[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Caring for carers campaign - Daily Mirror - Page 3 - Carers UK Forum

Caring for carers campaign - Daily Mirror

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
Carers who receive the carers allowance 750-000 of us save the state some 23 billion £`s each year just by keeping our elderly disabled relatives out of the residential social care system overall we as carers save the N.H.S. some 87 billion quid year on year now if me sums are right thats a lot of money for the likes of me .

BUT, i know there is always a BUT- BUT it`s the same old problem if the carers allowance was set at a high level even at minimum wage £240 per week we may have the problem of more family members becoming carers - as above about 1 million receive the allowance and we have some six million carers the cost would never ever be met by the tax payer.
Many of the six million carers put in less than 35 hours a week, but they are still carers. Many carers work. Some are retired, some are still at school or college.. And many carers have complex households with some people working f/t and some p/t. All our circumstances are unique. Some people have greater needs than others, and not all those needs are financial.
George, I do not receive Carers Allowance and never have but I care 24/7, seven days a week, 365 days a year, even when the PA is here I am on call and regularly called by her, I also have to deal with my husband's needs every night. I am no less a carer than someone receiving CA, in some cases I am putting substantially more hours.

Everyone who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis, whether they provide a few hours before and after work, whether they provide 24/7 care or whether they share the care, etc. is a carer. Receipt of CA should not be sole defining criteria and I believe that every carer should be financially compensated for the additional costs of caring, the sacrifices they make, the work they do and in recognition of the money they save the taxpayer, not just a few but all. If every carer was compensated the taxpayer would still make a net gain, albeit a smaller net gain, from the work of carers.
The point iam always trying to get over is we always talk about the SIX MILLION the MIRROR want SIX MILLION carers to rceive a wage of some description i just cant see how we can reward SIX MILLION carers i dont doubt that we have SIX MILLION carers but we will have to pay the carers allowance at many levels to reward the level of work we do one problem as i have said before if the new carers allowance was paid at a high level would many more give up work to care when i gave up work money was not the main isue at the time but over the years we realise just what we are doing for the state at first we care because we think it is the right thing to do then when reality sets in we realise we are being used by the state .
i still cant see all carers being rewarded with the same rate of "pay"
Please George, its a headline figure, thats all, and substantially true, but the Government and local authorities know fine well that there is a spectrum, with a huge difference between 24/7 heavy end caring and dropping in on Granny on a Sunday to tidy her house and fix her tea. They probably wont need us to remind them of that, I'm sure their statisticians will have been analysing the figures too.

Many of those carers dont actually expect to be paid, and regard it as a normal family duty to keep an eye on their relatives and help out where needed. The public policy problem starts when substantial caring responsibilities start to dominate people's lives to such an extent that they cause real, lasting damage to carers employment prospects, health and wealth. That may affect a million or two carers, maybe more, we dont exactly know how many because there isnt and never will be an agreed "crisis point" - it depends on the families own ability to cope.

The RNID has a headline figure for people who are deaf or hard of hearing of 7M - in my view it is grossly misleading as most of these folk are completely unaware of the fact that they have to turn up the TV a bit!
I don't think the same rate of pay for all is necessarily the fairest option anyway. Image

It should be down to the level of care provided - I do feel 5hrs care is still important - of course it is especially for the one recieving it!
but... in all honesty 35, 50 & in some cases 100+ hours has to be valued more as the carers abilities to generate more earnings through work outwith their care role are so very much hampered! Image

We're so stretched at the minute, for a starting point, I'd settle for the Carers Allowance being re-classified as non-means tested like DLA.
They did it for the pensioner heating allowance didn't they so why not for C.A.
I do honestly think this would make a vast improvement over night! Image

marie x
george....if you do the maths ...six million carers at £240...x52.....is £74880 million...which i think is £75 billion....not £87 billion so even at your suggested level of remuneration, the government would still make savings, therefore your argument is still negated by the fact that figures clearly show that even if we use the 6 million carer number you so disagree with we still save the government even more than that amount
The plain fact is that the present system is too complicated and labyrythine...I have underlying entitlement to CA but cannot receive it....using your figures I would not be a carer and yet I gave up work to care 24/7/365
Like you my dad cared for my mum due to her dementia but present age rules denied them carers allowance....the government didnt need to airbrush him out from the statistical pile...the strain of caring killed him off last october...but HE WAS A CARER..

I personally dont agree that we should that there should be different reward levels why should each carer not get a flat rate equal share of this ring-fenced money we have all saved,

My need to care 24/7/365 means I provided more savings for the government but why should this mean that I must begrudge this level of remuneration to a fellow carer....this year it may only be tea and sympathy the carer provides but as we all know only toO well sooner or later caring takes over your live progressively WE ARE ALL CARERS SO WE SHOULD GET AN EQUAL SHARE...no doubt there will be others who disagree but as I said I absolutely disagree with your obsession with the number of carers....we still deserve a fair return on the savings we provide...and in my humble opinion the same goes for the level of care provided...age of carers etc....WE ARE CARERS SO WE SHOULD BE REPAID EQUALLY
The average annual cost to my local authority of a care home placement is £24,786 pa (Adult Care and Health Panel Minutes, 10 September 2009)

The annual cost of paying CA to carers who are currently have no entitlement to CA either due to the earnings rule or because they are in receipt of an overlapping benefit would be £2,761.20 pa, a saving of £22,024,8 pa.

The annual cost of paying the minimum wage to all carers providing substantial and regular care, based on the 35 hour rule, would be £5.80 x 35, which is £10,556, a saving of £14,230 pa.

These figures are only indicative of some of the savings that we represent, there are many additional ways in which carers reduce the cost to the taxpayer, by allowing early discharge from hospital, by reducing the need for home nursing, for example.

Therefore paying CA to every carer who provides substantial care on regular basis whatever their means would still constitute a considerable hypothetical, hypothetical because we will continue to care whether we are paid CA or not, saving to the taxpayer. And by removing the earnings limit more carers who are able to combine care with work will find that working is more financially viable than is currently the case so more carers will contribute to the exchequer via direct and, due to their increased purchasing power, indirect taxation.

Similar arguments can be applied to payment of the minimum wage, the savings to the exchequer, and therefore the taxpayer, are still considerable.

It really comes down to a question of the sort of society we wish to live in, one where we expect family members to sacrifice their incomes, health and welfare for little or no reward or one where we believe that hard work and responsibility should be rewarded and not treated as a cheap or free resource.
Incidentally, the figure of £24,746 for the average cost to the local authority of residential care given above is taken from a financial report to the committee on the cost-effectiveness of using Flexicare Housing as a means of keeping elderly residents in the community and out of residential care for longer.

Using this model of care, the saving to the local authority for those within the highest needs band is an average of £11,682 pa, per person, i.e. less than the savings from paying a family member the minimum wage for 35 hours to care for someone in their own home. Flexicare Housing is being increased in the county as a cost-effective means of providing care to older residents.

Food for thought but it does suggest that paying carers the minimum wage based on a two-tier model, the lower tier being set at the government's preferred 16 hour level at which entitlement to tax credits for example are set and the higher at the 35 hours or more level at which entitlement to CA is set, is not the impossibility that some believe it to be if implemented across all carer groups and not just those who are already in receipt of CA.