Grandmother losing EVERYTHING!

masonic

Marker wrote: »

Now he is surrounded by people with the same sort of illness as him, yet their care is free and he has to pay for it. His home is at risk. The inheritance HE worked hard for to leave his children is at risk.

So exactly what is it you are proposing? That those people should be refused care and left to rot? Or that taxpayers who may never be able to afford to buy a house of their own be taxed further to preserve your inheritance?

MARTYM8`

talexuser wrote: »

For all it's problems let's take away the welfare state altogether.... and then see whether life is fairer.

The problem is the welfare state is no longer contributory – but based on needs. And in that respect any EU national whether they have lived/paid taxes here for 50 years or just arrived last week is treated the same.

If the OP’s gran was EU national and just arrived here with no assets or means of support and had never contributed a penny in UK taxes – all her care would be provided for free! EU freedom of movement would demand it!

cte1111

My husband's Nanna was left a widow when she was quite young. She worked as a foster carer and later a cleaner. She was never able to buy her own property or have much in savings, as she did not earn enough. Her luxuries were fish and chips on a Friday night, so she wasn't spending on high living. When she developed dementia, my mother in law looked after her for many years, but eventually she was unsafe to live on her own, she couldn't live with my MIL as their house was unsuitable (and my FIL would have had a breakdown) so she moved into residential care. Her care was paid for by the state, as she had no assets beyond her clothes and ornaments, plus a few quid that she had put by from her benefits, which paid for her funeral.

My Gran was also left a widow, but my Grandad had worked as a teacher, leaving my Gran with enough money to buy a nice retirement flat plus a pension. She eventually also moved into residential care, which was paid for by her savings (and benefits) and later from the sale of her flat.

What's the alternative? Should my husband's Nanna have been put into a kind of workhouse as a punishment for never having had a well paid job? I don't think that anyone would say that that is fair or correct.

Steve_xx

MARTYM8` wrote: »

The problem is the welfare state is no longer contributory – but based on needs. And in that respect any EU national whether they have lived/paid taxes here for 50 years or just arrived last week is treated the same.

If the OP’s gran was EU national and just arrived here with no assets or means of support and had never contributed a penny in UK taxes – all her care would be provided for free! EU freedom of movement would demand it!

But similarly if gran moved to Belgium the same would be true.

colsten

MARTYM8` wrote: »

The problem is the welfare state is no longer contributory

It's never been contributory for a whole host of people born and bred in Britain! And I am not referring to those with serious disabilities.

theoretica

pimento wrote: »

In principle I agree but the taxpayer should pay for everybody or nobody.

I disagree too. If the taxpayer paid for everyone, then it would cost more and taxes/NI would rise. In effect this would be forcing people to save and restricting what the savings could be spent on. Personally, I prefer to save voluntarily with the freedom to vary my savings as suits my life, and having more freedom to use the money - such as buying a house to live in until such time as I may need to sell it to pay for something else.

Gadfium

pimento wrote: »

In principle I agree but the taxpayer should pay for everybody or nobody.

Exactly how much do you think that that would increase Income Tax, VAT and every other tax that you can think of.
And how would you still feel that way if the millionaire down the road wasn't paying a penny for his nana's care and you were paying 60% income tax on your wages??

The flipside would be the millionaire down the road being able to pay for care whilst you had to wipe nana's bum and change her incontinence pants because neither she or you can afford to pay the £37,000 per annum for her care and nursing?

Maybe you ARE the millionaire down the road and either situation makes no difference to you?

JenniferK

Move her to Scotland.

Eco_Miser

Gadfium wrote: »

And how would you still feel that way if the millionaire down the road wasn't paying a penny for his nana's care and you were paying 60% income tax on your wages??

In that situation the millionaire should be paying 95%+ income tax, and thus paying indirectly for his nana's care, and everyone elses.

With a progressive, or even flat-rate, system of income tax, the millionaires are going to be paying vastly more tax than the minimum wage workers, or even the above average income workers; so a free-at-the-point-of-use care system would be viable.

Gadfium

Eco_Miser wrote: »

In that situation the millionaire should be paying 95%+ income tax, and thus paying indirectly for his nana's care, and everyone elses.

With a progressive, or even flat-rate, system of income tax, the millionaires are going to be paying vastly more tax than the minimum wage workers, or even the above average income workers; so a free-at-the-point-of-use care system would be viable.

While I agree with the sentiments, the actuality of it happening are close to zero,especially under the Tories. Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind.