91热爆

Thank you for a straightforward account in plain English - clearly there are major funding issues for various services. But there are things that local services can do that don't necessarily cost money - like making sure that older people's health and wellbeing are supported by removing ageism in general services, ensuring that over 50's are able to work and volunteer, and better marketing more towards this group. Our attitudes in this country towards "older people" need to change - perhaps this is linked to the problems experienced by young people too.

We need to look after the elderly in our society as they are ones who raised us

I find it amazing that we are having this debate. Many elderly people have children. They should look after their parents in their old age. My mother looked after her parents when they were older and it is only fair that my wife and I should look after my mother when she is older. I believe that this is happening already. Perhaps people who do look after their parents should be given tax breaks. Children should never consider it a burden however.

I am childless through circumstance and whilst I have lots of nephews and nieces I can't guarantee any of them would be willing to take care of me when the time comes. What arrangements should people in my situation make?

From a broad macroeconomic perspective, it would seem that demand for resources (from the elderly) has grown while the supply of resources (productivity of the working population) has remained stagnant.

Today's worry that the ageing population presents a crisis is born of the tranistory nature of our situation. Eventually the situation will resolve itself via market forces: people will be forced to accept working further into old age and the demand will be met. If humans live to 300 years on average, they will work for 275 years on average. But because most of us expect to die before the age of 100, we resent being told to work past 70.

Life expectancies have, in general, been rising for hundreds of years. So have the average length of working careers. It's the way society works - you work most of your life.

Hence the current situation is unsustainable. Unfortunately, living until 150 does not mean that you can have 80 years of retirement.

My mother's plan for what she will do if/when she needs nursing care is to get together with some of her mates in the same situation (or find compatable people, perhaps using the internet), putting their money together to buy a large house/lots of houses very close to each other and between them hiring a nurse or nurses to do the medical stuff. The more mobile would do things like cooking and they would probably have a cleaner in a few times a week. The difference between this and normal working care would be that the nurses etc would be working for them and if they gave bad care would just be fired!

evan,

are you aware of a little place called Scotland? seems to me you might have mentioned the status of care up there...

My parents are about to retire. It is their choice to sell their house and to give us kids a part of the proceeds. The rest they will enjoy and it will give them a nice retirement(if there is any left when they die we will inherit it) I am planning on building a flat on the side of my house for them to live in. The more who are willing to do this the more properties there will be around and the easier it will be to do. They are healthy now and removing the stress of looking after a house hopefully will keep them that way longer. I want to do this because they put caring for me (and my brothers) above a flash career and good pension. The bottom line is why do we expect the state to look after them if we can't be bothered to.

Its all symptons of the breakdown of society. People are living longer for sure but people are less likely to want to care for there parents because there parents are more likely to not have cared for them particularly well.

Thanks to 'womens rights' those women who should be encouraged to breed and look after there children don't until they are much older and then only raise maybe 1 or 2 children if at all. The parents who do breed young tend to be those out to blag money off the state anyway and bring up equally unproductive children and so they don't care for there parents either.

An ageing society is the problem but more so is the break down of society.

The only solution is personal insurance i for one certainly resent my taxes being spent on looking after old people when i know for a fact when i get to there age young people will not be paying for me because there won't be the money.

So privatisation has to happen now. In the end we can go on about the NHS but look at it logically.

We are supposed to have NHS dentistry but we have the worst dental treatment in the devloped world and in America they have no NHS and yet people have far better treatment from denplan etc.

We have become a self obsessed selfish society driven purly be greed people don't even know there own neighbours any more.

We also have huge immigration problems people coming form all over the world pleading asylum just so they can steal our money and get free healthcare.

So as such the NHS is an outdated system and needs to be slimmed down considerably.

My Mum brought me up and sacrificed a lot to get me to where I am today. She retires this year and if she needs a helping hand I'll only be too happy. I also have a friend who is in his mid 50's who is disabled and has no family close by. I have no problems helping with transport, shopping or general day to day tasks. I work full time, have a husband who himself is unwell and I still have the time to help people out, I only hope someone does the same for me if I'm ever in that position. Just in case they don't I have a pension plan and life insurance as a small cushion!

Getting old - none of wants to think about it and when we have to it is too late.

My quirky view :

Personal Pensions are a great thing and should be encouraged, however they produce a personal provision i.e. It is for me and not for anyone else.

This conflicts with the seemingly outdated concept of caring for your own elders, where a moral obligation is the motivator.

Therefore we live in a world where we are encouraged to make a selfish personal provision. To do this most of us have to work full time, thereby reducing the number of hours we have available for our possible family obligations.

Have we swung too far towards a selfish provision in the last few decades? If so how can this trend be reversed?

Should we not look at this a bit more widely? What about the effect of general social inequality? Wealthy people are always going to able to fund care for their elderly. The poorest usually get the bare minimum, while those in the middle get fleeced by the rules regarding savings and property as described by Evan.

Also why is the state funding useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and paying vast amounts for armaments and all sorts of other useless things? The elderly have paid taxes for all their working lives (and probably still pay income tax if they have a pension).

I think that social solidarity is important too. Many people are simply unable to care for their parents as well as their children and hold down jobs and everything else that life involves. Society needs to care for its vulnerable in general.

The sick, young,old and otherwise vulnerable should always be cared for as an absolute priority, above profit, war and other useless fripperies. But it should not be individualised on to family members who may have many other priorities.

This problem is going to grow as the pensions gap widens. The refusal of the government to guarantee pension funds lost through company failure or greed just increases the problem.

I'm a higher rate tax payer and relatively well off, but I don't mind my taxes funding the NHS, social care for the elderly and children, decent transport, good housing and other useful things.

Dear Evan, an excellent article, thankyou.

I will start to consider how I can best look after my own mother and then think about how my children can take care of me too. If I can come up with any good ideas I will try to relate these to other people in the community etc.

I was brought up to believe that this was all handled for us by the politicians, health services etc. but I can plainly see the inequalities in society and these coupled with medical and health advances were always going to mean unpopular choices. We must remember that a ot of us did not approve of Mrs T's efforts to sell off the family silver and are not surprised to see the chickens coming home to roost.

I also think the Govt. should target a gradual return to financial control for things such as mortgage / salary multipliers etc. so that things like the 2/3rds Final salary schemes can be brought back.

There I feel better for my little rant!!

Take care and good luck to you in the London, I did it in 2004 in a time of two hours eighty nine minutes at the age of 50 so no pressure for you there eh?

Kindest Regards

Peter

The government spends a huge proportion of tax payers money on caring for the needy, and as yu correclty said to imrpove this service woudl require hgiher taxation which creates alot of hatred and grumbles however OAP's who are in the siutation of needing care can in a number of cases be taken for a ride, by paying huge fee's for a single roomed flat. Parents are now coming arund to the idea of buying their children a presnt which is whorthwhile for example a goat in India to help a family, or a well etc and this same prospect could be put to that of OAP's.

The government currently spends over 10 million each year on pensions. This is moeny whcih is being paid ut which does not have to be. If a law was itnroudced that evreyone once reaching the age of 18 ( 21 if you are a student studying at university ) had to set up a priavte pension fund with either oyur buisness or bank then this would go some way to help pay for care if required later in life. Within 50 years when the pensions of this age would be startwed to be withdrawn they would not be needed as people have paid into a pension fund and do not require a state pension and the excess money withi the system can then go to pay for those who do require extra care and support or to sorting out some of the countries crisis's such as the NHS. Exceptions of course would be made for those who could not work during thier lifetime.

Seems to me the inheritance tax rules need a complete overhaul; many people resent the low starting point and simplistic nature of the tax.
I think Katherine has the right idea and Kate's Mum too; but these seem both to be from affluent (and careful!) households, so we will still need to raise a considerable sum from tax to fund similar arrangments for those who can't do this. Dare I say I think inheriting a sum of more than 拢250k tax-free is pretty generous from any parent to the 1 or 2 children they usually have?

One of my daughter's classmates (her father an immigrant! but who worked for 91热爆!)lived with her family in rented rooms om a large old house with an old man living upstairs. Everyone seemed to benefit from this arrangement; perhpas we could have a system like this more formalised and supported by the tax system more effectively.

Hi Evan, loving your blog.

The sad and cold truth is that, in purely economic terms, the elderly are nothing but a burden on society, unlike children which can be viewed as an investment. Luckily there are more than economic forces at play: humans have a caring side to them that wants to protect and nurture all those in their community (well, most do!). The only fair way I can see of us all making a fair contribution to elderly care is through taxation. (Private insurance can be taken by individuals who wish to ensure a higher level of care.)

As medical advances are made, society will continue to age. But also this should also mean that people should be able to work longer, add more capital to the economy, pay a bit more tax and therefore help fund this. If the relation between retirement age and average life expectancy, shouldn't the system balance itself out? Therefore governments need to be brave enough to increase retirement age, to avoid the neglect of the elderly.

I am now into my thirties and do not plan on having children for a few years yet. My sister is in the same position, and we are my mother's only children.

I worry for my mother's future. The chances are that when she needs our care, we will still be looking after our own growing families. My mother had to retire to look after my grandfather. As the main breadwinner, I won't be able to afford to do the same - and I can't yet afford to have children. We only just managed to buy a house last year.

My mother suggests we might move her into a 'granny annex' close to our future home, or even part of it. This would also let her be close to her grandchildren; available for both wisdom and babysitting.

Parents.

Only when they are gone, and when we are in their position, will we truly appreciate them for what they did.

Giving us that extra helping of fried rice even though they are hungry from working all day, buying us those trainers instead of treating themselves, taking time off work to nurse us back to health when we catch cold.

Parents.

If we cannot even care for them, then what has become of our humanity? We should not be surprised when our children too refuse to take look after us. What goes around, comes around.

In response to Nick, whilst this system sounds ideal in theory, the reality is that for 50 years, the unfortunate people working are paying both for the pensions of those already retired through taxes, as well as for their own pensions in a private fund.

Who is going to agree to that?

This sort of idea goes hand in hand with the common misconception that the money we pay in our taxes for pensions now is the same money we will recieve later in life.............

If there is a shortage of people to look after old people then perhaps automation is the way forward. The Japanese are already producing robot companions for their aging population and it will be interesting to see how they address this issue.

It is a seductive idea to say that our parents looked after us, so we should look after them. However, if they have Dementia, blindness or other condition requiring more than casual care, it would be beyond most working couples ability to provide this without one or other giving up work. For most couples this would be financially difficult if not impossible.

There is another consequence of people having fewer children. I am an only child; my parents are divorced and cannot stand being anywhere near each other. The responsibility for their care as they get older rests with me and me alone, but how am I supposed to be able to afford to support three separate households? They have few assets of their own (divorce tends to involve a loss of assets). I can barely support myself thanks to a low graduate wage and extortionate rent and I don't see how I will ever be able to afford children of my own. Seems as though I'm part of a 'sandwich' generation, being squeezed financially from all sides...

Although a good article, it ignores a couple of reasons why "adopt a granny" does not always work. Firstly, it assumes that the children will actually be able to look after their parents. There might be physical reasons why this is just impossible, or the children may actually choose to continue in work well beyond the official retirement age. Given the current government's stance on delaying retirement age, this might become more of a problem.
The second problem is that many parents simply do not want to be looked after by their children, due to their pride, or perhaps the fact that they want to see their children continuing to be "free" of such a burden.
It can be heartbreaking to watch an elderly loved one growing more and more frail, and perhaps more and more senile. The stress associated with doing so can surely contribute to the burden on the NHS etc as it can cause a number of problems in itself such as depression. Furthermore, if the parent requires a great deal of support, this can lead to the carer becoming alienated from the world.
Caring is something that should not be looked at lightly. It requires a huge commitment and I'm afraid that this article misses the impact that undertaking caring can have. It can put strain on other relationships, and this can have impact on wider society.
This is a difficult subject, which requires real, feasible solutions. We have to recognise that every case is different, and solutions should, as far as possible, be tailor-made for each case. Please don't assume that any one solution is better than another.

Ideally among an ageing population the majority will remain healthy until they suddenly die. If no cure of alleviation is found for dementias, we could enable sufferers, lacking family or friends who visit, to go to a warm and sunny place such as Thailand, which is a Buddhist society that cares for the aged. Modern homes could be built there. Non-demented folk with rarely visiting friends/family might choose to go too. Young and older people could visit who go there as tourists. Relatives might take sunshine breaks. Costs would be less than in UK! Can we ever find enough good carers over here to help this situation?

I am middle aged and long-term severely mentally ill. I have no children. My parents are old and physically deteriorating. We have a symbiotic relationship.

But I anticipate a conflict in the future. I may become well enough to work again yet find that my parents need full-time care. Which then will I do? Stay at home and care for them (saving the taxpayer the cost of caring for them) or go out to work myself (contributing to my own future care).

There are no nice tidy answers to the problems of an aging population.

It's a lovely idea that we can all look after our parents, but it rests on the notion that they will not require that much care: popping round, giving them meals, giving them a helping hand now and then. The problem is that elderly people with dementia need 24 hour care, and it can be unsafe for them to live at home. How do you keep your parent from wandering out the front door at night, or turning on the gas to the cooker but not lighting it, or falling down the stairs, while you're asleep? Elderly people with grave physical illnesses may require intensive nursing care as well - lifting, carrying, bathing, and dressing them, for instance. Add to that the fact that many "children" of elderly people are in late middle age or elderly themselves, e.g. the child of an 85 year old could easily be 60. This is why, like it or not, many elderly people will need residential care: Not because children are selfish but because they have intensive needs that require professional staff, a 24-hour rota, and a specially-adapted environment.

Yes, retirees are a burden and yes, I think we should provide funds (through taxation) to care for them.

I believe the problem arises in the standard of state provided care. I have some personal experience of how even the better facilities are still fairly awful. The services available (staff and facilities) are not paid for directly by those using them.

Therefore, if they are not satisfied with the quality of care they are receiving, they cannot look to a competitor to give them a better or cheaper service. Essentially the same lack of choice we have with the NHS and public transport.

I think it is this lack of competition that is making the overall level of service poor, and introducing a massive inefficiency into this industry.

I think this is the place to start if we intend to improve the situation.

Does anyone have any clever ideas on how to solve this?

I am in my 20's and I look at my parents as they are now in their 50's (but not together). My mother automatically assumes that I will be 'looking after her' which she thinks is now. My mother caused a lot of family heart ache over the years and has contracted illness from alcoholism. I will not be looking after her, as I believe you get what you give and her situation is totally self-inflicted.

My father on the other hand more than made up for my mother, and I will do anything to look after him when the times comes.

I think it depends on how much of a good parent you have been before you can expect to be cared for by your children.

What the hell are you people on? What drug makes you this selfish? Family values in 2007? It is a ME ME ME society.

"Oh I can't afford to look after my mom so i will have to let the state"
"Oh but it might be best for them..."
"Can't we send them to Thailand... to live with Bhuddist monks"
That is what is coming through.

Yes, they can live anywhere apart from with ME!

After all you might break a nail changing your father's incontinence pad; it's beneath you to mop up your mother's vomit after her chemo session - but the State can deal with that.

I guess they are not any use to you so you may as well put them in a home until they croak it and you can claim the readies like the dutiful children you are!

I am sure your parents would be so proud of you - but maybe your values and morals are different to your parents - you see them as disposable as your play station, your widescreen television or one season designer handbag.

The attitude towards the elderly in this country is abysmal, children have right and are protected in law, it doesn't extend to the elderly and it seems neither does respect.

I have very fond memories of minding my gran ( and a less disabled aunt too!) as a child growing up. I would gladly care for an elderly person again, as it brings such balance to a frentic pace of life now. When you change and bath an old person you love, it is hard to be stressed about the politics of work! The smell of Lux, baby oil and powder still fills me with happy memories, the smile on my grans face when we turned her and hugged her - its a two-way system, and don't ever under-estimate the pleasure it gives to the care-giver too! The only problem is the lack of support; decent weekly respite care; decent annual holidays for home-carers; decent pay for carers, based on the amount of care needed by their relative ( some need very little, some almost constant attention); decent work-breaks ( like parental leave/maternity leave). It would be much cheaper, much better for all concerned if only the supports were in place for people to take this on.

One last word of caution; I have known HUGE neglect of dependent people too, in the care of ignorent or uncaring relatives. An independent system of supervision has to be a key part of any home-based care regime.

One thing I want to avoid on this blog is dangerous over-simplification, and I am afraid I have no 'silver bullet'.

One thing which is important to point is a statistic which I read in Private Eye.

It claims that the cost of the NHS IT system, which is yet to be delivered, would pay for the 'Alzheimer's' drug which is in the news for 200 years.

One has to treat 'false dichotomy' arguments like this with caution, since it is arguable that we can't avoid for ever the need to spend money on NHS IT.

And as we spend money on this drug and other life-lengthening medication demand will increase. But prevention has always been better than cure, and no doubt far cheaper.

I agree with you though, the time when we can 'pass the buck' on this is long passed. If anyone has doubts about how the ageing population will change us all go and see the film 'Venus' with Peter O'Toole.

There exists a scheme in Japan for families to adopt an elderly non-relative. It's probably a better idea than looking after one's own elderly relatives, as most people seem to find the transition between looking after own children, and being looked after by them, too much of a shock in the emotional landscape.

In France you can pay a person's mortgage through their old age and then inherit their house, only this backfired on the poor bloke who sponsored Mme Calment (d. age 123)!

Perhaps the problem here is that things are not yet bad enough for people to make the hard choices. Or at least people do not know they are bad enough.

Care homes cost anything from 拢25,000 per year, depending on where you are (and this is operating at marginal profit with staff on minimum wage). The average survival time from diagnosis for Alzheimer's disease is 8 years. 1 in 4 people over 80 will develop it.

Now the average person cannot, with the best will in the world, be expected to save 拢200,000 for this contingency in addition to their pension. Actuarial based models for care villages require residents to pay 拢50,000 plus to cover potential future care costs (a one off premium).

Ultimately society must underwrite the cost of care, and this will be expensive.

So while the 3 in 4 families unaffected feel it is unfair that those unlucky enough to succumb leave no inheritance because of means testing, they do not feel it is so unfair that they are willing to make up the difference.

Ultimately this is a moral hazard of the welfare state. No-one will willingly cough up such an amount while the safety net of welfare exists. Easier to argue why it is the responsibility of the state.

Perhaps this is why the inheritance tax debate at present feels so disingenuous and distasteful.

Maybe getting hoodies (read: young people who can't be bothered to get a job) to care for the elderly could solve some of society's problems. Mind, we must let David Cameron finish hugging them first!

If we remember the love our parents showered upon us when we were young and dependent, fretting over us when we were sick, working long hours so we could have a holiday, how could we begrudge them our best love when they are old and dependent. There is nothing we could do to repay them.

The current problem of the ageing population is, in part, a result of declining birth rates. People fear they cannot look after children financially or they want to pursue their own career. It's the same selfishness that makes people not want to look after their parents.

I have read this blog with interest as my 86 year old mother now needs 24 hour care. About two and a half years ago she moved into a "retirement apartment" which seemed a good solution to my sister and I as we knew someone would be on hand should she fall or be taken ill. In reality, the duty managers at the complex cannot lift her if they are on duty alone. (elf n safety!)They have to phone my sister or me, and one of us has to travel the 20 miles to help. The falls have become much more frequent and she is now very confused and prone to wandering at night, so we have had to take the decision to find a residential home. She will fund her own care so will not be a drain on the public purse. Yes, in an ideal world one of us could have her to live with us, but we are both in our sixties, my sister has an invalid husband, and I am a widow living alone so 24 hour care would be exactly that for me - and neither of us have homes that could cater for an immobile octogenarian without a lot of time spent adapting various aspects. After much searching, we have found a vacancy at a home ten minutes walk from my house. Mother was keen to go to put an end to the loneliness. She has been there two weeks now, and has not found it easy to settle, but as she keeps saying it is early days yet. On the plus side, she looks much better, and the time we spend with her is quality time, chatting, reminiscing and laughing. Not like before when all we had time to do when visiting was cook or clean or run errands. I am however consumed with guilt that this has to be the solution, but realise the physical demands of looking after an aged parent are enormous.

I lived in Germany as a child in the seventies (Dad in the army) and many families we got to know were some way into 99-year mortgages. Typically they had very large houses where the family occupied two floors, granny had her flat upstairs and they maybe had an extra flat that another member of the family occupied. It meant the family had much better purchasing power in the housing market, they enjoyed a better standard of accomodation and there was a (very) compelling financial reason for the family to stay together.

Evan, as usual (well, on many occasions) you make sense of stuff (just like me) and set it out in clear language.

No, you wont get any new ideas, because you have nailed it!

I was most interested in your well researched article, its amazing we are 'productive' for 50% if our lives; you are right, we need ''something else'' for the other 50% - and as a VERY begrudging over-tax payer, I too think we need to look after those that have give their productive life to ''us'' (the next generation) we in turn must also acknowledge that and appreciate that through life鈥檚 twists & turns, NO-ONE knows whether or not they will manage to provide for themselves - as an anti-welfare state guy - I agree with this; if they have done their best - so should we!

If they have not - they should...........

Would have no problem looking after aged parents if didnt get penalised by tax system every which way, should get tax breaks for living together with aged as should disabled people with their families who save state enormous costs by keeping their family members with these problems at home.Also need for large enough homes for space for adaptations and live in nurse if have to have night care for eg demented parkinson's with other health problems,

Families living in the UK today, may not survive in the long term, and that means future OAP麓s. And a plan is required to prevent those who are pressured into avoiding having large, prosperous families from being consumed by the lack of a social, caring, long term attitudes some of us may have towards family and society today. Once people realise the prospertity of society in the future is important, a real investment of time and money will be made, and may solve the issue with OAPs feeling alone and uncared for! This could be promoted by the government, - albeit not the current one, moreover a government that makes such a transition acceptable and positive. Advertising should be toned down to encourage this..so that others do not feel afraid to embrace the one thing this country seems to be losing...a sense of self, a sense of togetherness and sense of communal respect.

Call me whimsical, but I don麓t see this problem being solved by debt-gearing economic theory or G.Brown, who seems to make 麓everything麓 look like a pound symbol. Unless of course we want OAPs, (those requiring care LT) to be removed from society as quickly as criminals.

The problem with having to look after your parents when they are old is how easy they make it. My mother had an appaling relationship with her parents, but as the only surviving child she felt obliged to live with them and look after them in their old age. This almost led to a mental break-down and had knock-on effects for the rest of the family (we have all required counselling or psychiatric care due to our family circumstances). I am not sure that forcing the children of the elderly to look after them is the best idea, as so many people have extremely difficult relationships with their children.

I think the solution lies with having several measures for different situations. For those who do look after parents or other elderly relatives or friends carer benefits or tax breaks should come into effect. Whilst you are working you should pay into your pension - ideally voluntarily, but I fear this must be compulsory. And for those who have been unable to ensure financial security the state should step in and make sure you have sufficient care for some sort of quality of life.

An interesting and well written piece, but this is just one part of a larger issue on the role of the state. For example, your inclusion of "students" in the "not productive" category is misleading. We pay a fair price for our education, a debt we take on and repay in full, all so that the country's economy can grow. We're not a burden being supported - we pay for ourselves, albeit retrospectively.

Given which; given that we privately pay for our education, will privately pay into our pensions, will likely happily pay to travel on this country's roads; why on earth should we be expected to shoulder the burden of paying for the healthcare of a generation that deems us unworthy of equal investment.

Either we have state infrastructure, for everyone, or not. And I won't even start on private schooling!

You reap what you sow. Elderly doesn't mean saintly. I have known some wonderful elderly and some selfish ones. Today we are living amoungst a young adult society that was the first real daycare generation of kids so why are we surprised by the "me first" attitude of this population segment? If their parents spent less time at work and more time raising their kids perhaps their kids would consider stretching their lives to accomodate the parents in their old age. When the boomers were parenting their young, old age homes were acceptable for their parents (the war youth generation). Now the boomers want comfort and familiarity and expect their kids to provide it or stretch their lives to accomodate them with the future hope of inheritance. Who are the real selfish ones?

We are reaping the results of a generation brought up on the religion 'the hidden psychology of commerce'.You talk of the lack of a set of personal values in society. This is the void which commerce requires to succeed. Make people feel dissatisfied, and its easy to persuade people to buy more. This has become the central amoral theme of society, and generates utter selfishness, which is what you describe.

Is it too cruel to suggest that the senile or demented be allowed to die gently. Surely this is nature's own way of solving this problem and what quality of life does a demented person have anyway? Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to us, sadly.

I think Stuart (comment 28) is spot on. Elderly people in care have absolutely no power over those who provide their care so it is hardly surprising to hear anecdotes about old people being drugged up to make them less trouble, or being put to bed at 6pm.. etc. That is not to knock the efforts of those who work in care many of whom I'm sure do an excellent job for relatively little financial reward.

There are obviously no one-size-fits-all solutions. And I agree that we should give assistance in the tax system to those who do have an elderly person living with them. But I am inspired by the story of Kate's mum (comment 7)...

I think the notion of a group of old people owning their own care home is the way to go. People are retiring with enough vitality now to manage the affairs of a care home( or 'OAP community') and new arrivals could always come into a working committee as the more elderly took a back seat. Where external assistance was necessary- e.g. in the management of financial affairs- this could be provided by the government, community, or if necessary contracted out. Imagine a care home where the old people were responsible for the care workers' contracts- abuse of the elderly would be far more easily reported and punished and care might well improve. Similarly there would be benefits were the OAPs to organise their own entertainments- this might include a closer relationship with the local community.. The not-for-profit structure would mean that financial contribution could be more closely linked to ability to pay. Government could provide particular financial support for those who required more expensive support to ensure they were no more a drain on resources than others.
Is anyone aware of such co-operative schemes already in existence anywhere- and what are the problems preventing them being more widespread? What support could the state give? One potential problem is perhaps that care homes are presently such averse places that people tend to avoid them until they are incapacitated and have little choice. What else? I'd really love to have some people's feedback on this.

Thanks, Richard