Inhertitance - Care homes get it!!!

ceridwen

lisyloo wrote: »

Can you explain why you think these people should get their care for free at the expense of other tax payers?

...and can anyone explain why people think they should be subsidised by the State to have children at the expense of other taxpayers?

So many people leap up and down and say "Its fair...fair...I tell ya...for people to have their homes grabbed to pay for carehomes" but I'd be willing to bet that in the next sentence they would say "But its perfectly okay for me to receive money off the State to help with the cost of bringing up my children" (even though having children is a choice and being in a carehome isnt).:cool:

EDIT: and before anyone wonders:

I would be livid if the State took any of my OWN tiny little house that I personally fought so long and hard to get in order to go towards nursing home care for MYSELF. I've decided that simply won't happen - all of my own personal money I fought for will get spent in the way I myself have decided. In my case - my own money will be going to charity when I no longer require it myself. To me - this represents a very consoling thought - after having had a lifetime (so far) of never earning enough to be able to give more than VERY tiny token amounts to charity - at least I will be able to make up for it when I die (ie by giving them a reasonable amount then - to make up for how little I was able to give whilst still alive).

There will be many other people in my (Baby Boomer) generation in the same position - ie that we won't actually have any children to leave our properties to and will therefore have decided on some other recipient for our money (ie not the Government). I have every intention of "sitting up on a cloud" enjoying watching the recipient charities spending MY money in a way that I would have liked to watch them do whilst alive - and certainly would hate to see my hard-earned cash handed out in child benefit to people who had made the decision to have children and then claim money off the State towards the cost of those children. I dont wish to "turn in my grave" about where any of my money has gone after I no longer need it...

fted

Iancfp wrote: »

I m sorry but why do you want the free care

How is it "free". Don't you think a life time of paying massive amounts of tax to the government gets you anything? Do we pay tax nowadays just to bail out banks so that they can pay themselves record bonuses and buy Ferraris? Or are we taxed just so we can shoot missiles at Afghan farmers?

I thought people paid tax so that the government would provide them with services. People shouldn't be forced to sell their homes, at the same time families should be taking care of their parents and not shipping them off to be abused in care homes run by corporations.

roddydogs

property.advert wrote: »

Cradle till grave was the quote wasn't it ?

Nothing about stopping off along the way to relieve you of all your assets whilst funding those who saved nothing through their lives.

So your answer is "Yes"..........now tell us which taxes should go up to pay for the shortfall.

Loopgames

lol! Who else got this lovely message from AdamS?

AdamS wrote:

troll

Did you actually read my posts?

Me thinks not!

jamesd

jamesd wrote: »

The average pensioner has an income of about £18,000 a year.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Interesting figure where did that come from?

I think that one is from the reports of the Turner Pensions Commission so it's a bit out of date now. For more up to date data try The Pensioners’ Incomes Series 2008-09.

The poorer set of pensioners are the singles and mean income for those was £14,300 in 2008-9. Couples tend to have better work pensions, investments and savings than singles.

There's much more data in the report and you may well find it to be interesting reading if you're curious.

margaretclare

jamesd wrote: »

Yes, it's sad. But it is worth remembering that the primary purpose of accumulating savings is to care for yourself. He did have the option at any time of giving the money away to the children in an informal safekeeping arrangement if he'd wished to do that.

It would have been possible for him to do just that. If he had £10K in a building society which he planned to give to each grandchild, however many there were, he could have given it. Maybe on a special occasion - say, on his 90th birthday. If I had £10K in the building society I'd give it to my eldest GD right now, because I know she wants a deposit to buy herself a little house with a garden for her dog - living in a 1-bed council flat provides a roof over her head but it's not without it's disadvantages. If I had £50K in a building society I'd split it 5 ways and give them all £10K each. I'm sure they could all tell me there's something they need now! I would not do it to save myself paying costs for care, but if I had savings for that specific purpose then I would do it when I had those amounts. I haven't got them yet!!

Incidentally, someone wrote 'the kids have a right to it' i.e. the house. No, they do not! No one has a right to it except DH and me, and we have the right to say what happens to it when we no longer need it.

4 out of 6 grandparents - that's not 'statistically significant'. You need a much bigger sample.

margaretclare

chris_m wrote: »

The whole point of the welfare state was to help those who CAN'T help themselves, not those who WON'T.

The idea is that you support yourself and contribute to the system when you can, in return you get support if/when you are unable to support yourself.

If, in your twilight years, you have savings/assets that can be used to support you it is only reasonable that you be expected to use them rather than expecting the welfare state to provide for you whilst you sit on those savings/assets.

Yes, that was the original idea. However, I am not too sure whether that quote was an actual commitment that could be 'set in stone' as it were, or whether it was just another soundbite in the way that other political quotes have been.

Interesting about the grandfathers who came from rural Polish villages and have made a good life for themselves in their adopted country. My DH's grandparents came from what was then the Russian Empire about a century ago. His 2 GDs are now at one of our oldest public schools in the Midlands. Maybe that 'get up and go' that impelled those people to get out, run for their lives, is still there, in their descendants, their great-great-granddaughters.

Mojisola

If an older person stays at home until they die, they have to pay all the costs associated with their home and often contribute towards any carers who come in. Why should those who go into a care home get all that for free?

grizzly1911

roddydogs wrote: »

So your answer is "Yes"..........now tell us which taxes should go up to pay for the shortfall.

Interesting that this thread coincides with the Southern Cross issue.

I read on the BBC that the operation had been "rung" out more than once to end up where it is.

As I understand it being bailed out with Government intervention via state owned Banks lumbered by the debt.

I guess we will be paying twice in some ways.

grizzly1911

jamesd wrote: »

Yes, it's sad. But it is worth remembering that the primary purpose of accumulating savings is to care for yourself. He did have the option at any time of giving the money away to the children in an informal safekeeping arrangement if he'd wished to do that.

So if he had given away wealth, some years before when in good health and subsequently needed care would that be OK?

Perhaps leaving the £23K behind to "share the risk of costs" with the state?