pottedplant Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Ahem... what's there not to get. Pensioners need caring for in their twilight years. The tax(es) they paid throughout their working lives are now gone or not sufficient to pay for the years they need therefore something has to be done to plug a hole in the finances. This can be done by making the pensioners pay for their own care by selling their property or it can be done via taxation. So, this leads me back to my question. Would you prefer for people to pay for their own care or would you prefer it was free and as a result, you were taxed sufficiently more? BTW I am not greedy. I care more about the welfare of parents therefore I would prefer to see any money from their property go into making their final years as good and comfortable as can be. That means more to me than any amount of money. Is this what it's about, you are scared of losing your inheritance? Exactly as I said many posts ago.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I agree it should be free to all or free to no one, I would go with free for no one and if you need care you pay for it, and if you can’t pay for it you don’t get it. Why should someone that has worked and contributed to the system pay for care just because they bought an house. Whilst someone else that worked and earned more, but rented and spent all their money gets it free. Or someone that has never worked and as spend their life being supported by others gets it free. It creates a disincentive to save. I said much the same in post #17... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I agree it should be free to all or free to no one, I would go with free for no one and if you need care you pay for it, and if you can’t pay for it you don’t get it. Why should someone that has worked and contributed to the system pay for care just because they bought an house. Whilst someone else that worked and earned more, but rented and spent all their money gets it free. Or someone that has never worked and as spend their life being supported by others gets it free. It creates a disincentive to save. I said much the same in post #17... Sounds good ... but when you've got old people dying at the side of the road because they have nowhere to live, they have no money (they pi88ed it up against the wall) and they can't afford care, how are you [as a politician] going to rebut the accusation levied by your opponents that you "don't give a stuff about old folk?" It's a 'no-win' situation (as things stand at present.) As I've said in other threads (many times and many of them) I prefer the German funding system. If you live in Germany then you will pay 0.975 % out of your salary (capped at 44,550 € pa) into the fund which provides care in old age. Everybody pays. Should you end up in a care home, then the money you've paid over your lifetime will provide basic (which isn't too shabby ) care. You can opt for the middle level (pretty good) or the highest level (somewhat luxurious.) - You pay for middle or higher; but you've already paid for basic care. There are a couple of additional 'twists'. Everybody pays into the scheme, but obviously it's in the interest of the state that as few people as possible draw out. So (this rule has now changed, unfortunately ) if you build a house with a 'granny flat' you get tax help on the construction of the granny flat ... because if you keep Oma or Opa living with you, you are saving the state money. - That's how it used to be. This rule hasn't changed: if you are Oma or Opa (or both) and you give your house to one of your children (with a proviso that the recipient will provide a home for you in your old age) you can avoid (not evade) inheritance tax. Perhaps the British government might consider tax advantages for people prepared to look after aged parents? - The tax rebates aren't that big - but the potential savings to the state are considerable... particularly if life expectancies continue to increase. In the UK, some people try to save but others don't give a damn. if you save a few bob, then the government may well take that from you to pay for your care. If, however, you didn't bother to save, then somebody else must pay. If you don't earn enough money to cover your old age costs, then the state should pay. if you can't be bothered to save, why should it? (Ant and the Grasshopper?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 To be fair - some of who are those inheriting very large properties from their parents while expecting their care to be paid for my others. I would much rather my parents received the best care that money could pay for (if I weren't in a position to provide it myself) than receive £xxxxxxxxx when they die. I'd rather have both. My parents have paid more than enough in to the system, not only in taxes but in private pensions/investments, only for it to be given to the wreckless superrich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 We're not 'amazingly wealthy' - at one time, my wife and I each earned significant amounts of money and (I have no shame here) we paid the minimum amount of tax we could get away with. - As Denning, MR said: "There is nothing in the Law of England as shall oblige a man so to arrange his finances as to enable the Inland Revenue to take the biggest pinch." We worked, we saved. We lived well - but not extravagantly. We have 'enough to get by' and - with a bit of luck - the grandkids will get a few bob out of us. I pay UK taxes on my world-wide income and my wife pays US taxes on hers. (We don't have a lot of choice. - We're 'strange animals' as far as taxation goes; we're both 'NATO Forces' [all sorts of exemptions and liabilities there] and 'Diplomatic'. It doesn't much matter. I am (in theory) eligible for full British Benefits [i suppose I could claim 'heating allowance' but I never turn the heating on so I don't bother.] I won't be eligible fora State Pension for a couple of years - but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find I don't get one. - You have to read the 'fine print'. I'm quite happy to make my own arrangements for old age care (should I need it) and even if the Brits were to offer it, I'm not sure I would want to accept the offer. When my wife's grandmother needed old-age care, we found her a pretty good place. When her mother needed old age care, we went back there - and ran a mile! - it was crap. We (or rather my brother-in-law) checked out every care home in Albuquerque - and couldn't find one we liked. She came to live with us and when she eventually went into care, I found a place I liked. It was good. - Not cheap, though. If I need old age care, that's where I'm going. Unless, of course, I don't. We live (during the winter) in an 'Over 55 Active retirement Community'. We own the house and we pay a significant amount each month into a 'maintenance fund'- but: They cut the grass. If we get a plumbing problem, they send a plumber and he fixes it. If we get an electrical problem, they send an electrician and she fixes it. If one of the appliances - Microwave, Washing machine, Dishwasher, Dryer, Fridge, Garage Door etc fails - they fix it or replace it. I can live with that. it leaves me time to go sailing, fishing and swimming. (Old farts do those sort of things where we live ) Our son will (almost probably) not have to support us - which is probably just as well. We may well be amongst the last tranche of the 'very well off' baby-boomers. I'm well aware that there are people in my age group who are struggling to make ends meet and I'm also well aware that we - those born between 1947 and 1957 - are not as wealthy as our parents, but we are far richer than our grandchildren. As we approach retirement, we are going to have to accept that although the 'Lying Scotsman' pillaged our pension plans and others did even more damage, we're better off than our grandkids. Our children have to support their children (and maybe they also have to support the children of others who can't be arsed to support themselves. ) If I couldn't support myself, then my son would have to support his parents, his children, his wife, himself and any other bugger who wants a handout. He'll probably stop being a drain on the British economy soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Sounds good ... but when you've got old people dying at the side of the road because they have nowhere to live, they have no money (they pi88ed it up against the wall) and they can't afford care, how are you [as a politician] going to rebut the accusation levied by your opponents that you "don't give a stuff about old folk?" They would have somewhere to live and would still have state pension, and if their relatives didn't visit them in their old age they would likely die in the house they live in. If they own the house they could choose to sell it and move into a care home, but if they rent it and have no one to care for them, they would die and be less of a burden on the next generation. I’ve always thought it a little pointless to prolong a poor quality life at the expense of the next generation, and dying when its ones time to die would certainly help solve the problems associated with an aging population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 They would have somewhere to live and would still have state pension, and if their relatives didn't visit them in their old age they would likely die in the house they live in. If they own the house they could choose to sell it and move into a care home, but if they rent it and have no one to care for them, they would die and be less of a burden on the next generation. I’ve always thought it a little pointless to prolong a poor quality life at the expense of the next generation, and dying when its ones time to die would certainly help solve the problems associated with an aging population. Euphanasia perhaps would solve the problem? (I'm being sarcastic incidentally) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Euphanasia perhaps would solve the problem? (I'm being sarcastic incidentally) For anyone that chooses that option it would definitely help to solve the problem, we had the choice of allowing our dog to suffer a few more months or have her put down painlessly and peacefully, we chose the latter and I would choose the latter for myself when life becomes intolerable. To spend my latter years having my arse wiped by a stranger isn’t something I look forward to, hopeful I will retain the ability to end it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Euphanasia perhaps would solve the problem? (I'm being sarcastic incidentally) To spend my latter years having my arse wiped by a stranger isn’t something I look forward to, hopeful I will retain the ability to end it. Being so cheerful will keep you going longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Being so cheerful will keep you going longer. Quite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.