Parents in Care

CL

Nicki wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from, but what you propose is that you should work your socks off paying your taxes so that rich old Mrs Jones who lives in a five bedroomed house should have her nursing fees paid by you in full, and her flibbertigibbet daughter should inherit that house and holiday in Barbados for the next ten years paid for by the sweat of your brow. Or worse, rich old Mrs Jones has no children of her own to inherit and leaves all her money to the BNP (or any cause you can think of which might stick in your craw) whilst you pay for her to do so.

Where is the crime with working hard, earning money and paying your taxes and buying a five bedroomed house with your post tax income? Old Mrs Jones must have paid her taxes to live in a five bedroomed house, because she wouldn't receive benefits if she owned a house. So why would my taxes be paying for her care? Her taxes would have paid for her care.

CL

gingin wrote: »

Nooooo... she pays £650 a week plus all the extra's and she's loving every minute of it.

Sorry Typo. £600 per week here too. I will correct my post.

Person_one

CL wrote: »

Where is the crime with working hard, earning money and paying your taxes and buying a five bedroomed house with your post tax income? Old Mrs Jones must have paid her taxes to live in a five bedroomed house, because she wouldn't receive benefits if she owned a house. So why would my taxes be paying for her care? Her taxes would have paid for her care.

Its not a savings account.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Maybe 'her' taxes paid for a few liver transplants, or a murder investigation.

Nicki

CL wrote: »

Where is the crime with working hard, earning money and paying your taxes and buying a five bedroomed house with your post tax income? Old Mrs Jones must have paid her taxes to live in a five bedroomed house, because she wouldn't receive benefits if she owned a house. So why would my taxes be paying for her care? Her taxes would have paid for her care.

No crime at all in having the house. The point is that if her nursing care is fully funded, it will be so by the current tax payer, who can no longer afford to pay for everyone's care for the reasons I've stated. But the only person who benefits from the taxpayer funding the care is Mrs J's beneficiaries of the will.

As for the taxes she has paid throughout her life, they have been spent already partly on things of benefit to her, such as medical care, police, national defence, etc, but also on subsidizing others. It's unfortunate that the money has run out by the point that she wants to benefit from a state subsidy, but sadly life is sometimes like a tacky pyramid selling scheme!

CL

Person_one wrote: »

Its not a savings account.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Maybe 'her' taxes paid for a few liver transplants, or a murder investigation.

I get your point and (to an extent) agree! I just find the whole issue frustrating. It comes down to morals. I'm happy to pay my way and also contribute to society, but feel like some people take the p!ss.

We could argue all night, but get nowhere!;)

gingin_2

CL wrote: »

We could argue all night, but get nowhere!;)

I think it's a good debate

It's a question that comes up regularly. This thread was recent

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2989002

It caught my eye because I thought "poor old man is about to be made homeless" so I had a lurk - and the reality was that the gentleman had a home - a care home but was going to have to use the funds from his house to pay for it ( and the OP was after the money for him/herself).

Person_one

CL wrote: »

I get your point and (to an extent) agree! I just find the whole issue frustrating. It comes down to morals. I'm happy to pay my way and also contribute to society, but feel like some people take the p!ss.

We could argue all night, but get nowhere!;)

I hope you're not suggesting I lack morals? :eek:

I don't mind paying for the very small minority of people who 'take the !!!!' actually. I'd rather do that than take the chance that people who genuinely need support don't get it. I also don't think its my (or your) position to decide who is 'worthy' of help or not.

CL

Person_one wrote: »

I hope you're not suggesting I lack morals? :eek:

I don't mind paying for the very small minority of people who 'take the !!!!' actually. I'd rather do that than take the chance that people who genuinely need support don't get it. I also don't think its my (or your) position to decide who is 'worthy' of help or not.

Of course not.

Maybe it's down to where I live. It's definitely not a small minority here.

Torry_Quine

CL wrote: »

Not where I live. My MIL is in a care home and those who pay and those who don't are both in the same homes with the same care.

That is exactly the same for my relative too. The care staff don't know how each person is funded and they all get the same care.

Person_one

CL wrote: »

Of course not.

Maybe it's down to where I live. It's definitely not a small minority here.

Lots of people think its not a small minority where I live.

Just because you hear a lot about a group of people doesn't mean its a big group.

How do you know how many people 'take the p!ss' in your area anyway? Do you work in the jobcentre? Do you ask people in the street if they claim benefits and why? Or do you make assumptions?