Blunkett - Sell house to pay for your elderly care

[mjw47]

Rewinding right back to post #1...

 

...surely one's own assets ought to be consumed before those of other taxpayers?

 

The money used to enable the purchase of those assets, was tax paid on it?

 

Yes it was, wasn't it? Meaning that the asset owner is also a taxpayer and even perhaps more of a contributor than those other taxpayers you are so concerned about.

 

In what way is it equable that someone who has worked hard and saved in order to provide a decent standard of living for their family has to fund their own care, whilst someone who chose to spend their money differently gets it paid for?

[poppet2]

The money used to enable the purchase of those assets, was tax paid on it?

 

Yes it was, wasn't it? Meaning that the asset owner is also a taxpayer and even perhaps more of a contributor than those other taxpayers you are so concerned about.

 

In what way is it equable that someone who has worked hard and saved in order to provide a decent standard of living for their family has to fund their own care, whilst someone who chose to spend their money differently gets it paid for?

 

Eh, we all WORK HARD. I'm sick of hearing this.

Especially those on minimum wage or zero hour contracts who have no choice but to take on several part-time jobs just to pay the rent.

Or is your idea of working hard only applicable to the skilled and home owners?

[geared]

'We all work hard' is abit of a generalisation.

 

You take a wonder round some areas of the city during the working day and you'll see plenty of people who don't even know the meaning of 'working hard'

[mjw47]

Eh, we all WORK HARD. I'm sick of hearing this.

Especially those on minimum wage or zero hour contracts who have no choice but to take on several part-time jobs just to pay the rent.

Or is your idea of working hard only applicable to the skilled and home owners?

 

No we don't all work hard, where did you pick up that daft idea?

 

It's blindingly obvious that an unacceptable number of people don't work at all despite being perfectly capable of doing so, at least in the physical sense.

 

Others work in jobs that require a minimum of effort and virtually no stress apart from having to get out of bed in a morning.

 

And what I actually said was 'someone who chose to spend their money differently' which referred to people who made the same amount but had different priorities.

 

Choosing to spend your money kind of implies that you have money to spend, doesn't it?

 

I've worked alongside people who earned the same as I did but decided that they couldn't be bothered with mortgages and rented instead.

 

Their choice, so why should we be treat differently in the event of either of us requiring care toward the end of our lives?

[-Boomer-]

There will always be people that won't work but most do want to work. Whether they can afford to work for they amount the employer is willing to pay is a different matter. It will never change so why worry about it?

[harvey19]

No we don't all work hard, where did you pick up that daft idea?

 

It's blindingly obvious that an unacceptable number of people don't work at all despite being perfectly capable of doing so, at least in the physical sense.

 

Others work in jobs that require a minimum of effort and virtually no stress apart from having to get out of bed in a morning.

 

And what I actually said was 'someone who chose to spend their money differently' which referred to people who made the same amount but had different priorities.

 

Choosing to spend your money kind of implies that you have money to spend, doesn't it?

 

I've worked alongside people who earned the same as I did but decided that they couldn't be bothered with mortgages and rented instead.

 

Their choice, so why should we be treat differently in the event of either of us requiring care toward the end of our lives?

Our generation were taught to save for a rainy day, provide for our family and try to better ourselves. Many of the present generation do likewise but the payment for care situation encourages people to be feckless.

If the criteria were reversed and those who had paid most into the system got reduced costs and those who had paid in the least were charged proportionately more it would prove fruit for a good debate.

[Anna B]

Our generation were taught to save for a rainy day, provide for our family and try to better ourselves. Many of the present generation do likewise but the payment for care situation encourages people to be feckless.

If the criteria were reversed and those who had paid most into the system got reduced costs and those who had paid in the least were charged proportionately more it would prove fruit for a good debate.

 

I wonder if David and Samantha Cameron would be in favour of this if it meant they lost their stately home (and their children's inheritance) to pay for care?

[mjw47]

I wonder if David and Samantha Cameron would be in favour of this if it meant they lost their stately home (and their children's inheritance) to pay for care?

 

Oh I doubt they need to worry too much, Samantha's daddy can always help them out if they're stuck.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fearth%2Fcountryside%2F8716138%2FWhy-Samantha-Camerons-dad-is-stirring-up-a-storm.html&ei=jHglVamuDZHkavPAgIAM&usg=AFQjCNGGnsUuxKR254-hqfcRPXvs4_NQwg&bvm=bv.90237346,d.d2s

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wind-watch.org%2Fnews%2F2011%2F08%2F19%2Fsamantha-camerons-father-nets-350000-a-year-from-subsidised-wind-farm%2F&ei=jHglVamuDZHkavPAgIAM&usg=AFQjCNE86jim65Ja9HJmMM_09gjXs_grCw&bvm=bv.90237346,d.d2s

 

Good of us to subsidise it don't you think?

[Localman]

The money used to enable the purchase of those assets, was tax paid on it?

 

Yes it was, wasn't it? Meaning that the asset owner is also a taxpayer and even perhaps more of a contributor than those other taxpayers you are so concerned about.

 

 

Well, no actually. Those assets (houses) were significantly funded by mortgage interest tax relief. [Nowadays only provided to Buy-to-Rent landlords, which partly explains why owner-occupation has decreased and private renting has increased. But that's another debate.]

 

My parents and in-laws worked all their lives and became owner-occupiers. They are all on the cusp of requiring sheltered/supported accommodation if not residential care. They, like their nine children, have been fortunate enough to have always worked and never claimed a day's unemployment benefit or social security between them.

 

We are all agreed that if we are fortunate enough to have assets (above any token amount) that can be used to pay for necessary residential care then it should be.

[Anna B]

I think we should also recognise what happens when the money runs out, which it surely will after an amazingly short time.

 

First the family, friend, or sponser will have to pay anything over £400 a week which averages out at about £500 a month or more, and could be a lot more than that. If that is not forthcoming the elderly person, often very old and frail, will be unceremoniously moved / dumped like a parcel into the cheapest home they can find with a place, anywhere in the country. It will not be good.

 

This is regardless of the elderly persons wishes, health, age, roots, how much they have already contributed, or having settled, made friends where they are. They might as well leave them out on the hillside to die.

 

People think they will be too demented to care, but they could be as sharp as a tack in a frail old body. This is a disgraceful way for someone to end their life after a lifetime of contributing to society.

 

But hey, that's business...