will the government help itself to nearly all your savings?

cheerfulcat

djohn2002uk wrote:

So, take this scenario:
Two neighbours living in council accomodation, "A" lives the high life and spends everything he earns on flash cars, dining out etc. and saves nothing all his life and relies on no more than state pension in his old age. "B" saves a deposit for his house and pays his mortgage and puts a bit away each week running an old banger most of the time and generally lives frugally.
They both need care in a care home in their latter years.
You know what's comming next, the government gives to one and takes from the other.

Not quite. The taxpayer ( not the government ) pays for the one who, for whatever reason, can't afford to. The one who can afford to pay his own way has to do so ( but the money goes to the care home, not the government ). He also has the luxury of choosing where to live, which the taxpayer-funded one has not.

djohn2002uk

cheerfulcat wrote:

Not quite. The taxpayer ( not the government ) pays for the one who, for whatever reason, can't afford to. The one who can afford to pay his own way has to do so ( but the money goes to the care home, not the government ). He also has the luxury of choosing where to live, which the taxpayer-funded one has not.

You need to get away from this notion that it is YOU that is paying as a taxpayer. You pay your taxes and that money is spread far and wide, thus a small portion of it is allocated to any single service, but beyond that, the government have the money and they are the ones who decide where that money is spent.
Is everyone who is receiving any allowance, credit, retirement pension or any other benefit suposed to be beholding to "the taxpayer"?.
And just remember that 6 members of my family are also taxpayers, but they don't begrudge elderly people anything from the government, apart from those that are genuine scroungers.

margaretclare

djohn2002uk wrote:

And just remember that 6 members of my family are also taxpayers, but they don't begrudge elderly people anything from the government, apart from those that are genuine scroungers.

DH and I are STILL taxpayers, even though we don't pay an awful lot in tax (I paid £6 last year), but we still do pay it.

I don't begrudge anybody anything, although I'd prefer to see that those who can work, do so - and I am not too sure just who the 'genuine scroungers' are.

Margaret Clare

cheerfulcat

djohn2002uk wrote:

You need to get away from this notion that it is YOU that is paying as a taxpayer.

The government may spend it, but it is the taxpayer who has provided most of it. I as a taxpayer am paying.

Is everyone who is receiving any allowance, credit, retirement pension or any other benefit suposed to be beholding to "the taxpayer"?.

They are beholden to the taxpayer; the taxpayer provides their benefits ( and pays for the administration as well...)

And just remember that 6 members of my family are also taxpayers, but they don't begrudge elderly people anything from the government, apart from those that are genuine scroungers.

I don't begrudge anyone who is genuinely in need payments from my taxes. However, I don't consider someone with sufficient assets to pay care home fees ( a house or other assets which can be sold ) in genuine need, just because they would rather leave those assets to their children.

djohn2002uk

cheerfulcat wrote:

However, I don't consider someone with sufficient assets to pay care home fees ( a house or other assets which can be sold ) in genuine need, just because they would rather leave those assets to their children.

So that relieves the government of paying, so the government benefits, or as you like to say, the taxpayer benefits. When I hear people like you keep repeating the same old thing then I really do begrudge something I have worked hard for, including many hours of overtime, being sold for your benefit as a taxpayer.
Perhaps if all the money being used in Iraq and Afghanistan was put into helping the people of this country, then this discussion would not be necessary. But I doubt you would be satisfied then because I think you belong to the group I mentioned above who always want to punish people for saving.

If you have spare cash do you donate it to the government or give it to your kids or grandkids?

margaretclare

cheerfulcat wrote:

I don't begrudge anyone who is genuinely in need payments from my taxes. However, I don't consider someone with sufficient assets to pay care home fees ( a house or other assets which can be sold ) in genuine need, just because they would rather leave those assets to their children.

I completely agree with you, cheerful cat, and I also dislike the type of language this is couched in. I keep seeing this all over the place, as in the title of this thread, but also as in: 'the council will take my mother's home/will sell my mother's home to pay for her care' etc etc. It's always couched in language which assumes that the individual has not choice in the matter. AFAIK no one can be 'put into a home' against their will - what about their basic Human Rights? And also, a house may be sold, but surely the council is not interested in the contents - what happens to those? Is it the house plus contents which is sold or just the house - who makes these kind of decisions?

Margaret Clare

EdInvestor

The one who can afford to pay his own way has to do so ( but the money goes to the care home, not the government ). He also has the luxury of choosing where to live, which the taxpayer-funded one has not.

Quite so, and surely many people would be happy to pay for that choice?We also shouldn't forget that the Govt/taxpayer does fork out for around half the cost of care through various allowances, plus the cost of any medical treatment required.

For the small minority who need to go into a care home, the cost of making up the shortfall for the rest of their life will be capped at around 80-90k (less for older people), which is somewhat below the value of the average home and in many cases may well be met mainly through savings.And the Government will make a further contribution by not taxing the payments from the annuity as long as they are paid directly to the care home. And the home doesn't have to be sold as long as the spouse or dependants are living in it.

I can't really see that this is going to be draconian for most people, especially since in any case, hardly anyone actually goes into full time care - it's a very small minority. The majority remain at home supported by quite substantial ( taxpayer-provided) visiting care.

cheerfulcat

margaretclare wrote:

I keep seeing this all over the place, as in the title of this thread, but also as in: 'the council will take my mother's home/will sell my mother's home to pay for her care' etc etc. It's always couched in language which assumes that the individual has not choice in the matter.

Quite; and the ( grown up ) children complaining in these cases never seem to want to take responsibility for their aged p. themselves, either by doing the caring or by paying for it.

djohn2002uk wrote:

So that relieves the government of paying, so the government benefits, or as you like to say, the taxpayer benefits. When I hear people like you keep repeating the same old thing then I really do begrudge something I have worked hard for, including many hours of overtime, being sold for your benefit as a taxpayer.

Why on Earth should I pay for your care if you have the wherewithal to pay for it yourself? And, indeed, vice versa?

Perhaps if all the money being used in Iraq and Afghanistan was put into helping the people of this country, then this discussion would not be necessary.

That's something you would need to take up with Tony Blair.

But I doubt you would be satisfied then because I think you belong to the group I mentioned above who always want to punish people for saving.

I don't take kindly to unwarranted personal attacks. Especially in this case where I thought that it was quite clear that I don't approve of taking money from careful people to give it to shiftless or selfish ones.

Paul_Herring

cheerfulcat wrote:

He also has the luxury of choosing where to live, which the taxpayer-funded one has not.

May I ask what gives you this impression? My mum, who moved into care last year, had the choice of numerous care homes, and she's not able to pay the full cost herself (basic state pension topped up to minimum income guarantee. All but ~£20 she has to forfeit). In the end she moved into a care home in a different local authority (to be near one of her sisters). Nothing was said at the time to indicate she was restricted in where she could go.

cheerfulcat

May I ask what gives you this impression?

The many people who have complained about it.

More on the Help the Aged site regarding choice of home for those who receive LA funding, for those who are interested.


"Apart from the restrictions mentioned above, you should be able to move to the home of your choice as long as:

• your chosen home has a place available;
• it is suitable for your assessed needs;
• the home will enter into a contract with the local authority under the authority's usual conditions; and
• it doesn't cost any more than the local authority would usually expect to pay for someone with your needs."