Tommo68 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 From conversations with a number of people in their later years quite a lot of unfairness does seem to go on. The best single example that comes to mind is 2 ladies. They went to school together, they both got jobs as cleaners for the council. They both had about the same length of time out to have their children. One with her husband bought her house when she was in her early 20's and paid into her pansion, she and her husband saved regularly and all the other sensible things. The other with her husband lived in a council house, saved only for things like their next holiday and generally most weeks by next payday was lucky to have a few quid left. They both became widows at around the same time. Due to benefits, state pension, poll tax concessions and social security payments guess which one was the better off. Both were in the same retirement home one paid for by the council the other had to sell her home. There are of course some people on this forum who until it happens to them will think that's alright. Then again some people do have no imagination and don't even know the meaningof empathy. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Who do you mean, the did haves not in ex council homes? Why are they did haves who now have care paid for them? What did they have and why haven't they got it now? Read my post #9..I mean the people who had money but rented a council house and spent the rest on holidays and beer..they had the cash but chose to "waste" it..why should they get their care paid for but those that decided to buy a house not? ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 13:20 ---------- From conversations with a number of people in their later years quite a lot of unfairness does seem to go on. The best single example that comes to mind is 2 ladies. They went to school together, they both got jobs as cleaners for the council. They both had about the same length of time out to have their children. One with her husband bought her house when she was in her early 20's and paid into her pansion, she and her husband saved regularly and all the other sensible things. The other with her husband lived in a council house, saved only for things like their next holiday and generally most weeks by next payday was lucky to have a few quid left. They both became widows at around the same time. Due to benefits, state pension, poll tax concessions and social security payments guess which one was the better off. Both were in the same retirement home one paid for by the council the other had to sell her home. There are of course some people on this forum who until it happens to them will think that's alright. Then again some people do have no imagination and don't even know the meaningof empathy. . . See my post #9...the same thing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I thought this was a forgone conclusion, hasn't it been happening for some years now? Unless people take out private health insurance against this sort of thing, how else are home owners to fund their elderly care? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/556444/David-Blunkett-pensioners-inheritance-tax Perhaps the answer is to sell the family home when you get old. Give to proceeds to the kids and rent a house in which to see out one's dotage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Read my post #9..I mean the people who had money but rented a council house and spent the rest on holidays and beer..they had the cash but chose to "waste" it..why should they get their care paid for but those that decided to buy a house not? Remember, they had a choice, same as you. Many people who bought their council house did so for the following reasons: a) mortgage costs worked out cheaper than rent b) they had an asset which would increase in value c) their children could inherit it All valiant reasons. You should feel sorry for those who couldn't afford to buy, they are paying higher rent every year, with no assets and nothing to pass onto their children. Maybe their principles didn't allow them to buy, because they wondered where their own children would live, if council houses were bought which would result in a shortage. Whatever their reasons, you have an asset and some security for your children. You won't be paying council rent when you retire. And you think it's fair to also want free care home from the state?!!! These were your choices and choices result in repercussions. ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 13:42 ---------- Perhaps the answer is to sell the family home when you get old. Give to proceeds to the kids and rent a house in which to see out one's dotage. Can't do that. Councils have been wise to that one for quite a few years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I mean the people who had money but rented a council house and spent the rest on holidays and beer..they had the cash but chose to "waste" it..why should they get their care paid for but those that decided to buy a house not? But they didnt waste it, the spent it "enjoying themselves" and helped the economy grow, the same as others who rent. Those that bought a house and now need care have an asset which under the rules is means tested for benefits, and that's been the way for many years. What this shows is that buying a house is not necessarily an upward ladder or a good move as it ties money up for a very long time. If you look at current economics and interest rates people are being encouraged to spend and not save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Read my post #9..I mean the people who had money but rented a council house and spent the rest on holidays and beer..they had the cash but chose to "waste" it..why should they get their care paid for but those that decided to buy a house not? There was nothing to stop you doing the same as them. Your mortgage was cheaper then renting. Your asset grew over 25 years. You could have taken out a loan on you house because you had so much equity because it appreciated over the years. But still you want more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Remember, they had a choice, same as you. Many people who bought their council house did so for the following reasons: a) mortgage costs worked out cheaper than rent b) they had an asset which would increase in value c) their children could inherit it All valiant reasons. You should feel sorry for those who couldn't afford to buy, they are paying higher rent every year, with no assets and nothing to pass onto their children. Maybe their principles didn't allow them to buy, because they wondered where their own children would live, if council houses were bought which would result in a shortage. Whatever their reasons, you have an asset and some security for your children. You won't be paying council rent when you retire. And you think it's fair to also want free care home from the state?!!! These were your choices and choices result in repercussions. ---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 13:42 ---------- Can't do that. Councils have been wise to that one for quite a few years now. So you agree that the best course of action is to spend all your cash,don't invest in a pension,and never buy a house? Don't pensioners still get housing benefit and council tax reduction if their pension doesn't give them enough? As you seem to ignoere it I'll remind you that my post #9 was talking about 2 blokes with the same job and income and why do you keep harping on about council houses being bought...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 But they didnt waste it, the spent it "enjoying themselves" and helped the economy grow, the same as others who rent. Those that bought a house and now need care have an asset which under the rules is means tested for benefits, and that's been the way for many years. What this shows is that buying a house is not necessarily an upward ladder or a good move as it ties money up for a very long time. If you look at current economics and interest rates people are being encouraged to spend and not save. Surely those paying mortgages are also helping the economy to grow? I totally agree with Truman, why should prudance and good planning be punished? Should we make those who rent sell off their assets as well, should they be deprived of their car / TV / caravan at Skeggy / collection of nik naks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Surely those paying mortgages are also helping the economy to grow? I totally agree with Truman, why should prudance and good planning be punished? Should we make those who rent sell off their assets as well, should they be deprived of their car / TV / caravan at Skeggy / collection of nik naks? Tell you what convert..I'm going to have some great holidays when I retire, sell my house and cash in my pension..the council can look after me when I get back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Tell you what convert..I'm going to have some great holidays when I retire, sell my house and cash in my pension..the council can look after me when I get back Have you got a caravan @ Skeggy then 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