I could go on for pages and pages on this. I am shocked that successive governments appear not to have realised that the population is getting older, and not necessarily fitter, as if the news has suddenly come upon them without warning. Though they don't do much better at realising that the number of children about to start primary school in Sheffield is higher than the number of places available.
My mum developed dementia in her 70s. It came on rapidly. One day she was okay, the next she was wandering the streets at 3 a.m. in her nightie, banging on neighbour's doors, shops, the post office, the hairdresser. We had to have a care home for her. She wasn't safe. It wasn't a case of whether or not I was willing to look after her, she needed more care than I could give. I have no siblings, no relatives living nearby (most are abroad), and those that were nearby were already caring for their own disabled relatives.
We sold her little terraced house and spent £70,000 on an insurance policy to pay her fees (or most of them - £2,400 a month and rising well above the rate of inflation) for the rest of her life after 3 years. We reckoned the residue of the sale would just about last those 3 years. As it happened, she died unexpectedly a year later. The £70,000 was non-refundable, but I didn't regret paying it cos it gave me peace of mind at the time. I therefore inherited next to nothing, but that didn't matter cos she was my mum and her house was for her, not me. Had she lived longer, I'd have had to delve into my own pocket to pay the shortfall from the insurance policy. And I would have done so, cos fortunately I could afford to. Well, up to a point.
Everyone's circumstances are different, and no one size fits all. I am adamant, however, that no relatives should be required to pay for the care of a parent/aunt or whatever out of their own funds. That just creates a problem further down the generations. I am very comfortably off, but my savings wouldn't last long if I or my husband (who is 70) needed care. Not at the rate of £40,000 a year EACH. And my children have no savings to speak of.
The country needs a radical re-think of care for the elderly. We aren't going to go away. A baby born today will likely live to 100, but probably with disabilities both mental and physical. And gone are the days of final-salary pension schemes, big redundancy payouts, and other things that can help in retirement.
But this country needs a radical re-think of a lot of things, doesn't it? Payments to the low-paid, the sick, the disabled, single-parent families, pensioners with no extra income, and so on. 120,000 children will spend this Christmas in B&B accommodation or worse. How does that improve people's aspirations? How does that encourage anyone to better themselves? How can they even do it, all cramped in one room? These children will likely turn to crime, or drugs, their desperate mothers to drink, or prostitution. I am not saying they all will, cos many have pride and common sense, but you can see how it all too easily can happen.
The government has to realise that it needs to spend to save. Every penny spent on proper housing saves a tenner at least in future problems with delinquency, drug abuse or crime (I made the figure up, I bet it will save more). Every penny spent on welfare benefits saves a tenner in healthcare costs due to people struggling to feed themselves and becoming ill, or being too tired to concentrate at school. Every penny spent on helping the elderly stay in their own homes, or be cared for in a Care Home saves a tenner in treatment for pneumonia, hypothermia, accidents or whatever.
But governments don't seem to see this. Prevention is cheaper than cure.
We are one of the richest nations on earth and we have far too many people in dire straits, and I hate it. I would gladly pay more in income tax to pay for proper social care for everyone who needs it, and that includes benefits. Yes, some will abuse the system, just as some wealthy people escape paying income tax. Without appearing to judge, I'd give more brownie points to the poor person lying to get benefits than I would to Lord Haw Haw escaping a tax bill of two million pounds.
I don't know how we get governments to resolve this - cos it is down to governments, not individuals - cos the Tories won't borrow money to help those in need, and Labour appear to borrow too much and don't help the economy as a whole. And we do need a strong economy to make things affordable. I doubt many of the Tory MPs even know anyone on benefits or struggling with ill health, and nowadays that applies to many Labour MPs. For myself, I vote Lib Dem, but who knows how they would manage it all if they were in power on their own. We had 5 years of the recent coalition and people have already forgotten the good things they insisted upon, but there was loads more that they had to sit back on and accept. So I can't say they have the answers either.
There is in fact only one answer and that is to increase both income tax on individuals and corporation tax on companies. Both have been reduced significantly in the last 30 years with no clear reason why. The UK now has one of the lowest tax rate regimes in the world. The good news is that due to the Lib Dems in coalition a person can earn £221 a week before paying tax, but above that tax must be paid. I cannot see why a sliding scale cannot be introduced, with, say, the first £5,000 above the tax-free figure at 5%, the next £5,000 at 10%, the next £5,000 at 15% and so on, till higher earners pay at (say) 60%. The first increase of 2% to go to the NHS, the next increase to go to The Welfare system, and then education.
Why isn't someone thumping the table on this? Cos they don't care. Well I DO care, and I want government to change things - and fast.
Meg
.
