willman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 What people want is to have their cake and eat it - they want to leave a legacy for family and yet have other peoples families fund their health care. They should be forced to sell up and spend it - property is an investment for the property owner not for family members. Giving assets away is a good idea - if you don't need them,people in care homes obviously need the assets themselves still. What next, ask Morrisons not to charge for food shopping so they can leave some pension money for the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 What people want is to have their cake and eat it - they want to leave a legacy for family and yet have other peoples families fund their health care. They should be forced to sell up and spend it - property is an investment for the property owner not for family members. WHAT? Do you not think that a person of old age has contributed nothing in his or her lifetime in terms of taxes and National insurance to deserve being looked after in their twilight years. So according to your logic. Nobody should inherit anything, and it's fine for the government to effectively confiscate property and chattels and sell them to fund being looked after. Thank god you're not an MP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 WHAT? Do you not think that a person of old age has contributed nothing in his or her lifetime in terms of taxes and National insurance to deserve being looked after in their twilight years. So according to your logic. Nobody should inherit anything, and it's fine for the government to effectively confiscate property and chattels and sell them to fund being looked after. Thank god you're not an MP!!! I think its wrong that someone with 100's of 1000's of pounds wants free care JUST because they want to give money away. I didn't say anything about inheritance being wrong, my point is simple. If you need something and have the money you should pay. Just because a person is old and has a house doesn't prove they've contributed anything or any more than anyone else.Similarly just because soemone is old why should they stop paying for things they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 I think its wrong that someone with 100's of 1000's of pounds wants free care JUST because they want to give money away. I didn't say anything about inheritance being wrong, my point is simple. If you need something and have the money you should pay. Just because a person is old and has a house doesn't prove they've contributed anything or any more than anyone else.Similarly just because soemone is old why should they stop paying for things they want. Sorry, but IMHO you're completely wrong. If they have monetary assetts ie thousands in the bank then yes. Contribute. But not rob them of their entire worth. Next you'll be saying if anyone goes into hospital. Charge them too. If they can't pay, then sell their house. It's obscene. I've worked all my life, I've paid tax all my life, and paid NI contributions all my life. Have these old folk not done the same? Do they not deserve some respect and dignity in their former years? You sound very cold I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I don't intend to sound cold, and the NHS etc is a different issue imho. Assets,liquid or not are simply that and asset to provide you with what you need. My parents plan to bequeath their home to me,however it is right and proper for them to pay for care provision if they have the financial assets to do so,imho. They aren't being robbed of anything,they are paying for the provision of a service. Why should a child get a 250k house,whilst my taxes pay for their parents to be looked after? Just because people contribute to the system doesn't automatically allow them freedom from responsibility for provision just 'cos they're old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I don't intend to sound cold, and the NHS etc is a different issue imho. Assets,liquid or not are simply that and asset to provide you with what you need. My parents plan to bequeath their home to me,however it is right and proper for them to pay for care provision if they have the financial assets to do so,imho. They aren't being robbed of anything,they are paying for the provision of a service. Why should a child get a 250k house,whilst my taxes pay for their parents to be looked after? Just because people contribute to the system doesn't automatically allow them freedom from responsibility for provision just 'cos they're old. I m with you Willman. As per my previous post I would hope that if they need to my parents spend every penny of their money on good quality care for themselves. I don't want my taxes paying for care for those who have the assets to pay for it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I think its wrong that someone with 100's of 1000's of pounds wants free care . Anything over about £23k and you're paying...you don't have to have 100's of 1000's..it's a bit unfair really,take the example of two blokes working next to each other earning the same wage..one rents a council house and spends his cash on holidays cars etc..the other one saves a deposit for a house,buys one and pays into a private pension..when it comes to nursing home time the one who has frittered his money away will get his care for free ( sorry.. we'll all be paying for it won't we),the one who has been prudent will have to pay for it all.....seems the right thing to do is to not do the right thing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sorry, but IMHO you're completely wrong. If they have monetary assetts ie thousands in the bank then yes. Contribute. But not rob them of their entire worth. Next you'll be saying if anyone goes into hospital. Charge them too. If they can't pay, then sell their house. It's obscene. I've worked all my life, I've paid tax all my life, and paid NI contributions all my life. Have these old folk not done the same? Do they not deserve some respect and dignity in their former years? You sound very cold I'm afraid. The old folk of today are the ones that have benefited from being able to pay work all their lives, from having the security of jobs, from having been able to pay for mortgages, for having state pension ............turning the argument around having had it so good it is only right they now contribute more. As for your point re paying to go into hospital - many of those owning houses worth £500 000 yet unwilling to sell to pay for their care, already do pay to be attend hospital privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 I don't intend to sound cold, and the NHS etc is a different issue imho. Assets,liquid or not are simply that and asset to provide you with what you need. My parents plan to bequeath their home to me,however it is right and proper for them to pay for care provision if they have the financial assets to do so,imho. They aren't being robbed of anything,they are paying for the provision of a service. Why should a child get a 250k house,whilst my taxes pay for their parents to be looked after? Just because people contribute to the system doesn't automatically allow them freedom from responsibility for provision just 'cos they're old. The point is. As I see it. You are not paying for their care out of your taxes. They have already paid (probably many many times over), with their taxes. Just because successive governments have squandered and plundered that money over the years, that's not their fault. Yet they have to pay even more, and whichever way you look at it, by the government plundering their assetts too until they die, and then wanting interest on it too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The point is. As I see it. You are not paying for their care out of your taxes. They have already paid (probably many many times over), with their taxes. Just because successive governments have squandered and plundered that money over the years, that's not their fault. Yet they have to pay even more, and whichever way you look at it, by the government plundering their assetts too until they die, and then wanting interest on it too! but surely the point is the more we want services the more we have to pay eg childcare - if you haven't got kids you pay nowt if you have you pay a lot (and sometimes then cannot afford that leg up the housing ladder as a result) - why the difference for old age care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.