how can you avoid house u own paying for nursing home fees

marklv

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Much better if the children are taught a good work ethic at a young age and can then look after themselves financially.

Work ethic matters nowt if the economy is in a bad state. You need a good deal of luck in life, as well hard graft.

seven-day-weekend

marklv wrote: »

My wish is to die quietly and peacefully in my sleep at the age of 90, still in a fit state, both physically and mentally. I wouldn't want to live any longer than that unless some miracle discovery allowed the ageing process to be stopped or reversed. Dream on!

My friend's Grandad died at the age of 99, over a pint in his local, which he'd just walked to as he did every Saturday.

I always thought that was a particularly good way to go.

inmypocketnottheirs

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My friend's Grandad died at the age of 99, over a pint in his local, which he'd just walked to as he did every Saturday.

I always thought that was a particularly good way to go.

I'd like to book my exit in the same way!

Pssst

kittie wrote: »

surely it is a matter of pride to make provision to pay your own care fees. Who should pick up the bill? the struggling tax payer?

Well we pick it up for all the dolehoppers so who is more worthy? One who has paid in for decades or one who has sat on their backside for decades?

marklv

Pssst wrote: »

Well we pick it up for all the dolehoppers so who is more worthy? One who has paid in for decades or one who has sat on their backside for decades?

Have you ever been unemployed? You get £60 a week - try living on that, smartass.

smk77

uberalles wrote: »

How about those that bleat on about the 'money no object' carefree lifestyles they have, flitting away their money on luxurious goods like flash cars, only to find that when they are old and alone and unfit, have no assets and are in abject poverty.

The point is that people lead their lives differently in many ways. Those who are careful and value and save what they earn should not have it taken just because they are unable to look after themselves and the government see it as fair game that the money should be theirs.
Whereas others who were in younger life carefree, get the same for nothing.

Why don't we all just live for today, waste money, and get to the stage where we are incapable with nothing to our names. Then we can all claim the free basic service.

We should all contribute once, through NI and taxes, not twice.

So it further endorses your point about a basic service being available.

Just playing devil's advocate...

Those that 'waste' money are paying taxes and then spending their money resulting in them paying more taxes thus possibly contributing more overall...

I think that you need to look at the bigger picture. People are living longer. We contribute taxes but clearly not enough to completely fund the ageing population. As I pointed out above most people in nursing homes have probably had their fair share of their taxes back in state pensions and healthcare. You may say that they are paying twice but it could be argued that they haven't paid enough.

seven-day-weekend

smk77 wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate...

Those that 'waste' money are paying taxes and then spending their money resulting in them paying more taxes thus possibly contributing more overall...

I think that you need to look at the bigger picture. People are living longer. We contribute taxes but clearly not enough to completely fund the ageing population. As I pointed out above most people in nursing homes have probably had their fair share of their taxes back in state pensions and healthcare. You may say that they are paying twice but it could be argued that they haven't paid enough.

A friend of mine who is a consultant geriatrician has always said this.

marklv

If people are living longer then the choice is either: involuntary euthanasia for the greatly incapacitated (not acceptable to most people), increasing taxation to cover it or have a system which combines state help with private funding. Ultimately, the latter option seems the way forward.

MissMoneypenny

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Yes residents get some financial help ie £153 for personal care and £69 for nursing care which at £222 comes nowhere close to paying fees which still run into large sums of money. My relative was still paying over £2000 per month and that was over three years ago. There wasn't a home to sell but if there was it would have needed to be sold to pay. Once the money reduced the majority of pension goes to the home. There is also no Attendance Allowance.

I assume that is weekly? Which works out to £962pcm, plus the 2k your relative was paying, three years ago. It looks like 3k -4k is about the norm for nursing homes then.

MissMoneypenny

marklv wrote: »

have a system which combines state help with private funding.

I'm not sure where the extra money will come from to pay for all of that though marklv.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5651825/Benefit-payouts-will-exceed-income-tax-revenue.html

"Treasury figures show that welfare payments will exceed income tax receipts by almost £25 billion. Normally, income tax receipts comfortably cover the benefits bill."

"In 2009/10, the Treasury is expecting to take in £140.5 billion in gross income tax receipts. Social security benefits are projected to be £164.7 billion."

"This year will be the first in a decade that benefits cost more than workers pay in income tax."

"As well as spending more on welfare, the Government is facing rising bills for the interest on the growing national debt, which is set to hit £1.4 trillion in five years."

"Mervyn King, the Bank of England governor, warned that whoever wins the next election will have no choice but to cut spending and raise taxes in order to reduce the "extraordinary" deficit Labour has run up."