So what does anyone think of the government's idea of a levy on people when they die, or a 'death tax', supposedly to pay back any costs that may have been incurred looking after older people in care homes?

Here are my (personal) reactions. First, it removes any incentive for the older person to keep well and keep out of a care home. Second, if all care homes are state funded and provided, you can bet there will be no choice, and standards will fall, leading to more elder abuse and other bad conditions. Third, if children (adult) know they will lose £20K of their inheritance anyway, what incentive is there for them to help their parent stay at home ? they may well be tempted to stick Mother in a care home and let her rot.

Finally, what about people who die young - will the tax apply to them too? It's full of holes as an idea.

It would be much better to encourage, and support, people who want to stay in their own homes, and help their families to organise the necessary services, if there is no relative who can realistically help. In our research we met couples who had a parent of one of them living in the same house, or who provided support for an aged relative in some other ways. We also met one or two people who were caring for a spouse who had suffered a disabling condition.

Some of our older participants were already themselves receiving help from their children - whether financial or practical. However, we must not forget that not all older people in need of help actually have any children or other relatives to call upon.

Do give us your comments, whatever your point of view.

In analysing policy for this project, I have been struck by the way that references to 'Greedy Baby Boomers' are appearing in the media (see below for a link to one example advertising a new book by Conservative MP David Willetts).

The 'Pinch' - How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children's Future
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts

There is a tendency in recent policy documents and political speeches to emphasise inter-generational differences in wealth distribution - for example the stress placed on housing equity held by those aged over 55, and discourses that emphasis the fact that Baby Boomers have benefited from access to final salary pensions, home-ownership and early retirement that will be increasingly unavailable to future generations.

Of course, by deflecting the blame for the plight of the young onto the older generation, it conceals the political and economic decisions that have contributed to this state of affairs. For example:

• The abolition of student grants
• Failure to invest in affordable housing (and selling off social housing)
• The privatisation of pensions and pension fund mismanagement scandals that have helped to generate new risks and future undercertainty around future income in retirement
• The failure to tackle the issue of funding for long-term care for several decades

And these are just for starters!

However, these discourses of intergenerational inequity have productive effects - for example they may be used to justify decisions to transfer funds to education and not long-term care.

What do you think?

Lynne

Better The Devil You Know?

Some interviewees have said that in their long marriages there has been an unfair distribution of money through the years between husband and wife but that they have decided to live with it.

Typical phrases used were “Because I don’t think this is the time of life to have major disagreements”, “Better the Devil you know” or it “Causes too much stress” seemed to sum up the dilemma.

Is this something that all couples do or is it peculiar to people married for a long time?Do we learn to live with unfairness just to keep the peace when we think the relationship is more important than the distribution of money?

Employment and older people

Many older people have been affected by the recession and financial crises not only in terms of the reduced income from savings accounts and shares, but also because of losing jobs or having their hours cut. For example, in our research, one of our participants worked as a domestic carer for a range of people (as she put it, aged from 4 to 104) and had found that because her clients had to pay themselves (even though the care was organised through social services) they were having to cut down on the hours they could afford to pay her for.

On Monday 25th Jan I attended the launch of 'Working better: the over 50s - the new work generation' which was held at Tate Modern by the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission). It is undoubtedly true that even beyond the present recession, most older people are going to have to continue working for longer than in the past, mainly in order to generate enough income to fund their eventual retirements.

However, it appears that despite the best efforts of the EHRC and the various bodies such as Age Concern, TAEN (The Age and Employment Network) and the EFA (Employers' Forum on Age), there are still many influential people who hold that older workers should somehow 'give up' their jobs for the benefit of younger ones.

We are all sympathetic to the plight of younger people who are finding it hard at present to get their foot on the career ladder. Indeed I have 2 children myself who are in this position. However, many economists think it is a myth that if one group of the population are cut out of the workforce, jobs for others automatically become available (this is known as the 'lump of labour' fallacy). Instead, it seems likely that as an economy becomes more prosperous, jobs increase for all population groups.

But there is a danger that the idea that younger people should be favoured versus older ones, could be used to justify the continuation of the use of forced early retirement, and other forms of age discrimination in the workplace. No worker can keep up to date on new working methods, etc., if they are denied the training to do so, and this is one way in which age discrimination in the workplace can occur.

We need to recognise the contribution that each age group can and does make to the economy, not penalise one group to favour another.

Please comment, particularly if you have had any personal experience of issues like this.