Way around Govt taking all Mum's money?

margaretclare

Get this right, its usually about what the person who has worked all their lives for wants done with their money!

They have paid their dues, taxes, etc etc etc, and have probably worked hard to have what they have with a specific intent on what they would like done with WHAT IS THEIRS!

What the poor lady with dementia wants is not known. We are not being told. She did not make a Power of Attorney when she was still in a fit state to do so, therefore did not make her wants and wishes known to those who could have carried them out for her.

We have ALL worked hard all our lives, paid our taxes, and as you say, etc etc etc! What has that to say in the present situation?

And before you ask !!!!!! it has to do with me, I have as much right to comment as have you or anyone else. I am feeling a little bit fragile at present. I still haven't heard how my husband is, having surgery to relieve compression of the spinal cord caused by collapsed discs. I reckon that he and I over the years have had back every penny-piece we ever paid in tax, just from the expensive and highly-technical NHS treatment that we've both had.

As the OP's Mum has been sectioned - by definition a 'danger to herself or others' and therefore unable to live at home, she is getting NHS treatment which, no doubt, she paid for.

SelfSufficient

Hi OP, there was a Money Box program on Radio 4 about this last week. I'm so sorry, but I can't remember which day it was. There were quite a few similar questions and also some advice on what was the best way to do things. I wish you and your mother all the best. I would say, however, that wanting to take her in (something I 100% empathise with) may not be the best thing for either of you. I really would suggest thinking long and hard about it (which I'm sure you couldn't stop doing even if you wanted to) but also to talk it over with a friend or another member of the family.

ska_lover

Mr_Ted wrote: »

They have paid their dues, taxes, etc etc etc, and have probably worked hard to have what they have with a specific intent on what they would like done with WHAT IS THEIRS!

:mad:

Like what? Pretend they have nothing, to avoid having to pay for their own care in old age and let the cost fall to the government - the current tax payers? :T

I am not really sure why this practice is condoned, any more than a person who is working whilst claiming benefits - it is still creating a false reality to obtain freebies from the state, of which the person would not be entitled.

I for one begrudge knowing that my taxes go towards paying for care of some people who could jolly well pay for it themselves, but have found a way to cheat the system.

margaretclare

ska_lover wrote: »

Like what? Pretend they have nothing, to avoid having to pay for their own care in old age and let the cost fall to the government - the current tax payers? :T

I am not really sure why this practice is condoned, any more than a person who is working whilst claiming benefits - it is still creating a false reality to obtain freebies from the state, of which the person would not be entitled.

I for one begrudge knowing that my taxes go towards paying for care of some people who could jolly well pay for it themselves, but have found a way to cheat the system.

I completely agree with all of this. However, I am grateful that we live in a country where it is possible to pay tax and get the very best treatment and care when needed, not as in some countries, where they demand your insurance details or your credit card on admission. DH is now recovering in hospital from surgery that wouldn't even have been possible a few years ago - he'd then have been condemned to back pain as long as he lived, plus the likelihood of gradual and increasing paralysis. Now, he's likely to make a full recovery.

When people have an illness, as in the case of the OP's Mum, which falls under the umbrella of the Mental Health Acts, it is NOT possible to meet all her needs at home. People are made to feel guilty - 'oh they used to do that' or 'they do it in some countries'. Well, maybe. A lot is the fault of us career women, who won't stay at home (tongue firmly in cheek). One of my great-great-grandmothers died in a workhouse infirmary. As a child I was told they 'couldn't do with her at home'. Couldn't do with her. Simple as that.

RuthnJasper

Mr_Ted wrote: »

This is the sort of facile comment that makes my Blood boil!!!!!!!!!!

SO GET OFF PEOPLES BACKS, just because they are possibly going to receive an inhertance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What about parents of small children who cannot afford shoes, clothes or more than basic foodstuffs? Should there be less money in the pot for them, so that the offspring of pensioners can hang on to "their inheritance"?

Personally, I would rather see my parents well cared-for in comfort at the ends of their lives than receive any of their money after they've gone.

margaretclare

RuthnJasper wrote: »

What about parents of small children who cannot afford shoes, clothes or more than basic foodstuffs? Should there be less money in the pot for them, so that the offspring of pensioners can hang on to "their inheritance"?

Personally, I would rather see my parents well cared-for in comfort at the ends of their lives than receive any of their money after they've gone.

Well done. As an older couple, DH and I intend whatever we have to be used for our needs and comfort, that's why we're still saving. If there's anything left over it can be left behind - if we use it all up then that's how it's gotta be. DH is now up and walking and sat in a chair the day after surgery, not in a wheelchair, which was a distinct possibility.

What gets me about this particular thread - although it must be admitted, it's a variation on a theme that we get here repeatedly - is that there appears to have been no attempt so far for 'the Government to get its hands on Mum's money'. Mum is in hospital having been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts, which means, she's getting NHS treatment which is free. So why should the automatic assumption be made that 'the Government wants to get its hands on her money'? No one has said so, so far.

pollypenny

Spot on, Mc and R&J.

I still pay a lot of tax on my pension and I'm happy to contribute to the common good of everyone in this country. I'll gladly help anyone who needs help, but not some one who wants me to pay for his parents so he can have a big fat or small pay out.

BTW: we are 'the government' the state.

clemmatis

Exactly, pollypenny (and RuthnJasper, and margaretclare). I doubt Mr Ted etc. have any sympathy at all for younger benefit claimants who try to evade means tests, yet they support avoidance and evasion in this case. And such behaviour is costing us all a lot of money.

And some, too, are -- admittedly on occasion, in accord with their parent/s' wishes -- depriving their parents of a choice of care home and treatment.

I really don't think the OP was trying to do that, though.

RuthnJasper

clemmatis wrote: »

Exactly, pollypenny (and RuthnJasper, and margaretclare). I doubt Mr Ted etc. have any sympathy at all for younger benefit claimants who try to evade means tests, yet they support avoidance and evasion in this case. And such behaviour is costing us all a lot of money.

And some, too, are -- admittedly on occasion, in accord with their parent/s' wishes -- depriving their parents of a choice of care home and treatment.

I really don't think the OP was trying to do that, though.

I agree, I don't think the OP is necessarily trying to do anything underhand - but the wording of the thread title, as MargaretClare mentioned previously, is unfortunate. There ARE many people (I'm not referring to the OP specifically) who actively try to avoid what they see as the Government "stealing" their money to pay for care.

What I think needs looking into is the fact that hundreds of people are kept artificially "alive" by modern medicine long after their quality of life - or even, in some cases, the awareness that they ARE alive - has gone. How "humane". But that's a whole different argument, and I'm not going to steer the thread that far off-topic!

ska_lover

margaretclare wrote: »

I completely agree with all of this. However, I am grateful that we live in a country where it is possible to pay tax and get the very best treatment and care when needed, not as in some countries, where they demand your insurance details or your credit card on admission. DH is now recovering in hospital from surgery that wouldn't even have been possible a few years ago - he'd then have been condemned to back pain as long as he lived, plus the likelihood of gradual and increasing paralysis. Now, he's likely to make a full recovery.

When people have an illness, as in the case of the OP's Mum, which falls under the umbrella of the Mental Health Acts, it is NOT possible to meet all her needs at home. People are made to feel guilty - 'oh they used to do that' or 'they do it in some countries'. Well, maybe. A lot is the fault of us career women, who won't stay at home (tongue firmly in cheek). One of my great-great-grandmothers died in a workhouse infirmary. As a child I was told they 'couldn't do with her at home'. Couldn't do with her. Simple as that.

Yes not an easy situation - and I can't say for sure if I would even attempt to care for a relative who was ill in this way - mental health issues I mean.

I hope your hubby is doing well - I saw your posts on another thread and wish you both the best