truman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Why would you treat property assets as different from monetary assets? Should someone worth £5 million sink the whole lot into a house in Belgravia and then have his care provided for free? I think not. If there is to a point at which people are expected to pay for their own care fees, then the value of their house must be included in the calculation. As the level at which you have to pay toward your care starts at around £23k why pick £5 million...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 So taxpayers must? I don't think so! Sorry - not understanding your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 As the level at which you have to pay toward your care starts at around £23k why pick £5 million...? Extreme examples are the easiest way to show the flaws in an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 So taxpayers must? I don't think so! Why should taxpayers pay for idle layabouts to not work? In my opinion, for what it's worth,someone who has worked all their lives and contributed is a far more deserving case for state assistance.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sorry - not understanding your point. Someone has to fund the accommodation. It's either: a. the person concerned, by using own savings or selling house; or b. taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Extreme examples are the easiest way to show the flaws in an argument. But it's not the extremes that will pay the most pro rata if you understand what I mean.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Someone has to fund the accommodation. It's either: a. the person concerned, by using own savings or selling house; or b. taxpayers. I agree and my viewpoint remains that that it is only right that those with means/ assets should pay for own care even if that means selling houses which they no longer need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I agree and my viewpoint remains that that it is only right that those with means/ assets should pay for own care even if that means selling houses which they no longer need. Does my post #17 have any relevance..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 But it's not the extremes that will pay the most pro rata if you understand what I mean.. That's a valid observation; frankly I think the threshold should be higher than £23,000. But the threshold, whatever it is, must include all assets, otherwise the very rich will sink all of their money into exempt assets and get free care. You can't have such a simplistic rule as "nobody has to sell their home" .. because if you do, then the millionaire in Belgravia comes into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 My take on this is the exclusion of this service or that service. A case in point, which is loosly related 'Dental Care'... Why is it that dental care is any different from say cancer care? Why is there a special case for dental care? And please don't anyone tell me it's free, cos it's not, even NHS treatment. Its a special case and I don't know why that is! Successive governments of whatever persuassion have known there was a ticking time bomb with elderly care requirements, cos the ol' buggers are hanging around longer than they used to. They've known this for years... donkeys years, yet 'chosen' to ignore the problem and bury their heads in the sand. If you've got the money to pay for your own care, the chances are, you'll probably do that anyway, regardless of anything else. I'm talking about those that don't have huge pensions, don't have money stashed here there and everywhere. All they've got is the bricks and mortar they have worked all their lives for. So that's taken from them to pay for their care. Something which via taxation they have probably already paid for many times over during their life. It's just a graverobbing exercise cos the govenrnment can't think how else to fund it now because for years they have ignored the problem hoping it will go away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.