yes those halcyon days of the 3-day week and the winter of discontent.

  • Comment number 87.

    Let's face it.....people are taxed all their lives, and government then wants to ignore them, when they become too old to care for themselves.

    Government is going to make the decision, sooner or later, to legislate termination of those who cannot care for themselves. Therefore, seniors have no choice, but to plan to terminate themselves, at a given point in time. Failure to plan to do that, will leave you at the mercy of government, who will place you somewhere, where you WILL be abused.

  • Comment number 88.

    77. At 2:31pm on 08 Nov 2010, juliet50 wrote:
    No I do not think it is fair for people to have to sell their homes or use savings to fund care when people who spend all their money get it for free but I do not suppose we will have a choice. It is either that or even higher taxes.
    ..........................................................
    What use is your house if you have to go into care for the rest of your life why should children get or expect to get something for free that you have worked all you life for? why not get the benefit yourself by using the money to pay for decent care. the trouble is the uk people don't want to pay higher taxes for care but still expect to get care for free .

  • Comment number 89.

    Im suprised that no one has picked up on this yet. After yesterdays HYS regarding working for benefits or risk having them stopped, and given that we are all now one Big Society, in that we have to contribute something, then if you want care, simple sell a kidney

  • Comment number 90.

    50. At 1:41pm on 08 Nov 2010, kaybraes wrote:
    It is a national disgrace that care should be provided free to those who have never worked or saved and have sponged off the community all their lives, yet those who have worked and saved have to pay not only for their own care but for the care of these parasites who have never contributed or made any provision to help themselves
    ----------------------------

    What exactly does this mean? Do you mean the very wealthy who have inherited their wealth and not worked shouldn't get care? What about the super rich who dodge paying their dues by slashing their money away in a tax havens.? What about the low paid who have worked hard to enable the rich managers and directors to receive large salaries but have never been paid enough to save? What about those born with a disability or those who receive low wages for doing the very necessary menial but low status work?
    Or are you so biased that you think all scroungers are poor and all rich people work harder than others. With people thinking as you do the wealthy are getting even richer by the day

  • Comment number 91.

    Not wanting to sell is usually because parents want to leave their home(or its value) to their children.

    In effect,then,the taxpayer is being asked to subsidise someone else's inheritance.

    No thanks!!!

  • Comment number 92.

    my complaint is about the fairness around social care
    single people with disabilities (severe or are they)
    i live on a block were 2 people fit this catorgery
    1 the lesser gets 24 hours carers in which it has too be girls
    this cost the tax payer around £1.000 per week plus he get the top in all benefits WHY?
    if the state is paying for 3 carers why should they get the top benefits such as mobility, DLA social security total
    the other person gets 3 visits a day again must be females
    both say it is the feel good factor
    i feel that if the state pays £53 per week to families with a severe member of the family then these single people should either loss all the add ons to give them the same as families
    the local hospital should be given the funds to employ carers instead of agencies

  • Comment number 93.

    This is simple - either everyone pays or no-one pays.

    As for the comment of no 16 - i am glad i am not one of your children. My children although grown up now are still my world and have their own lives and earn their own money but i would like to think that when i die, they get what i have wroked hard for all my life not for it all to be wittered away on care when someone else is getting their care for free - where is the justice in that and whilst my children would not expect anything, i would want to leave this earth knowing that i had done one last thing as a mother to provide as much as i can for them and ultimatley their children

  • Comment number 94.

    My family history tells me that my grandparents were the first generation who owned their own homes. When they died, my parents inherited their houses and owned their own, so were the first generation to both own and inherit property. They are likely to be the last to do so.

    Governments must have noticed, and can't tolerate the thought that my generation, already retired, might enjoy any of this modest wealth. "Let's get all this in the state coffers before their kids get any of it" seems to be the attitude.

    Now that generation is frail and in need of care, those who have taken care to provide for themselves and never claimed a penny from the state are told they must pay for help with dressing, washing and feeding themselves. These aren't landed gentry or wealthy people, they live in a 2-bedroom bungalow and have a few grand in the bank.

    I don't want any of their money - I am from the last generation to enjoy a decent company pension since the governments have killed those off too. I'm just sad that my kids will miss out on everything and the buffer my parents thought they were leaving will be gobbled up by the state, after paying commercial organisations far too much to provide a mediocre service at their convenience.

    My advice to my grown up kids? Don't save anything, spend every penny you have, rent your home rather than buy, and you'll get everything handed to you on a plate.

    I completed the "You and yours" survey online. If you can find me a care home which can look after my Mum for as little as £26k per year, I'll move her in tomorrow. The ones I've looked at all ask more than £40k per year and want her house and bank account up front. What a gravy train this care industry is becoming.

  • Comment number 95.

    I'm not looking forward to my retirement i work full time pay my income tax,national insurance,council tax,car tax,tv tax its endless i recieve no help from the state i'm unable to afford my own house so i'm stuck in private rented property until house prices drop atleast 25%.The prospect of working till i'm 70 then being put into council run care home scares me i visit these places regular and most are disgusting.

  • Comment number 96.

    unemployed should be trained to care for the old or infirm
    also people with health issue's as they have knowledge of disabilities

  • Comment number 97.

    Whatever happens, it won't be fair.
    My great aunt had a stroke that would have killed a horse - but not her!! She had to go into a nursing home and the local council went to her children to pay for it. They rightly refused.
    This is the first thing that should be wiped out of the equation. People who do not need care, should not have to pay. There should be no compulsory removal of funds or of houses, although most elderly people would be better off with company or someone to keep an eye on them. So many living on their own is part of the problem. The time it takes a carer to travel between jobs is a complete waste.
    Maybe we need more of the retirement complex villages where people are on hand to help but you have your freedom and can shut your own front door.
    Fewer organisations, fewer managers and suits, more help and support from the people who do the work.

  • Comment number 98.

    85. At 3:06pm on 08 Nov 2010, Falconerlass wrote:
    Much of the trouble is not many people look after their own these days. Years ago people didn't move away from their families - gran and grandad quite often lived in the same house or down the road, often looking after the grandchildren and they were an active part of the family. People took pride in looking after their own - after all your parents looked after you for many years - not much to ask to love and care for them when they become frail. We are a selfish society and expect the state to take on what should be our responsibility. The state should be there for when we absolutely can't care for our older people or if we need assistance or someone hasn't got any family. My parents will not be cared for by the state as long as I am able - it's my turn to care for them and repay them for all the wonderful things they have done for me.

    ========================================


    Have you tried this with someone with severe dementia and double incontinence?

    By severe dementia I mean someone who may be violent, incredibly strong despite being frail, unable to communicate. You may have someone who regularly attempts to set fire to the house, smashes up furniture. These are not particularly rare examples, unfortunately.

    When my mother looked after my grandfather, it was upon doctors' advice that she should no longer do so as she would not be safe.

    Yes, it is terribly sad.

  • Comment number 99.

    "42. At 1:24pm on 08 Nov 2010, Roger Smith wrote:

    I rember the halceon days before Margret Thatcher, they may not have been perfect but we were aiming for fairness. Don't even joke about assisted suicide, after a certain age, the Con-Lib government may be taking notice!!!"

    Thatcher left governemnt 2 decades ago, since then we've had the impotent government of Major and incompetennt government of New Labour...surely enough time to change the effects of Thatcher especially for the Labour government who had time to change the regulatory framework of the banking system

    As a consequence of both, although mainly the latter, the country is now in considerable debt with hard choices to be made. One consequence is that we have to pay for social care or, if not, hard chocies need to be made elsewhere.






  • Comment number 100.

    "
    69. At 2:14pm on 08 Nov 2010, billyhano wrote:

    34. At 1:07pm on 08 Nov 2010, suzie127 wrote:

    1. At 11:41am on 08 Nov 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
    Those who have contributed via income tax and NI throughout their lives, should pay zero pounds and zero pence.

    Those that have not, should pay for it themselves.
    .......................................................................
    I don't think I have much to add to this. Spot on.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No need to add anything about severely disabled people who are unable to pay income tax. Just forget about them eh?
    "

    Such people will continue to reserve the same benefits which they deserve today. It's the lazy or useless how should not receive penny for their troubles.

 

Page 1 of 4

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.