Blunkett - Sell house to pay for your elderly care

[mjw47]

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.

 

Whereas people who lived in council housing paid the full market value commensurate with what they would have had to pay in the private sector?

 

Their rent also being inclusive of all repairs etc?

 

Whilst it is very noble of you and yours to adopt that attitude my point is that you shouldn't have to.

 

Given the choice I'm sure that your parents would prefer to leave any assets which they may have acquired to be divided between their family.

 

This country has one of the worst social mobility records in the developed world.

 

http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=league+table+of+social+mobility+by+country&cb=YO&pg=GGmain&p2=%5EYO%5Exdm540%5ELAENUK%5Egb&qid=810cfc8ca4024e7fabfc5c976423d4e7&n=7a7d70b2&ss=sub&pn=1&st=sb&ptb=1B204ACA-68E4-44A2-9807-EB57F8ED25A5&tpr=&si=CD15543_1200-oTQd&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEQXpQA%2FvNpUS%2BeswX3gyEsTtjS4b2Hc%2BvHOiM3VMHEEezhiKE955w2QyVknuQ5BrP1ygxZ9x0zkV9b2yfgMNZqsf64iFrBDZsr8YzSRVEDty&ord=1&

 

And one of the reasons ( together with the still existing class system ) is the fact that at every given opportunity the government will screw the working class before the rich.

 

Got a billion in an offshore account? Why don't you have Non Dom status and avoid tax?

 

Worked all your life and paid tax on PAYE basis? Need care at the end of your life and have a small property? Well that was a daft thing to do, we'll have that.

[Localman]

Whereas people who lived in council housing paid the full market value commensurate with what they would have had to pay in the private sector?

 

Their rent also being inclusive of all repairs etc?

 

I don't know why anyone should believe in the magic of 'full market value rent' when we have such a flawed and twisted housing market.

 

However, even after all management and repair costs have been met, council housing is still making a surplus of more than £1bn per annum. [see the Chartered Institute of Housing's Annual Housing Finance Report.] This is currently used by the government to subsidise housing benefit, which is nothing to do with housing, but to do with income maintenance.

 

Given the choice I'm sure that your parents would prefer to leave any assets which they may have acquired to be divided between their family.

 

No. We're all - parents and children - very happy that any assets should be given away.

 

What I don't understand is that you seem to support the removal of anyinheritance tax and the continuation of non-dom status. I don't get it.

[mjw47]

In which case can you explain why the government is proposing giving away council houses to tenants?

 

http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=proposal+to+give+council+houses+away+to+tenants&cb=YO&pg=GGmain&p2=%5EYO%5Exdm540%5ELAENUK%5Egb&qid=ee30483aa91f4707b9663f58fcf10200&n=7a7d70b2&ss=sub&pn=1&st=sb&ptb=1B204ACA-68E4-44A2-9807-EB57F8ED25A5&tpr=&si=CD15543_1200-oTQd&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEQXpQA%2FvNpUS%2BeswX3gyEsRij4eIkdf8Qoyc7p4U1y0AQSxHLH5abefaGXZvLfKWeaabkwqjAeLRdK6i1qMP4CmTpZrnCzPY4ZYvspswnZnIC6kdsX7VWOgmz9BME3NW%2FQv8CC5A8Alh58EzMccD5Hs%3D&ord=3&

 

As they're always looking to increase tax it seems rather counter productive to give away a billion a year doesn't it?

 

You do realise that the last paragraph and proceeding sentence of my last post were meant sarcastically don't you?

[Localman]

In which case can you explain why the government is proposing giving away council houses to tenants?

 

Can I explain it? Only in ideological terms.

 

Do I support it? No. I think it's completely bonkers; a view seemingly shared by most independent commentators.

 

The London borough of Westminster is now spending £20m on buying back and refurbishing former Right-to-Buy properties which it sold at less than a fifth of that price in order to begin to meet some of its housing obligations. It is also buying houses in Essex for the same purpose.

[mjw47]

And these are the people that are in charge of spending the money they get from the public.

 

Which is why I believe that it is far better for people to retain as much of their own money and assets as they can and spend it as they wish.

 

After all it's not as though the normal person in the street avoids paying tax when doing that is it?

 

The money that you have left after tax is usually spent on items which are also taxed, so you are paying tax using money that has already been taxed, great system at least as far as the government are concerned.

 

Your acceptance that it is OK to contribute additional money toward care over and above that which will be paid by those who have no assets seems strange to me but it is your choice so fair enough.

 

Personally I would have thought the money would be better spent - as a for instance - toward the private education of any children you may have in order to provide them with a better opportunity in life.

 

The Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with me.

 

http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=george+osborne+on+avoiding+inheritance+tax&cb=YO&pg=GGmain&p2=%5EYO%5Exdm540%5ELAENUK%5Egb&qid=35a048ee17904b80b684edd891b10c91&n=7a7d70b2&ss=sub&pn=1&st=sb&ptb=1B204ACA-68E4-44A2-9807-EB57F8ED25A5&tpr=&si=CD15543_1200-oTQd&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEZwsWdUEAjQI0wCwQTi5G9GKVJ64QVDOHMi%2FXguXXrwv3yekcjd1mqUM5qTpg6RVexFWfumq4H%2F5Bk7j2aZwSNKLzuxsMfB7ERgZXThc3fpJHP5RLSQwc44jXxGGwuE2vxgKR8YU%2FBSfimE%2FnJeO2aRNnTjXDQmOOkXL0nkFJhncU50XloxntiWnidb4poXtCA%3D%3D&ord=0&

[sgtkate]

Whereas people who lived in council housing paid the full market value commensurate with what they would have had to pay in the private sector?

 

Their rent also being inclusive of all repairs etc?

 

Whilst it is very noble of you and yours to adopt that attitude my point is that you shouldn't have to.

 

Given the choice I'm sure that your parents would prefer to leave any assets which they may have acquired to be divided between their family.

 

This country has one of the worst social mobility records in the developed world.

 

http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=league+table+of+social+mobility+by+country&cb=YO&pg=GGmain&p2=%5EYO%5Exdm540%5ELAENUK%5Egb&qid=810cfc8ca4024e7fabfc5c976423d4e7&n=7a7d70b2&ss=sub&pn=1&st=sb&ptb=1B204ACA-68E4-44A2-9807-EB57F8ED25A5&tpr=&si=CD15543_1200-oTQd&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEQXpQA%2FvNpUS%2BeswX3gyEsTtjS4b2Hc%2BvHOiM3VMHEEezhiKE955w2QyVknuQ5BrP1ygxZ9x0zkV9b2yfgMNZqsf64iFrBDZsr8YzSRVEDty&ord=1&

 

And one of the reasons ( together with the still existing class system ) is the fact that at every given opportunity the government will screw the working class before the rich.

 

Got a billion in an offshore account? Why don't you have Non Dom status and avoid tax?

 

Worked all your life and paid tax on PAYE basis? Need care at the end of your life and have a small property? Well that was a daft thing to do, we'll have that.

 

Well vote Labour and nom-doms will be a thing of the past

[Localman]

And these are the people that are in charge of spending the money they get from the public.

 

Which is why I believe that it is far better for people to retain as much of their own money and assets as they can and spend it as they wish.

 

 

Of course, you are making the dangerous - and incorrect - assumption that you will get more for your £ if you do it individually.

 

Actually, you don't.

 

Expenditure on administration and bureaucracy is significantly higher on nearly all individual scheme purchases than those with some collective arrangements. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about health, education, pensions, energy and other utilities, insurance, refuse collection and disposal, transport...............

[mjw47]

Well vote Labour and nom-doms will be a thing of the past

 

Yes, that'll work.

 

Given our non democratic method of voting it doesn't matter one way or the other who I vote for, it's a safe seat and has been since 1974.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 21:50 ----------

 

Of course, you are making the dangerous - and incorrect - assumption that you will get more for your £ if you do it individually.

 

Actually, you don't.

 

Expenditure on administration and bureaucracy is significantly higher on nearly all individual scheme purchases than those with some collective arrangements. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about health, education, pensions, energy and other utilities, insurance, refuse collection and disposal, transport...............

 

Having never worked in the public sector I do not claim to be an expert.

 

Suppliers to the public sector rip it off to an ridiculous degree.

 

Having family that have worked in it for many years, and by personal observation of what transpires I have to say that I am less than impressed.

 

Conduct which would result in dismissal in the private sector tends to result in little more than a mild reprimand in the public sector.

 

Having no comeback in terms of consequences such as dismissal, or forced liquidation of the company because of major errors of judgement leads to an attitude of carelessness which costs the public billions.

 

You only have to look at some of the complete and utter balls ups regarding government IT projects to see how unlike the real world the public sector exists in a world of its own.

 

The only more outrageous behavior is that displayed by the banks.

 

They can bankrupt countries keep their jobs and receive bonuses.

 

But then the banks and financial institutions run the world, so normal rules don't apply.

Edited April 13, 2015 by mjw47

[truman]

The only more outrageous behavior is that displayed by the banks.

 

They can bankrupt countries keep their jobs and receive bonuses.

 

But then the banks and financial institutions run the world, so normal rules don't apply.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say but thousands and thousands of bankers lost their jobs...

[mjw47]

I agree with a lot of what you say but thousands and thousands of bankers lost their jobs...

 

Yes they did, but how many of them were the ones actually responsible for what happened?

 

Scapegoats are useful, bonus payments were made from public money to many of the really culpable ones.

 

Had to love the excuse though, 'if you want to retain the best people you have to pay top dollar'.

 

If they are an example of the best I shudder to think what would have taken place if anyone less than fully competent had been in charge!