How to feel unwanted - age discrimination?

serious_saver

I have a great idea. Why don’t we bring in a maximum room size? That way we can turn 2 bed plats into five beds to fit more people in. Even better we can tax people who have separate kitchens. All properties should have kitchen living rooms. That will free up some more space for extra bedrooms. To be honest I don’t see why a retired couple would need anything other than a studio.

Honestly the idea is completely ridiculous! If you can afford your bills and you pay your council tax what business is it of the governments if you have a spare room or two. I’m in my 20’s by the way so I get the pleasure of age discrimination at the other end.

ceridwen

Well - I must say I've been sitting there since reading this article and not being the slightest bit surprised by this actually (as I'd worked out some time back that "First they come for people in rented accommodation, then they'll come for owner-occupiers"). I thought "How on earth could they get at us?" and realised there might be an attempt to restrict the number of rooms we can have - even if they are bought and paid for - and decided at that point "Right - if they try that one - then the number of rooms I have in the exact same house will decrease. I will rip down however many walls I need to to decrease the number of rooms if it comes to it. So - instead of 2 or more bedrooms - I will have one HUGE bedroom (ie because I've ripped down the dividing wall/s)".

So - it boils down to:

"Dear Government - if you try and tax people more heavily because of the number of rooms they have in their home - then I have two words for you - ie Window Tax". That is - back in a previous century people were told they would be taxed according to the number of windows they had in their home - so they bricked up windows because of it.

(Actually - as a side thought - the law states that estate agents cant call a room a "room" unless it has a window. If it doesnt have a window - then, legally, it would appear to be a walk-in cupboard;):D).

The OTHER thing no-one seems to have thought of in the Government is that we now have an Age Discrimination Act. I can just see the reaction from Joe/Jane Public if people get told "Happy Birthday - now you are 60 years old. Here is a birthday card congratulating you in one hand - and a letter telling you you will have to pay more tax in the other hand precisely because you've just turned 60". I cant see people accepting that someone who last month paid £x of tax would be told that the following month (ie the one after their 60th birthday) that, even though their circumstances were EXACTLY the same, that they would have to pay more tax just because they were older. I would say that would amount to "game, set and match" for a win in a lawcourt when the person concerned filed a claim under the Age Discrimination Act.

ceridwen

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

That is - doing something with one aim in mind and finding that unexpected problems bedevil it.

In this respect - I would say it boils down mainly to:

- Force an OAP out of, say, a £300,000 house down to, say, a £150,000 house.

Now - what do you think they will do with the £150,000 house equity they have "released"? Obviously some of it would just get wasted - by being used for legal fees/removal expenses/work on the downshift house. As for what is left over - after all these expenses have taken their toll - then the person concerned might decide something along the lines of:

"Since the Government has forced me to sell my home against my will (ie they were going to tax me too heavily to stay in it) - then...right ...I will spend/give away/spend/give away all the leftover "house equity" and, if I ever end up in a nursing home, then that will be £150k less that the local authority could take from me to go towards care costs;):D.

My own personal thoughts would go along the lines of "Hmm...maybe I should take out an equity release scheme - for the absolute maximum amount of money I can possibly take out of my home. That way - I raise enough to cover the tax - and I will spend/give away/spend the balance precisely in order to reduce what is left over available for nursing home fees:D deliberately - ie as a 'comeback' at the Government for having imposed that extra tax on me".

I think thats the thing - ie many of us will "play fair" with the Government PROVIDED they "play fair" with us in the first place...:cool:

jennifernil

OOOOH NOOOO!!! you won't be allowed to do that. That will be "deprivation of assets"!!!


I don't think the present government has anything to do with this, seems to be a bunch of semi-crackpots, encouraged by Labour.

SOME of what they say is sensible, like helping those who genuinely want to downsize, but the rest is just weird thinking.

Errata

Parties when in opposition always come up with crack brained ideas because they know they will never have to implement them and neither will the opposition party in power.

ceridwen

Think the "deprivation of assets" scenario would only come into play if I either:

- had to go onto benefit (which wouldnt happen as a retiree)

OR

- gave away my assets to any children within the 7?? years preceding my death.

As a childless person - who would presumably have quite a while to go before death - then I imagine I could give away what I darn well please to (in my case) charities:D. ....(will be going off for another little think in a minute, for instance, as to whether I should go in fell swoop from non-member to "lifetime member" of the Woodland Trust for instance). I calculated that a "lifetime membership" of that particular organisation?/charity? would cost equivalent to 11 years membership - so am thinking about it at the moment as to whether deliberately take out said lifetime membership - when I might not otherwise have bothered at all...:D

jennifernil

seems they can go back as far as they want if we give away our money.......really scarey IMHO.

ceridwen

jennifernil wrote: »

seems they can go back as far as they want if we give away our money.......really scarey IMHO.

Have you got a linkie on that one please?

My understanding is that its restricted to 7 years - eg if someone gives their assets to their children, for instance, 8 years or more before death then its "outside the State's jurisdiction/safely belongs to the giftees".

Mind you - in the case of those of us who are childless and ended up in a nursing home then the State wouldnt have a lot of option but to whistle for our money - because we'd spent it (even if we had spent/given it away only a couple of years previously) I would imagine???

jennifernil

No, the 7 year thing is for inheritance tax, for care home fees there is no limit. They are supposed to be "reasonable", but who knows what that means!

Mmm, I can't see what they can do if you had spent your money and had no relatives, or a house to sell.......put you on the street maybe?

luxor4t

As soon as I saw the name "Daily Mail" I stopped reading, life's too short.