SUM - Summerset Group

[Ggcc]

So the carer (the lowest paid worker) should pay rather than the person getting the care (if they have assets over the designated maximum)?
Seems a bit unfair to me really.
Fortunately I'm not a carer and, frankly, wouldn't take the job if you paid me all the tea in China.
I think people like that are worth their weight in gold!

We all have a choice of what we want to do with our lives. Trying to balance lifestyle with money is always difficult. I have found the more I earned the less time I had to socialise (as in the workload increased). I am trying to change my work a little so I can have a lifestyle. We need lower paid workers in capitalism to make capitalism work. I will become one of those lower paid workers at some stage after years of slogging 7 days a week including stats because staff asked for time off. I am actually looking forward to some time off to relax more. Everyone has a choice was the message not attacking your message 😊

[winner69]

Does anyone know if retirement village units are included in the housing stats?
I have a feeling that they aren't and are part of the missing component expaining why we aren't as short of houses as we seem to think.

There is no doubt that retirement villages play a vital 'efficient' housing role.

Included in building consents numbers and in census counts

[Beagle]

I thought that the Govt was funding in increase?
Is this not going to happen?

They are but its opened up a can of "relativity" worms for nurses / cleaners / admin staff.

[dobby41]

They are but its opened up a can of "relativity" worms for nurses / cleaners / admin staff.

Relativity is an interesting thing.
A while ago I was talking to a friend who was a Govt employee.
The minimum hourly rate had just gone up and they said they would get a pay rise.
"But your not on the minimum wage" I said.
"But I need an increase to maintain relativity" they said.
In this case their hourly rate was so far above the minimum rate I couldn't see how it applied but Govt you know.

It would be nice if we were a higher wage economy - at the moment we aren't.
Some time ago a polition was crowing that we took some call centre jobs from Aussie because our wages are lower - didn't seem like much to get excited about really!
Higher wages for all, more money to spend (and the lower waged spend most, if not all, of their income), more goods sold, more goods required then, more jobs.
Sounds good to me (bit simplistic I know).

[Bjauck]

So the carer (the lowest paid worker) should pay rather than the person getting the care (if they have assets over the designated maximum)?
Seems a bit unfair to me really.
Fortunately I'm not a carer and, frankly, wouldn't take the job if you paid me all the tea in China.
I think people like that are worth their weight in gold!

Carers need to be patient - definitely not for everyone!

Dementia, for example, is an illness and it could be argued that Health Boards (i.e. Taxpayers) should cover the costs of the long term care of dementia sufferers. As it is, the lottery of whether you will require long term care has in the past provided a boost for the family trust industry in order to preserve assets. Means testing increasingly look into trusts however. I don't think there are insurance policies available in NZ to cover for long term nursing home care.

If you may have to spend just about all of your savings on end of life care, what would that do for the incentive to accumulate savings and maintain investments? Why not just spend now?

[percy]

Carers need to be patient - definitely not for everyone!

Dementia, for example, is an illness and it could be argued that Health Boards (i.e. Taxpayers) should cover the costs of the long term care of dementia sufferers. As it is, the lottery of whether you will require long term care has in the past provided a boost for the family trust industry in order to preserve assets. Means testing increasingly look into trusts however. I don't think there are insurance policies available in NZ to cover for long term nursing home care.

If you may have to spend just about all of your savings on end of life care, what would that do for the incentive to accumulate savings and maintain investments? Why not just spend now?

Savings gives you independence and freedom of choice.

[dobby41]

Carers need to be patient - definitely not for everyone!

Dementia, for example, is an illness and it could be argued that Health Boards (i.e. Taxpayers) should cover the costs of the long term care of dementia sufferers. As it is, the lottery of whether you will require long term care has in the past provided a boost for the family trust industry in order to preserve assets. Means testing increasingly look into trusts however. I don't think there are insurance policies available in NZ to cover for long term nursing home care.

If you may have to spend just about all of your savings on end of life care, what would that do for the incentive to accumulate savings and maintain investments? Why not just spend now?

Good point about Dementia being an illness that should be 'treated' by the DHB (like cancer say).

As for the last point - at the point they have dementia they aren't worried about what their assets are doing.
You would have to suppose that they accumulated assets to use in their later years (I know I am). If they didn't manage to use them all before they couldn't then so be it.
If you didn't accumulate then maybe to live to 105 and live a subsistence life on the super only.
A bit of a lottery - I know I am not basing my actions on the possibility that I might get dementia before I can spend my money - my crystal ball just doesn't work well enough for that!

[Jantar]

Relativity is an interesting thing.
A while ago I was talking to a friend who was a Govt employee.
The minimum hourly rate had just gone up and they said they would get a pay rise.
"But your not on the minimum wage" I said.
"But I need an increase to maintain relativity" they said.
In this case their hourly rate was so far above the minimum rate I couldn't see how it applied but Govt you know......

The effect does trickle upwards. Yes the minimum wage goes up say $0.50, but someone who was just above minimum wage on merit or skills is now also on minimum wage so they have to move up as well. That person may now be on a similar wage to someone on a basic trade, so that basic trade wage moves up. The advanced trade above them now needs a rise, and so does their manager.

Relativity is more than just a simple percentage, it must also recognise responsibility, skills, and knowledge required. It is often even a multiple effect, hence CEOs earn much more than their staff.

[Beagle]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...irement-sector

The Governments revised annual figure seems like a pragmatic decision to me at an annual rate that = $20 hour x 40 hours a week.
Agree hard working rest home caregivers should be paid at that rate as a minimum but the question remains as to who is going to pay for that.

[bull....]

"bleed them dry until they die".


Seems to be the catch-cry in AUS of the retirement sector as they mention it again in the article below which goes on to say that states in AUS are now looking at regulation

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/busi...01-gxmxyh.html