Blunkett - Sell house to pay for your elderly care

[mjw47]

Of course they can find the money but the world doesn't work like that.

 

Ok, let's for the sake of argument say you get a basic, Nhs (in its current state not something flashy) style care home. It won't be very nice. That's a given. You have a load of money tied up in a house that nobody is living (or you've already sold and given the cash to your kids) would you want them to upgrade to somewhere nicer with that money? Would you let them?

 

So you accept that money is not the problem?

 

Despite previously arguing at post 229 that it was the problem?

 

So basically the problem is that the government prefers to spend the taxpayers money on ill considered and aborted computer schemes, and nuclear deterrents that will never be used, rather than on an increasingly necessary service to the taxpayers who have provided the money in the first place?

 

Glad we cleared that up, it confirms my point that the system is completely unfair and discriminates against a section of the community who have done no wrong but are being singled out for what is basically another tax.

 

As for whether or not I would pay for better accommodation that is immaterial, my point is that I shouldn't have to.

[Dark Night]

 

Why not ?

Its their personal care and well being, they pay for that stuff whilst they are able to, why shouldn't they pay when they are less able?

 

If they are no longer Physically or mentally able to look after themselves which is why people go into care then it comes under the state welfare system, which part don't you understand.

 

---------- Post added 11-02-2015 at 21:39 ----------

 

Of course they can find the money but the world doesn't work like that.

 

Ok, let's for the sake of argument say you get a basic, Nhs (in its current state not something flashy) style care home. It won't be very nice. That's a given. You have a load of money tied up in a house that nobody is living (or you've already sold and given the cash to your kids) would you want them to upgrade to somewhere nicer with that money? Would you let them?

My late Mother in law experienced both, we/she certainly had no complaint about the local authority run care home.

[mjw47]

We inherited from both our sets of parents and insist that our offspring benefit from our savings/assets.

 

Neither my wife nor I inherited anything from our parents, but it didn't alter our attitude toward them in any way whatsoever.

 

I adored my parents, they have been dead for over 25 years and I still miss them and always will.

 

My mother-in-law lived in a semi-detached council house all her married life.

 

Her family and I offered to buy it and let her live rent free for the rest of her life.

 

She refused point blank stating that council houses were there for a particular purpose and she and her husband had been glad of that and it wasn't right to alter the situation.

 

Not one of us tried to change her mind, she was a lady of principles and we respected her decision.

 

We have been more fortunate - not having to live through a world war helped - and we intend for our children to receive some benefit.

[Dark Night]

Ok, let's for the sake of argument say you get a basic, Nhs (in its current state not something flashy) style care home. It won't be very nice.

 

So are you speaking from personal knowledge, whereas I can speak from personal knowledge through my late in law and my employment which took me into a good number.

 

---------- Post added 11-02-2015 at 21:48 ----------

 

Neither my wife nor I inherited anything from our parents, but it didn't alter our attitude toward them in any way whatsoever.

 

I adored my parents, they have been dead for over 25 years and I still miss them and always will.

 

My mother-in-law lived in a semi-detached council house all her married life.

 

Her family and I offered to buy it and let her live rent free for the rest of her life.

 

She refused point blank stating that council houses were there for a particular purpose and she and her husband had been glad of that and it wasn't right to alter the situation.

 

Not one of us tried to change her mind, she was a lady of principles and we respected her decision.

 

We have been more fortunate - not having to live through a world war helped - and we intend for our children to receive some benefit.

 

And that's how it should be.

[tinfoilhat]

So you accept that money is not the problem?

 

Despite previously arguing at post 229 that it was the problem?

 

So basically the problem is that the government prefers to spend the taxpayers money on ill considered and aborted computer schemes, and nuclear deterrents that will never be used, rather than on an increasingly necessary service to the taxpayers who have provided the money in the first place?

 

Glad we cleared that up, it confirms my point that the system is completely unfair and discriminates against a section of the community who have done no wrong but are being singled out for what is basically another tax.

 

As for whether or not I would pay for better accommodation that is immaterial, my point is that I shouldn't have to.

 

That point isn't immaterial at all. That's the sharp end of it. Fantasy land where we don't join in ill advised wars, order tinpot IT systems and buy nuclear weapons we won't use doesn't exist. It won't exist. All schools aren't equal (or good). Neither are hospitals, why you think care homes will be I'm not sure.

 

But your kids would have to visit you in potentially a horrible place when opportunities exist, that you created, to get you somewhere better. Maybe they won't visit and as soon as you moved in start spending big. I hated seeing my dad in the first crap hole he was so moved heaven and earth to move him.

[Olive]

Its what people used to do - the family looked after their elderly relative. If people did that, not only would they keep the house but be entitled to a care allowance as well. Some people do, but its not for everyone.

 

The issue we've got now, which has changed over the last few years, is that people are living for longer with complex, long term illnesses, often with many co-morbidities.

 

A rhetoric that often gets used is regarding how people in some other countries (developing countries for example) are great at looking after their elderly relatives, when actually, they have yet to face the top-heavy demographic that we have here.

 

Actually, that kind of reminds me of a news item I saw a while ago about elderly people being abandoned with no ID, by relatives who couldn't/didn't want to face the care bills. I forget where it was (poss South Korea?), but apparently there'd been a spate of these.

 

Seems to me that if there isn't at least a basic level of care that everyone can expect to receive, funded out of an NI-type scheme, then things will get much worse. Expecting dwindling numbers of home-owners to sell up and take up the slack won't be the answer.

[Anna B]

Perhaps if the beneficiaries of the properties, sold them and retired to be a carer for their parents.

That might work.

After all what right do they have to inherit a house they've usually contributed nothing to.

Let them earn the money,like the care home staff have to.

 

In that case you'll not believe in hereditary titles, the landed gentry, royalty, the aristocracy, the peerage, ownership of land, stately homes, or inheritances of any sort....

[mjw47]

That point isn't immaterial at all. That's the sharp end of it. Fantasy land where we don't join in ill advised wars, order tinpot IT systems and buy nuclear weapons we won't use doesn't exist. It won't exist. All schools aren't equal (or good). Neither are hospitals, why you think care homes will be I'm not sure.

 

But your kids would have to visit you in potentially a horrible place when opportunities exist, that you created, to get you somewhere better. Maybe they won't visit and as soon as you moved in start spending big. I hated seeing my dad in the first crap hole he was so moved heaven and earth to move him.

 

So you are simply prepared to accept that life is not only unfair, it is biased against honest decent people?

 

Fair enough, your choice as everything is, but why are you are even attempting to argue that that is acceptable is beyond me.

 

I know that that is the way it is, I have never argued that it is in anyway different, I am simply pointing out that it is unfair, and an underhand additional tax on people who have worked throughout their lives and deserve equal treatment.

 

Explain why you consider it fair and reasonable that some people should be required to contribute more for their care than others who have not bothered to acquire any assets whatsoever.

[janie48]

Again I agree.

 

I've always wondered why we in this country don't value our elderly. After all they have done for us as parents, friends, builders and workers we should treasure them.

 

Even in old age they are a precious assett of experience, living history, and wisdom. We should find a way of utilising that knowledge and value them as 'community elders.'

Oh yes they very much need to feel valued.

 

Most elderly people dread the thought of going into a care home, yet don't want to be dependent on their relatives and feel they are becoming a burden to them as deteriorating health creates that need for support.

 

But it shouldn't always be necessary for them to go into care if there was more support available for them to ensure they could remain in their own home. It can be done and has been,but now we have returned to the cuts in services and insufficient funding. Its time we had a change of government.

[sgtkate]

So your parents aren't allowed to make up their own minds and decide what they would wish to do with the money that they earned?

 

You feel you know better?

 

Not down to you though is it? They made it and they should be the ones to decide what to do with it.

 

If they would rather feel a sense of satisfaction, and gain some happiness from passing on an inheritance to their children, rather than pay even more of their hard earned money out to authorities that they have been paying out to all their lives then it's their decision isn't it?

 

That's the funny thing about parents, they don't stop caring for you and worrying about you when you reach adulthood, to them you are always their children.

 

Allow them that choice, it's theirs to do what they wish with.

 

Amazingly, I know my parents better than you do.

 

And you kind of missed my point. I'm not banning them for leaving me their money if that's what they decide to do. I've said I'll be miffed with them about it. The only person I'm controlling here is me.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2015 at 10:04 ----------

 

Practicalities?

 

So you see no unfairness in penalizing a section of society for doing nothing wrong - and trying to do what they believed to be the right thing for their families - whilst allowing another section who didn't give a thought to the future and spent it as they got it to get a free ride from the taxpayer?

 

Did the home owner pay their way?

 

If they did, why should they receive unequal treatment?

 

So would you begrudge paying for a reasonable level of care for someone who worked as a carer on minimum wage all their life so were never in a position to save enough to buy a house? Both sides to everything.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2015 at 10:05 ----------

 

You appear to believe that we shouldn't, that some should pay more and have advantage taken of their previous hard work and sensible behaviour.

 

Hard work != amount of money earned.

Edited February 12, 2015 by sgtkate