Blunkett - Sell house to pay for your elderly care

[barleycorn]

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?

 

The landlord paid the stamp duty, which he then reclaimed through rent. Ditto the IHT, the landlords estate will be paying it, an estate paid for by the tenant.

The two guys have paid the same income tax, have the same pension yet you expect the one who has paid more tax to fund the care for the one with the assets to pay for it.

 

jb

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2015 at 13:37 ----------

 

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 ----------

 

 

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..

What makes you think council rents are subsidised? If he had bought a house then yes, he should use his assets to fund his care.

 

... and my point isn't that those who have paid rent to councils should get free care, I was simply carrying on your example. My point is that those who have the funds to pay for their care should do so. This includes those who do not own their own home as any pensions or savings they have are used. In most cases they have paid their taxes throughout their lives and despite this are to be consigned to the cheapest cess pit the council can find yet you still expect them to pay for the care of those who have hundreds of thousands squirrelled away.

Edited February 9, 2015 by barleycorn

[tinfoilhat]

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.

 

Actually according to the daily mail article you do have a choice whether you take the place selected or not. On the one hand you don't think care homes should cost as much as they do but in the other hand this system can potentially drive prices down (albeit in a bit of a grubby way).

 

What it could do is give you a list of suitable homes - not all cater for all needs, so it might reduce the amount of legwork you have to do.

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2015 at 13:42 ----------

 

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 ----------

 

.

 

You could have two on rotation. You might need two at a time to help move them. One might need to be a nurse to administer stuff like insulin. The house, particularly bathroom might need to be heavily modified.

[truman]

The landlord paid the stamp duty, which he then reclaimed through rent. Ditto the IHT, the landlords estate will be paying it, an estate paid for by the tenant.

The two guys have paid the same income tax, have the same pension yet you expect the one who has paid more tax to fund the care for the one with the assets to pay for it.

 

jb

 

How has the renter paid more tax? I'd love to see your figures for that....I think you're making stuff up now.. let's carry on being silly..if he has paid rent that covers exterior decoration/repair then the VAT due on this would have been claimed back by the landlord's company (or the council depending where he rents)

[geared]

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

 

So what is the answer then, obviously some form of means tested assessment.

 

The elderly care in this country is pretty shocking really, they are being quietly forgotten

[truman]

So what is the answer then,

 

Maybe a calculation on lifetime income...not necessarliy assets..

[barleycorn]

How has the renter paid more tax? I'd love to see your figures for that....I think you're making stuff up now.. let's carry on being silly..if he has paid rent that covers exterior decoration/repair then the VAT due on this would have been claimed back by the landlord's company (or the council depending where he rents)

 

Because rents cost more than mortgages. The gross profits are taxed. The net profits are spent.

 

You still haven't stated why those without hundreds of thousands in assets should subsidise the care for those who do.

 

jb

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2015 at 13:53 ----------

 

So what is the answer then, obviously some form of means tested assessment.

 

The elderly care in this country is pretty shocking really, they are being quietly forgotten

 

Regardless of assets everyone should be entitled to the same basic level of care, free at point of delivery. If you want more than the basic level then you pay for it.

If not already then the elderly care industry should be regulated such that the basic level of care is provided for a set cost and all basic standards of care are met.

The basic care should be funded from general taxation, if this needs to be increased to cover the cost then so be it.

 

jb

Edited February 9, 2015 by barleycorn

[truman]

Because rents cost more than mortgages. The gross profits are taxed. The net profits are spent.

 

You still haven't stated why those without hundreds of thousands in assets should subsidise the care for those who do.

 

jb

 

Because,in the example we're talking about here, the guy with fewer assets has had the same chance as the other one to acrue some cash..it was his decision not to..it's not like we're talking about 2 people from different ends of the social spectrum,just two people who have made different choices with the same amount of money..yet one is able to be supported by the state and the other one not..where's the incentive for prudence? Might as well spend spend spend and have nothing left at the end when it's needed..

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2015 at 13:57 ----------

 

 

Regardless of assets everyone should be entitled to the same basic level of care, free at point of delivery. If you want more than the basic level then you pay for it.

If not already then the elderly care industry should be regulated such that the basic level of care is provided for a set cost and all basic standards of care are met.

The basic care should be funded from general taxation, if this needs to be increased to cover the cost then so be it.

 

jb

 

I think we agree on this...

[barleycorn]

Because,in the example we're talking about here, the guy with fewer assets has had the same chance as the other one to acrue some cash..it was his decision not to..it's not like we're talking about 2 people from different ends of the social spectrum,just two people who have made different choices with the same amount of money..yet one is able to be supported by the state and the other one not..where's the incentive for prudence? Might as well spend spend spend and have nothing left at the end when it's needed..

He hasn't been prudent, he's simply bought a house other than other goods or services. If he was prudent his intent would be to use the funds from his house to fund his needs in later years... the guy who rented has paid out enough in rent to fund a couple of houses, so in effect when that money makes its way back to the state (and it will eventually) he has paid just as much for his care as the home owner but will receive lesser care.

 

If you stop and think about it all your lifetime earnings will eventually make their way back to the state (with the exception of money you've offshored), so in your example both have contributed exactly the same yet the one without assets will receive lesser care than the one with.

 

I think we agree on this...

 

jb

[mjw47]

In the example which I gave of two men employed in the same job and earning the same wage, they each made a choice.

 

The one who chose to buy made the more sensible long term choice. In order to do so however he had to make some sacrifice, in the beginning he had to save up for a deposit.

 

In order to do that he had to forgo things his workmate chose not to forgo.

 

So whilst his workmate was on holiday and drinking and smoking he led a more low key lifestyle.

 

He hasn't actually gained anything personally over and beyond his workmate.

 

They both have a place to live, and in fact he has to pay for the upkeep of his home whilst his workmate has it included in his rent.

 

The only advantage which he has gained is not for him personally, he can't 'cash in' he has to live somewhere.

 

However, he has the satisfaction of knowing that when he dies he will have left something for his children which will help them in their future.

 

Some people obviously regard that as wrong, everyone should remember that they are serfs and should know their place.

 

The government and the local authorities are the ones who should be allowed to dictate what we can do with any assets which we have worked for in our lives.

 

Funny how it doesn't work out like that for the landed 'gentry' isn't it?

[apelike]

He hasn't "given" the council anything..he's paid for somewhere to live...like everyone else does..

 

True in one sense.

 

He has in fact given that rent money to central government to make use of as the council saw only a small percentage of it returned to them. Council renters in fact help the taxpayer far more than private rents or sales and one of the reasons more council homes should be built.

 

Others either pay rent to private landlords for them to bank or give it to the banks through a mortgage so in those cases its the banks that gain the most.