Blunkett - Sell house to pay for your elderly care

[tinfoilhat]

Not if I have assets above £23k it won't...

 

Depends where you are. In some places its £30k. And if one part of a couple live in a house and the other has to go into care the house isn't included. Neither are savings if they are in the form of bonds. Even then you might be allowed some help under some councils.

 

But, yes if you live alone and have assets over £23k (or £30k or whatever) you won't qualify for state help. What's more awkward is when you burn through your assets, run out and then need state help. If you care home cost 500 a week and the council pays 350, you're either going to hope your offspring fork out or you're moving. That I don't agree with.

 

That said, if you qualify for "continuing care" from the NHS they will pay for an awful lot - which is why it's tremendously difficult to meet the criteria.

[poppet2]

Not if I have assets above £23k it won't...

 

What more do you want?

You can't have it all Truman.

No one forced you to buy a house, you can't have your cake and eat it.

You had the choice to buy a house, chose the area, the type of property, have a valuable future asset and still you want the same as the have-nots by wanting your future care provided by the state.

This is why benefits are means tested for the likes of people like you.

 

You could say, those who chose not to buy property have lost out by not having a valuable asset like yours, they aren't complaining like you. So why are you complaining it's unfair when you have a more valuable asset? Even if they had put their money in the bank, it wouldn't have gained as much interest over the years as buying property, so why are you so envious that they will get their care paid for and you won't? The politics of envy.

[Dark Night]

So who does foot the bill for elderly care if they have no means, no assets??

 

I'm assuming the answer is the tax payer.

 

I'm a tax payer, I'm funding for someone's care right now??

When I require care is it unreasonable to ask the tax payers of the day to fund it???

 

Yes my friend you'll pay twice just like my in-laws were expected to. Good isn't it

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 19:36 ----------

 

What more do you want?

You can't have it all Truman.

No one forced you to buy a house, you can't have your cake and eat it.

You had the choice to buy a house, chose the area, the type of property, have a valuable future asset and still you want the same as the have-nots by wanting your future care provided by the state.

This is why benefits are means tested for the likes of people like you.

 

You could say, those who chose not to buy property have lost out by not having a valuable asset like yours, they aren't complaining like you. So why are you complaining it's unfair when you have a more valuable asset? Even if they had put their money in the bank, it wouldn't have gained as much interest over the years as buying property, so why are you so envious that they will get their care paid for and you won't? The politics of envy.

 

The simple answer is to dispose of you assets so you're in the same position as those who didn't make plans for their old age.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 19:43 ----------

 

Depends where you are. In some places its £30k. And if one part of a couple live in a house and the other has to go into care the house isn't included. Neither are savings if they are in the form of bonds. Even then you might be allowed some help under some councils.

 

But, yes if you live alone and have assets over £23k (or £30k or whatever) you won't qualify for state help. What's more awkward is when you burn through your assets, run out and then need state help. If you care home cost 500 a week and the council pays 350, you're either going to hope your offspring fork out or you're moving. That I don't agree with.

 

That said, if you qualify for "continuing care" from the NHS they will pay for an awful lot - which is why it's tremendously difficult to meet the criteria.

My-in-laws along with my late Mother didn't have to contribute a penny, their property along with their assets disposed of before their need for care.

Now that is brilliant forward planning.

[mossdog]

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.

It seems people who bought their council house gets right up your nose!........well why wouldn't you do given the chance to make a bob or two.

Having said that it was one of the few things I agree with that Margaret Thatcher got wrong(or her advisers of the day). Social housing should be kept in the public domain, not sold off.

But future stock should only be on a maximum 5 year contract not the ridiculous lifetime expectancy which it has been for too long!

[poppet2]

My late Father-in-law who worked all of his adult life and served throughout WWII sold his house and disposed of the proceeds shortly before he died therefore my late Mother-in-law lived in a care home for free.

 

What would happen if we all did this?

[truman]

What more do you want?

You can't have it all Truman.

No one forced you to buy a house, you can't have your cake and eat it.

You had the choice to buy a house, chose the area, the type of property, have a valuable future asset and still you want the same as the have-nots by wanting your future care provided by the state.

This is why benefits are means tested for the likes of people like you.

 

You could say, those who chose not to buy property have lost out by not having a valuable asset like yours, they aren't complaining like you. So why are you complaining it's unfair when you have a more valuable asset? Even if they had put their money in the bank, it wouldn't have gained as much interest over the years as buying property, so why are you so envious that they will get their care paid for and you won't? The politics of envy.

 

There's not much point in having a valuable asset if all I can do with it is to cash it in to pay for any care home costs I may accumulate..the guy in my post #9 has had it all..he's had his money and spent it when he was younger and now will get his care paid for..I'm not envious at all.. your'e personalising this far too much...it's just a discussion..Where's the incentive for prudence? Where's the incentive to invest for a pension when it will all count against someone?Spend Spend Spend eh?

Edited February 6, 2015 by truman

[poppet2]

Yes my friend you'll pay twice just like my in-laws were expected to. Good isn't it

 

But they didn't did they?!!!

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 19:58 ----------

 

It seems people who bought their council house gets right up your nose!........well why wouldn't you do given the chance to make a bob or two.

Having said that it was one of the few things I agree with that Margaret Thatcher got wrong(or her advisers of the day). Social housing should be kept in the public domain, not sold off.

But future stock should only be on a maximum 5 year contract not the ridiculous lifetime expectancy which it has been for too long!

 

Council property is for state use. Future generations will suffer for such greed.

Let's hope your children & grandchildren never need council accomodation.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 20:02 ----------

 

There's not much point in having a valuable asset if all I can do with it is to cash it in to pay for any care home costs I may accumulate..the guy in my post #9 has had it all..he's had his money and spent it when he was younger and now will get his care paid for..I'm not envious at all.. your'e personalising this far too much...it's just a discussion..Where's the incentive for prudence? Where's the incentive to invest for a pension when it will all count against someone?Spend Spend Spend eh?

 

If you feel that way, why on earth did you buy your property?

[tinfoilhat]

Yes my friend you'll pay twice just like my in-laws were expected to. Good isn't it

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 19:36 ----------

 

 

The simple answer is to dispose of you assets so you're in the same position as those who didn't make plans for their old age.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 19:43 ----------

 

My-in-laws along with my late Mother didn't have to contribute a penny, their property along with their assets disposed of before their need for care.

Now that is brilliant forward planning.

 

Did they like their care home?

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 20:05 ----------

 

There's not much point in having a valuable asset if all I can do with it is to cash it in to pay for any care home costs I may accumulate..the guy in my post #9 has had it all..he's had his money and spent it when he was younger and now will get his care paid for..I'm not envious at all.. your'e personalising this far too much...it's just a discussion..Where's the incentive for prudence? Where's the incentive to invest for a pension when it will all count against someone?Spend Spend Spend eh?

 

The point of buying a house I thought was to live in it. When you can't live in it, you sell it (or rent it out). Or you could knock it down and use its components to make a **** off big tomb.

 

I like the last one!

[truman]

But they didn't did they?!!!

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 19:58 ----------

 

 

Council property is for state use. Future generations will suffer for such greed.

Let's hope your children & grandchildren never need council accomodation.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 20:02 ----------

 

 

If you feel that way, why on earth did you buy your property?

 

Who says I'm talking about me? Can't you have a discussion without personalising things.?.do you think it fair that someone who has had the money but spent it can get help but someone who has held onto their cash can't?

[poppet2]

Who says I'm talking about me? Can't you have a discussion without personalising things.?.do you think it fair that someone who has had the money but spent it can get help but someone who has held onto their cash can't?

 

You are the one who is personalising this.

I didn't make the rules, successive governments did, and all seem to agree that if you own property, you can't expect the state to care for you as well.

Same as if you own property and rent it out, you can't expect to also get housing benefit to rent a house, while you own and rent your own nest egg to tenants.

Edited February 6, 2015 by poppet2