RonJeremy Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Take the example of two blokes who work next to each other doing the same job,earning the same money..one goes out every night and spends his cash and rents a council house, one saves a deposit and gets a mortgage..when/if the time comes for a nursing home why should the person who has been prudent end up no better off? Where's the fairness? Where is the incentive to not be a spendthrift? There is no fairness - life is not fair. Get over it. I agree with blanket why should I subsidise your mother's residential care so you can inherit her house or the proceeds from it? Better still - she gives/sells you the house 7 before she dies - exactly 7 if you can predict that, then she pays you rent with the proceeds to satisfy the taxman. Then when she has no money left, the state (ie everyone else who earns more than £27k pa) can pay for her care. Ah but that would be tax avoidance - and that would be immoral, sensible, but in some eyes immoral. ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 11:32 ---------- Blunkett not blanket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 The same reason your children wouldn't be able to get housing benefit if they lived with you. You made the decision to buy assets and the economy helped you by inflating house prices. You are therefore ok and can afford your health care, others can't. What's wrong with that, nobody forced you to buy property, especially if you got RTB council property, which belonged to the state.fair dos then. I'll sell the house, buy a Merc, 2 or 3 Caribbean hols each year, lots of other toys and drink whats left in the local. When the time comes for any hardship, you can all help me. Oh, and as I wont be leaving anything to the kids, as I had intended, you can fund them as adults too. Then we're all fair. OK for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Better still - she gives/sells you the house 7 before she dies - exactly 7 if you can predict that, then she pays you rent with the proceeds to satisfy the taxman. Then when she has no money left, the state (ie everyone else who earns more than £27k pa) can pay for her care. Ah but that would be tax avoidance - and that would be immoral, sensible, but in some eyes immoral The 7 year rule is a means of avoiding inheritence tax, and not a way of avoiding care home fees. The council can decide that a person has wilfully disposed of an asset and not grant their money for care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) There is no fairness - life is not fair. Get over it. I have nothing to get over..just because I put an alternative view doesn't mean I agree or disagree..it's called discussion.. ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 11:38 ---------- The 7 year rule is a means of avoiding inheritence tax, and not a way of avoiding care home fees. The council can decide that a person has wilfully disposed of an asset and not grant their money for care. If I've sold my house and spent it all on Holidays what will/can the council do? Remeber in my post above I'm now in the same boat as the bloke I worked with except I've left it 'til later to spend my cash.. Edited February 6, 2015 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I have nothing to get over..just because I put an alternative view doesn't mean I agree or disagree..it's called discussion.. ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 11:38 ---------- If I've sold my house and spent it all on Holidays what will/can the council do? My guess is that if you've blown it holidays etc they will probably fork out for your care. If you sell the house and your kids have sudden windfall they'll make them pay out. If you have no kids and no money left, what's the alternative, let you die in the street? I don't think councils are doing that yet - not even Rotherham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Not all care homes are equal. The spendthrift will have access to far nicer digs than the one who urinated it up a wall. Wouldn't the fairest thing be for the council to pay a minimum for everyone and let those with extra cash spend it if they wanted to improve their situation? ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 11:44 ---------- My guess is that if you've blown it holidays etc they will probably fork out for your care. If you sell the house and your kids have sudden windfall they'll make them pay out. If you have no kids and no money left, what's the alternative, let you die in the street? I don't think councils are doing that yet - not even Rotherham. Sounds like a plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 So the message is "live like a clown, run up huge debts and think of no-one else." When it comes to it the government will look after you. Typical Labour policy. Why bother saving money, living within your means and trying to provide for your children - the government is going to take your money anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Wouldn't the fairest thing be for the council to pay a minimum for everyone and let those with extra cash spend it if they wanted to improve their situation? ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 11:44 ---------- Sounds like a plan No the best plan is to keep around £25k and take a one way trip to Switzerland. If that isn't for you, having gone looked at quite a few care homes is to save save save. The council won't fund enough for the nice ones and some of the more "standard" ones I wouldn't put a dog in. This is why I don't get the whole look after your heart, 5 a day, excercise excerise excerise. The prize for getting old is living in one of these places. No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 No the best plan is to keep around £25k and take a one way trip to Switzerland. If that isn't for you, having gone looked at quite a few care homes is to save save save. The council won't fund enough for the nice ones and some of the more "standard" ones I wouldn't put a dog in. This is why I don't get the whole look after your heart, 5 a day, excercise excerise excerise. The prize for getting old is living in one of these places. No thanks! "Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy ****…what a ride!” Hunter S Thompson.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 What we need is for people to begin to understand that later-life care is not free. It can't be, it costs too much. What the result of that understanding, hopefully, will be is that people plan better for later-life care. It is completely beyond my comprehension that we do not see insurers jump on this en-masse, the Association of British Insurers is trying to push this but the notion that 'the State provideth' seemingly is holding this development back. 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