Mum wants to give us money from house sale

chewmylegoff

no doubt there are plenty of scumbags who scrounge off the rest of us - but if we all start doing that it's hardly going to help. it just makes things worse and increases the burden on the taxpayer.

lil_me

On another note, if my parents gave me that sort of money, I'd know I'd want to provide their needs in old age as they have provided me with the wealth to allow me to do so. The thought of my family having to live out their days in a care home makes me shudder, unless that is what they wanted, I would do everything I could to make sure it didn't happen. I do feel anyway that society should look after their own elderly, I have always been of the same opinion and have had many family members who the whole family cared for, sharing needs. The way it was done for centuries.

FraudBuster

scottishf wrote: »

Well the way I see it is that working people get scr**ed over at every turn. We work all our lives, and go without, so that we can save for our future....only to find that people who have claimed benefits, and never pay anything into thsystem, get a free ride as usual when reaching old age!. I don't mind the people who actually deserve the benefits, but we all know that there's a bulk of benefit fraudsters out there who take take take at the expense of the tax payer!

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/campaigns/benefit-thieves/

margaretclare

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't be throwing myself at the mercy of State-funded basic "care". I'd be booking into the Savoy Hotel for the rest of my life! Well, OK - £135k might not see me out, but you get my drift

I like this. I've heard of older people who live permanently on a cruise liner. No gardening, no house maintenance, no council tax. Meals always available, cabin cleaned, linen changed, always someone around to talk to. En suite bathroom in your cabin with walk-in shower, like the one we had recently on the Stena 'Hollandica'. Entertainment available. At the same time, no one telling you what you can and can't do, which is different from a care home.

As regards the promise of 'we'll look after you from cradle to grave', a lot can be said about that. Who remembers other political promises - a 'land fit for heroes to live in' when the returning heroes in 1918 were met with more hardships, unemployment and the dreaded means test? Or 'peace in our time' - it's just 70 years since that famous statement and I've been reading commemorations of it. Or more recently, in 1997 'Things can only get better'!

It can be argued that a population that is 'looked after from cradle to grave' is one living in a 'socialist paradise' like Stalin's USSR. No individual can improve his or her lot by endeavour, the 'hard work' that the OP talks about. It's all bog-standard, you live where you're told to live, do what you're told to do, no option, no choice, no individuality. You are just a cog in the machine.

I don't know how many people actually believed that 'cradle to grave' soundbite. I've never believed any such thing. I always knew from a very young age that whatever I wanted to do in life was down to my efforts alone. OK, I've made a lotta mistakes along the way, tried unsuccessfully to fit in with the zeitgeist, whatever that was in the successive decades. In respect of the present discussion I am seriously alarmed at hearing of a woman who wants to give away her entire capital. And live on what? And become totally dependent, having nothing at all of her own? The title of this thread is 'Mum wants to give us money...' Well, fine. As I said on page 1, anyone can give anything to anybody. But to give away everything, and leave herself with - what? We're not told that, just that the daughters propose to pay her rent. What a thought. The possibilities don't bear thinking about. We don't even know Mum's age - she may meet someone and decide to remarry, and I'm a living example that such things can happen. To make herself totally dependent on others? Frightening.

seven-day-weekend

Oooooh! I'd love to live in a hotel or on a cruise liner!

And I suppose this is what it's about really, isn't it? The 'cradle to grave' never was intended to include board, lodging and help with personal care. It meant health care and State Pension. If you lived in a hotel or on a cruise liner you would expect to pay for it. A friend of mine lives in a Buddhist monastery as a paying guest, he says it's much better than a care home. BUT he pays for his board and lodging.

So when someone has to pay, it's for the board and lodging and help with personal care. They still get free healthcare.

However, I still don't think they should have to subsidise those who can't pay, that is not right.

elmer

But we as a society will always have to have in place a support system for those that cannot afford to pay for care because we are rightly not willing to see anyone starve or freeze to death. And if we refused to provide(or subsidise if you like) those people this is what would happen to them. So we as a society make these decisions collectively, and we can't just opt out of them because it wont benefit us personally, or we might "lose" our "inheritance".

Elmer

vinuela13

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If your mum is going to give you all of her money, then presumably you will be good enough to take her in and look after her when she cannot live independently anymore, so presumably none of the rhetoric about who should pay for care homes is relevant...

Yes that it definitely our intentions

seven-day-weekend

elmer wrote: »

But we as a society will always have to have in place a support system for those that cannot afford to pay for care because we are rightly not willing to see anyone starve or freeze to death. And if we refused to provide(or subsidise if you like) those people this is what would happen to them. So we as a society make these decisions collectively, and we can't just opt out of them because it wont benefit us personally, or we might "lose" our "inheritance".

Elmer

You have misunderstood me; I meant the State should pay for those who cannot afford to, not other residents in the same home who fund themselves. This is what happens now, the fee-payers pay a higher rate in the same home than the State-assisted people and that is not right imho.

Debt_Free_Chick

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

You have misunderstood me; I meant the State should pay for those who cannot afford to, not other residents in the same home who fund themselves. This is what happens now, the fee-payers pay a higher rate in the same home than the State-assisted people and that is not right imho.

But it's the principle upon which our entire welfare system is built. Think of all the benefits that are provided ...... they are funded by those who pay tax and NI. And the more you earn, the more tax & NI you pay.

The only other option is to means-test everything. Now .... I actually have some sympathy with that principle - for example, every millionaire in the Country is entitled to the basic state pension of £90-odd a week. Is that "fair"? Especially when some have nothing other than the BSP to live on (not strictly true as they would get Pension Credit and then that opens the door to other benefits e.g. Council Tax Benefit ... but you get my drift)?

And think of the systems & staff needed to means-test everything :eek:

And think that during working life, money could be frittered away simply so one could "qualify" for benefits.

The only way is to look at "wealth" during one's whole working life - and that's really not viable either.

Difficult to find another option that is really any better than what we have - but come Election time, you can bet all the politicians will claim that they have one

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

You have misunderstood me; I meant the State should pay for those who cannot afford to, not other residents in the same home who fund themselves. This is what happens now, the fee-payers pay a higher rate in the same home than the State-assisted people and that is not right imho.

I think that what actually happens is that the council has more ability to negotiate a 'deal' with the home owner, who knows that the council is going to put more business his/her way. I don't think it's really the case that the fee-payers are subsidising the others, just that they are paying the full rate for the service being offered and not able to take advantage of a council-arranged 'deal'. I know it does appear unfair, but that's what I've been led to believe.

The best idea would be, if you are going to fund yourself, make sure you go to a home where there are no council-funded residents so you wouldn't feel unfairly-treated. Everyone would be paying the full whack. However, I don't know where such homes might be. Here's a clear explanation from BUPA: http://www.bupacarehomes.co.uk/asp/guidance/paying.asp