tinfoilhat Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Yes I saw this too. For those who don't do links: 'Old people auctioned off to care homes on internet; Anger over 'cattle markets for grannies' as councils accept lowest bids to save cash.' And in case you didn't know, old people can be forced into care homes whether they want to go or not. So they don't have a choice about being robbed of all their assetts. (I'd rather die.) This whole situation needs sorting out. Far be it for me question the integrity of the daily mail but something smells pretty fishy about all this. I'm digging into it. Not so long a guy in eckington successfully sued derbyshire county council for putting his brother into care against his wishes. I can't believe this couldn't happen in this case. Besides different councils have different rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 He hasn't "given" the council anything..he's paid for somewhere to live...like everyone else does.. He's given them £150K, or more, for somewhere to live and comes out with nothing. The council still has the house and can rent it to someone else. They're basically quids in and can use the money to fund care. The buyer has given £150K to a bank and came out with an asset worth at least that. The council have received nothing, why shouldn't the home owner now contribute something for his care? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 He's given them £150K, or more, for somewhere to live and comes out with nothing. The council still has the house and can rent it to someone else. They're basically quids in and can use the money to fund care. The buyer has given £150K to a bank and came out with an asset worth at least that. The council have received nothing, why shouldn't the home owner now contribute something for his care? jb He's paid for somewhere to live...his choice it was a council house..he could have rented privately...but that would have cost more..so the council,in effect, has subsidised the guy's rent.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 He's paid for somewhere to live...his choice it was a council house..he could have rented privately...but that would have cost more..so the council,in effect, has subsidised the guy's rent.. He could and would have enriched the landlords pockets, increasing his spending power and helping to boost the economy rather than hiding his cash from the tax man in the form of a house. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 He could and would have enriched the landlords pockets, increasing his spending power and helping to boost the economy rather than hiding his cash from the tax man in the form of a house. jb Are you now trying to imply that buying a house is a tax dodge? I wonder how much the renter has spent on repairs and decoration and stamp duty etc...we can do this all day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Are you now trying to imply that buying a house is a tax dodge? I wonder how much the renter has spent on repairs and decoration and stamp duty etc...we can do this all day... Through his rent, all of them. Plus extra on top, yet they don't get a valuable asset to use to pay for a nice care home rather than a state funded doss house... yet you still expect them to fund care for home owners who can easily pay for it themselves. jb ETA: Not a dodge, but not spending money doesn't raise taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 You don't have to. You can stay at home and die from neglect. As to whether £500/wk is value for money I have no idea, not having costed it. How many nurses on 24 hr cover will that buy you? How many carers on 24hr cover will that buy you? How many cleaners and cooks? jb You could probably get a live-in carer for that, I mean you're talking about 2 grand a month here. You could probably have two on rotation or something. ---------- Post added 09-02-2015 at 13:20 ---------- yet you still expect them to fund care for home owners who can easily pay for it themselves. Why not, tax payers have been funding the lower rent his entire life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Through his rent, all of them. Plus extra on top, yet they don't get a valuable asset to use to pay for a nice care home rather than a state funded doss house... yet you still expect them to fund care for home owners who can easily pay for it themselves. jb It was their choice to rent and not have an asset..we're still talking about the two guys working next to each other aren't we? I wonder how much stamp duty the renter paid..and how much IHT their estate will be liable for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 You could probably get a live-in carer for that, I mean you're talking about 2 grand a month here. You could probably have two on rotation or something. And the nurse, what you going to use to pay for that? Why not, tax payers have been funding the lower rent his entire life. We're onto private renters now, they pay more, generally, than homeowners. They pay their taxes and over the course of their lives pay more in rent than a home owner does in mortgages payments yet you still expect them to fund care for home owners. Care they can easily afford. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) ETA: Not a dodge, but not spending money doesn't raise taxes. Maybe not directly but it creates employment in building societies etc. Those salaries are taxed and taxed again when they are spent.. ---------- Post added 09-02-2015 at 13:31 ---------- And the nurse, what you going to use to pay for that? We're onto private renters now, they pay more, generally, than homeowners. They pay their taxes and over the course of their lives pay more in rent than a home owner does in mortgages payments yet you still expect them to fund care for home owners. Care they can easily afford. jb But your original point was that the guy had been paying the council so therefore his old age care should be free..it looks like the tax payer has been subsidising the rent he paid to the council anyway..again it was the renter's choice..he could have bought a home like his work colleague did..according you he could then have easily afforded his care.. Edited February 9, 2015 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now