Anyone clued up on benefits? Think me mate is in cloud cuckoo land

SingleSue

No worries Snooze....I must also apologise for getting over emotional on your thread too.

I just couldn't let that particular comment go.

Mrs_Bones

This is something that will only end in tears, it just won't work.

How long is his partner expecting to have off when the baby is born, what are her thoughts, living with an elderly relative is hard at the best of time. When it's someone you don't know that well, who needs full time care and you have a new baby as well in the house....

He seems to be looking at his parent's house and the vaule of it as his, sorry but it is still his mum's and if her best interest is to be in a home getting proper full time care, then HER home should be used to pay for it. I know when my gran had to go in to a nursing home, going back a few years now, she was allowed to keep I think it was £5,000 but sure thats gone up alot now, think it's somewhere about £12,000 now, anything above that amount was use for the home fee's then after it droped to the amount allowed the state started to pay for the home.

lemonjelly

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I agree.

I just don't like the whole issue surrounding those who have assets paying for themselves, those who don't and maybe haven't even paid in to the system, get it paid for.

Why shouldn't someone who has assets pay for the care they need? What use are the assets to them? Money is only of use for spending!

The very idea of a welfare state is to help those in genuine need. If you have the assets, you don't have the genuine need, as you have the means to support your own care.

If someone does have a million pound home, & a million or 2 in the bank, why should the state fund their care? They have the means to do it themselves.

those who don't and maybe haven't even paid in to the system, get it paid for.[/

Big kettle of fish here, & probably not best to get to into this debate now. Whilst I can understand part of this view, the measure of a society for me is its compassion, & how it looks after the genuinely weak.

To this end, imo we should focus more on sorting out who really does need the help.

In addition, people should take on more responsibility for things like reporting benefit fraud, or simply not making fraudulent claims in the first place. Those that don't need state help for stuff should get on with it & sort it, rather than bleat on about how the state should pay for it.

We shouldn't be trying to develop a nanny state that looks after all of us. We're independent beings. We should be looking to promote & develop that independence, not expect the state to pick the ball up & run with it for everyone.

The_White_Horse

this is what is wrong with the country. they should get nothing. nada. put the old dear in a home. rent out her house and when she dies her child should get it. the old dear should not be a burden on the family. however, the son/father seems to be a lazy so and so and is chomping at the bit to chuck in work and sit at home watching jeremy kyle.

really, the house should be sold to pay for her care, but it pains me to see people who have bought houses punished and expected to pay for their care, whilst the scum and the wasters get it all paid for them.

why would the person earning the higher salary want to give it up and stay home whilst the minimum wage earner still goes out to work??? sounds like he thinks he'll get more benefits this way.

hateful benefit happy country. 20bn on housing benefit!!!!!!! ridiculous.

The_White_Horse

lemonjelly wrote: »

Why shouldn't someone who has assets pay for the care they need? What use are the assets to them? Money is only of use for spending!

The very idea of a welfare state is to help those in genuine need. If you have the assets, you don't have the genuine need, as you have the means to support your own care.

If someone does have a million pound home, & a million or 2 in the bank, why should the state fund their care? They have the means to do it themselves.

because if people know that their house, that they struggle to pay for each month will be taken from them to pay for health care, and wont go to their kids, then eventually people will not bother saving or buying homes. why should those who save and pay off a mortgage get a worse deal than those who go off on holidays every year wasting cash so its all gone, when the time comes?

you should never be punished for saving.

there should be an insurance policy for decent health care, and horrible dirty homes that want it for nothing.

however, we can only have it that (a) we all pay - and if you can't afford it you don't get it or (b) we all don't pay.

DX2

Snooze wrote: »

R

When the local authority carries out a financial assessment of the person you're looking after it will need details of their savings as well as their income.
If the local authority thinks that the person you're looking after has deliberately disposed of capital in order to get financial assistance from the local authority, it will treat that person as if they still had that capital.
What counts as deprivation of capital

This could apply, for example, if the person you look after:

• spends money on a non-essential or luxury item,
• gives money away, or
• gives away property or a share of property.

The local authority will look at the reason why the money has been spent. Repaying a debt, for example, may justify the action. It will depend on the individual circumstances.

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

Why shouldn't someone who has assets pay for the care they need? What use are the assets to them? Money is only of use for spending!

To me, it's merely another nail in the coffin for working. My point isn't that someone should or shouldn't have care based on their ability to pay, more that everyone should have the same entitlement to care regardless of their ability to pay.

frannyann

Make sure your friend has his mother assessed for Continuing Health Care funding in NH. If she has suffered a CVA then its possible her needs are 'health' not 'social' related. In which case her care within the NH would be fully funded by the NHS. If the social services have not mentioned it to your mate, get him to ask that they use the 'screening tool' to assess her eligibility.

Harry_Powell

SingleSue wrote: »

No worries Snooze....I must also apologise for getting over emotional on your thread too.

I just couldn't let that particular comment go.

I wouldn't rise to the bait, Sue. If you look at the history of that poster, it's full of attempts to cause upset.

FWIW, I don't see what all the hoo-ha is all about. If the OP was worded differently, such as:

"My friend is concerned about the level of care that his elderly mother will receive by the state and has decided to give up his job in order to take care of her. Can anyone let me know what financial/logistical support he can expect from the state to assist him?"

Then I'd imagine there would be a lot more sympathy. TBH, the fact that it was posted in here rather than on the benefits board and worded in a certain way, I reckon our old friend Snooze is simply engaging in a bit of rabble rousing on an otherwise slow 'first day back at work' day.

ess0two

Lets hope your mate aint searching the web for his own answers and finds this thread.
Personally i'd keep out of it,let him find his own answers without you doing the donkey work for him.