So it's National Insurance then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

The richest in the UK made huge amounts of money on the back of the pandemic, why not tax them?

Answer - because the tories have been bought out by them and the average person from the UK decides its immigrants fault instead of the mega rich (thanks to the daily mail and the sun)

---

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobody's Rep

Residential care for adults is very rarely tendered - they rely on finding spaces that are void in any given home - most residential homes have a variety of charges in their homes dependant on the source of the care package

Nursing home spaces are different to residential care as these are purchased by the health boards in the main

Domiciliary care is usually the area that gets tendered more often and this is done on bundles of hours rather than individuals to begin with.

So it's up to all providers to decide what they bid for and what they don't not about any pre determined council lists

---

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Gillis

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

---

It's not just a welsh thing

Plenty of English and Scottish people don't like them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Gillis

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

---

good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

---

Spot on. Carers who work for an agency, aren't paid travelling time or gaps between calls. They could have their first call at 4pm, and their last at 10.30pm. But with only 6 or 7 half hour calls, maybe 4 hrs work, at £9 per hour, that's £37 and out for 6.5 hrs, plus wear and tear on the car. ****ing disgrace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Spot on. Carers who work for an agency, aren't paid travelling time or gaps between calls. They could have their first call at 4pm, and their last at 10.30pm. But with only 6 or 7 half hour calls, maybe 4 hrs work, at £9 per hour, that's £37 and out for 6.5 hrs, plus wear and tear on the car. ****ing disgrace.

---

It's shocking . If we need extra care at the weekend I pay the carers 15 quid an hour . They don't tell the care agency , nor do I and they make good money to see them through .

I am not prepared to pay a care company already making a killing extra on top .

They phone me a few days before a bank holiday and say do you want cover ? I say no because if I say yes the care company charges the council double time yet only pays the carer 9 quid !

So I just pay the carers direct and everyone's happy . We get carers she likes , the care company don't screw the council and don't make money by not passing on double time to the carers .

These care companies have glossy websites and brochures but they are screwing their staff into the ground and screwing the councils and the vulnerable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re-sign Carl Dale

Yes - the last part is correct, in that the property is protected, although potentially a charge from the LA could be put against the surviving spouses' 50%

You are also right about it being a nightmare (plus other tax complications) for a house to be owned 50% by widow and the rest amongst the children. Aside from any issues about wanting to sell, if someone gets divorced, what was mum & dad's home would be part of the settlement!!!

More common would be to use a Trust - that's what we do for our clients. Simply put, when one partner dies, their half of the house goes in Trust for the children, however the condition is that the surviving spouse lives there (rent free) for the rest of their life. The children don't have any control / access until both parents die. This solves any tax issues, and it's not part of the estate of the children in the event of family breakups, bankruptcy etc.

---

It was too late to go down the Trust route. I did consider it (after a conversation with a fellow Bluebird in the Canton!). No way mum would change her will. Trusts are very much long term and, as you say, take control away from the eventual beneficiaries. I'm sure I read somewhere that a Trust, set up shortly before someone dies, could be seen as tax evasion by HMRC. Plus the issue of what happens to the Trust assets if the beneficiaries pre-decease the surviving parent. Tricky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

---

A young lady near me has just joined my choir. She's in her early 20s and is a carer in a home somewhere around Ponty. She gets her working hours for the following week a few days before the start of that week. She can request not to work certain times but if she's needed, then tough. £9 an hour, even if it's a night shift. Her old car recently failed an MOT and, without having any money to fall back on, has had to buy a second hand car on finance. Without a car she couldn't work. She is renting a house near me and barely has any money left after bills have been paid. She lives on her own.

It's tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanD

It was too late to go down the Trust route. I did consider it (after a conversation with a fellow Bluebird in the Canton!). No way mum would change her will. Trusts are very much long term and, as you say, take control away from the eventual beneficiaries. I'm sure I read somewhere that a Trust, set up shortly before someone dies, could be seen as tax evasion by HMRC. Plus the issue of what happens to the Trust assets if the beneficiaries pre-decease the surviving parent. Tricky.

---

The answer is it depends on the trust and what its intended purpose was for.

Trusts can be set up legitimately, then settlors die of natural causes. HMRC wouldn't automatically assume the purpose of the trust was to avoid tax if the death of the settlor was not a predictable event at settlement.

Setting up a trust on your deathbed would see HMRC ignore the trust.

However for the purpose of this thread s102 Care Act 2014 is relevant, and places the cost burden on the life tenant of the trust.

Apropos of your final point, most trusts have provisions for either new beneficiaries or the termination of the trust and who are absolutely entitled to the assets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

It's shocking . If we need extra care at the weekend I pay the carers 15 quid an hour . They don't tell the care agency , nor do I and they make good money to see them through .

I am not prepared to pay a care company already making a killing extra on top .

They phone me a few days before a bank holiday and say do you want cover ? I say no because if I say yes the care company charges the council double time yet only pays the carer 9 quid !

So I just pay the carers direct and everyone's happy . We get carers she likes , the care company don't screw the council and don't make money by not passing on double time to the carers .

These care companies have glossy websites and brochures but they are screwing their staff into the ground and screwing the councils and the vulnerable

---

Absolutely agree. The Domiciliary care industry has a massive turnover of staff, and for obvious reasons, it isn't seen as a career industry. The job some of these carers do (if done correctly) can save the NHS a large sum of money by keeping service users (horrible phrase) in their own homes and out of hospital, because of something shit, like pressure sores. Very important job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

A young lady near me has just joined my choir. She's in her early 20s and is a carer in a home somewhere around Ponty. She gets her working hours for the following week a few days before the start of that week. She can request not to work certain times but if she's needed, then tough. £9 an hour, even if it's a night shift. Her old car recently failed an MOT and, without having any money to fall back on, has had to buy a second hand car on finance. Without a car she couldn't work. She is renting a house near me and barely has any money left after bills have been paid. She lives on her own.

It's tough.

---

It's disgraceful

Most of the carers here come from the Bridgend valleys

A lot of the carers are single mums or living with their parents

9 quid an hour whilst the care company bosses go on cruises 3 times a year

Making money out of the vulnerable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

It's shocking . If we need extra care at the weekend I pay the carers 15 quid an hour . They don't tell the care agency , nor do I and they make good money to see them through .

I am not prepared to pay a care company already making a killing extra on top .

They phone me a few days before a bank holiday and say do you want cover ? I say no because if I say yes the care company charges the council double time yet only pays the carer 9 quid !

So I just pay the carers direct and everyone's happy . We get carers she likes , the care company don't screw the council and don't make money by not passing on double time to the carers .

These care companies have glossy websites and brochures but they are screwing their staff into the ground and screwing the councils and the vulnerable

---

There are some huge generalisations in there as there some good private companies but others who do employ poor employment practice

Have you talked to the LA about direct payments where you can control who you employ to provide care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Absolutely agree. The Domiciliary care industry has a massive turnover of staff, and for obvious reasons, it isn't seen as a career industry. The job some of these carers do (if done correctly) can save the NHS a large sum of money by keeping service users (horrible phrase) in their own homes and out of hospital, because of something shit, like pressure sores. Very important job.

---

Too right , there are some very good carers out there amongst the knackered and burnt out

If they were paid better , just a few quid extra an hour , it's so obvious everybody would be happier

But people don't want to pay for it .....until they need it for their loved ones then its a different story

So we have a social care system where vulnerable people are looked after by a tired and disillusioned workforce who survive on terrible wages whilst the private companies screw everyone over

Bring it back under Local Authority and NHS control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobody's Rep

There are some huge generalisations in there as there some good private companies but others who do employ poor employment practice

Have you talked to the LA about direct payments where you can control who you employ to provide care?

---

Judging by my experience , the experience of friends with elderly parents and chats with the staff of 4 care companies who have provided care for my family it's just the tip of the iceberg

All the ones we have been allocated pay the minimum wage

And there are lots of staff at breaking point

If you have experience of working in or dealing with care companies then that's your view but in the area I live there are lots of horror stories from the staff , and complaints about staff

It's not isolated

I mean when people with little experience of caring for vulnerable people set up a private company and pay their staff low wages ......right across the board ......the money wins everytime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Too right , there are some very good carers out there amongst the knackered and burnt out

If they were paid better , just a few quid extra an hour , it's so obvious everybody would be happier

But people don't want to pay for it .....until they need it for their loved ones then its a different story

So we have a social care system where vulnerable people are looked after by a tired and disillusioned workforce who survive on terrible wages whilst the private companies screw everyone over

Bring it back under Local Authority and NHS control

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Judging by my experience , the experience of friends with elderly parents and chats with the staff of 4 care companies who have provided care for my family it's just the tip of the iceberg

All the ones we have been allocated pay the minimum wage

And there are lots of staff at breaking point

If you have experience of working in or dealing with care companies then that's your view but in the area I live there are lots of horror stories from the staff , and complaints about staff

It's not isolated

I mean when people with little experience of caring for vulnerable people set up a private company and pay their staff low wages ......right across the board ......the money wins everytime

---

I have experience of a couple of private care agencies, and in my opinion, both were negligent on times and put the service user at risk of harm due to the shoddy training provided. 3 days in house training in order to learn how to hoist someone with MS or Parkinsons, dementia etc. It's scary.

95 percent of care for the vulnerable at home was provided in house in 1993

Now it's all been outsourced to these money making private companies

And it's very rare for the local authority ......unless it's for hospital discharge ....to be involved ......and if they are it's for a few weeks ......then the private companies are on the money again .

It's unbelievable , but true that in this country millions of frail and vulnerable people are not looked after by decent paid staff with uniforms , workers rights and pensions ....but by poorly motivated , badly treated individuals

Even worse than this is the fact is billions of cash is going to private companies in the process

Some of these care companies are franchises and are raking it in on the back of others

Thatcher started all this , Blair did feck all to change things and Boris is just tiddling around the edges

He will be OK though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

I have experience of a couple of private care agencies, and in my opinion, both were negligent on times and put the service user at risk of harm due to the shoddy training provided. 3 days in house training in order to learn how to hoist someone with MS or Parkinsons, dementia etc. It's scary.

---

My old man was in a care home which had just one hoist

And that was broken

I went to see him and he was left in a common room , nobody there , in his own piss

Got him out of there and he died shortly after

All these brochures about individual care , quality staff it's mostly a joke

Why don't these people just admit it ? We are a business and we are here to make money 💰

I could accept that, it's the quality of care that matters

The local authority care homes locally are excellent . The staff stay there for a reason .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

My old man was in a care home which had just one hoist

And that was broken

I went to see him and he was left in a common room , nobody there , in his own piss

Got him out of there and he died shortly after

All these brochures about individual care , quality staff it's mostly a joke

Why don't these people just admit it ? We are a business and we are here to make money ��

I could accept that, it's the quality of care that matters

The local authority care homes locally are excellent . The staff stay there for a reason .

---

Agree entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Gillis

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

---

Absolutely typical of a tory, can never actually explain why its bollocks just says its bollocks so must be true.

I can feel your face getting redder and redder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

Absolutely typical of a tory, can never actually explain why its bollocks just says its bollocks so must be true.

I can feel your face getting redder and redder.

---

I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feedback

I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.

---

See you can't explain. You're just so enraged from 30 years of consuming tory media that other opinions just have to be wrong in your head otherwise it fries your brain, even if you can't explain.

This is the 3rd attempt of asking tories in here to explain why I'm wrong and none of you have even tried, you just divert divert divert.

Ps - I studied economics at university so please get the crayons out and teach me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feedback

The answer is it depends on the trust and what its intended purpose was for.

Trusts can be set up legitimately, then settlors die of natural causes. HMRC wouldn't automatically assume the purpose of the trust was to avoid tax if the death of the settlor was not a predictable event at settlement.

Setting up a trust on your deathbed would see HMRC ignore the trust.

However for the purpose of this thread s102 Care Act 2014 is relevant, and places the cost burden on the life tenant of the trust.

Apropos of your final point, most trusts have provisions for either new beneficiaries or the termination of the trust and who are absolutely entitled to the assets.

---

The Trust route wasn't a suitable way forward in the case of my mother as her death was predictable (terminal cancer) and almost certainly would have been seen as evasion by HMRC. Our wills do have Trust provision though. Time to check them through regarding the wording of the Trust. The law may have changed since written and Trustees may have died/retired or, in the case of one former partner in the solicitor's practice, been done for property fraud!
It will be interesting to see how (if?) voluntary NICs are affected by the rise in NIC contributions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

See you can't explain. You're just so enraged from 30 years of consuming tory media that other opinions just have to be wrong in your head otherwise it fries your brain, even if you can't explain.

---

You've not asked me to explain anything. You've rattled your cage and stamped your foot, but other than that, all that has manifested is a lot of bluster and dogma. Notwithstanding that point, turning to your comments:

1. I agree with you that the older generation need to contribute more, considering they will be the primary beneficiaries and to date, they almost certainly have not contributed anywhere near enough for the services they have received

2. I disagree to the extent that the Tories have profited from the pandemic. Its true that some businesses will have used their relationships with ministers to get their foot in the door but lets not forget it is the civil service that sign off the contracts, not the ministers. It would be down to the civil service to ensure the tenders met the criteria. The Ministers themselves have no say, and can only make the introduction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

This is the 3rd attempt of asking tories in here to explain why I'm wrong and none of you have even tried, you just divert divert divert.

---

you've not asked me. Perhaps it is the way you ask it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

Ps - I studied economics at university so please get the crayons out and teach me.

---

are we supposed to be impressed that you studied a pseudo science at the college of knowledge. Economics has so many competing theories it cannot be taken seriously, the theory you adopt often depends on your politics (Keynsian, Chicago, Austrian etc). its at best an art

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feedback

You've not asked me to explain anything. You've rattled your cage and stamped your foot, but other than that, all that has manifested is a lot of bluster and dogma. Notwithstanding that point, turning to your comments:

1. I agree with you that the older generation need to contribute more, considering they will be the primary beneficiaries and to date, they almost certainly have not contributed anywhere near enough for the services they have received

2. I disagree to the extent that the Tories have profited from the pandemic. Its true that some businesses will have used their relationships with ministers to get their foot in the door but lets not forget it is the civil service that sign off the contracts, not the ministers. It would be down to the civil service to ensure the tenders met the criteria. The Ministers themselves have no say, and can only make the introduction


you've not asked me. Perhaps it is the way you ask it.

are we supposed to be impressed that you studied a pseudo science at the college of knowledge. Economics has so many competing theories it cannot be taken seriously, the theory you adopt often depends on your politics (Keynsian, Chicago, Austrian etc). its at best an art

---

You literally said 'I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.' But you didn't then explain, so that's what I'm asking you to explain.

I didn't say tories on earlier posts have benefitted, I've said the ultra wealthy have which is true.

Well you patronised me by saying you need to explain with crayons why my posts are 'bollocks' so I thought I'd bring up that I actually have studied economics to knock you off your pedestal, most tories seem to have either learned economics from Rupert Murdoch or the ScHoOl oF lIfE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

You literally said 'I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.' But you didn't then explain, so that's what I'm asking you to explain.

---

that's because I did not have the time nor the crayons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

I didn't say tories on earlier posts have benefitted, I've said the ultra wealthy have which is true.

---

but you did say it was down to their Tory mates, which isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

Well you patronised me by saying you need to explain with crayons why my posts are 'bollocks' so I thought I'd bring up that I actually have studied economics to knock you off your pedestal, most tories seem to have either learned economics from Rupert Murdoch or the ScHoOl oF lIfE

---

I'm not on a pedestal, and I'm not sure advertising you've studied what is at best an art adds the credence you think it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

You literally said 'I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.' But you didn't then explain, so that's what I'm asking you to explain.

I didn't say tories on earlier posts have benefitted, I've said the ultra wealthy have which is true.

Well you patronised me by saying you need to explain with crayons why my posts are 'bollocks' so I thought I'd bring up that I actually have studied economics to knock you off your pedestal, most tories seem to have either learned economics from Rupert Murdoch or the ScHoOl oF lIfE

---

You talk about Tories the way Tommy Robinson talks about islam.

It's very difficult to engage with people so politically partisan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You talk about Tories the way Tommy Robinson talks about islam.

It's very difficult to engage with people so politically partisan.

---

I think Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson are two sides of the same coin

Boris has plenty of form for racist insults

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I think Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson are two sides of the same coin

Boris has plenty of form for racist insults

---

Boris has said many stupid things

But he is nothing like Robinson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

Boris has said many stupid things

But he is nothing like Robinson

---

He's said many racist things

Just like Tommy Robinson

Just because he went to Eton and talks posh doesn't make his racist remarks any more forgivable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I think Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson are two sides of the same coin

Boris has plenty of form for racist insults

---

That's way off the mark ,Boris is a buffoon Robinson is evil

Household bills will soar by more than £1,500 a year with families on the cusp of the biggest spending squeeze in nearly a decade, experts warn.

Take away £20 from the poorest put up NI. This country is fecked.