Grandmother losing EVERYTHING!

noh

Peter333 wrote: »

What a pathetic comment.

Who on earth funds people who do not have a property to sell then?

And the fact that you are now issuing personal insults (telling me to grow up,) JUST because I have a different opinion, says more about you than it says about me.

Not everyone is going to agree with you, you know.

Something you will learn in time when you get some education.

And I reiterate: people are being HORRIBLY judgemental towards the OP!

No wonder people use AE's when they want to post something sensitive and personal. There are so many nasty and spiteful remarks on this thread.

The welfare system in this country is designed as a safteynet to provide food and shelter for those who do not have the resources to provide it for themselves.
The OPs grandmother has the resources to provide for herself. What justification is there for the taxpayer to fund her especially as the net result of that funding will be the enrichment of her heirs?

Mojisola

Peter333 wrote: »

And I bet THEY have never been in the OP's position, and if they WERE, they would shout the loudest about what a travesty it is that it's happening to them!!!

Well, I have been there and I was very glad that the money from Dad's house meant that I could choose where he spent his last years rather than him having to live in a home that operated at the council funded rate.

His money was his - it wasn't anyone's inheritance because he was still alive!

Steve_xx

noh wrote: »

The welfare system in this country is designed as a safteynet to provide food and shelter for those who do not have the resources to provide it for themselves.
The OPs grandmother has the resources to provide for herself. What justification is there for the taxpayer to fund her especially as the net result of that funding will be the enrichment of her heirs?

Well now all in the welfare system isn't fair and equitable, in my view. I may well ask what the justification is for paying state benefits in the form of tax credits to couples with children when each member of that couple may be earning upto 50k each? Surely such wealthy pairs ought not to be benefitting from the rest of us, or is that somehow different?

noh

Steve_xx wrote: »

Well now all in the welfare system isn't fair and equitable, in my view. I may well ask what the justification is for paying state benefits in the form of tax credits to couples with children when each member of that couple may be earning upto 50k each? Surely such wealthy pairs ought not to be benefitting from the rest of us, or is that somehow different?

I agree that the system is not perfect.
In my view there is no justification for paying tax credits to households with an income of £100k p.a. nor is there any justification for the state to pay the care costs of those able to pay for themselves.

mgdavid

Peter333 wrote: »

.......
And I bet THEY have never been in the OP's position, and if they WERE, they would shout the loudest about what a travesty it is that it's happening to them!!!

As you ask, we also are in that precise position. FIL left a very substantial sum which this generation now invests and manages in order to pay for MIL's care at c. 1k per week. 4 years so far and given her good physical health it could easily be another 6 to 10, it will just be enough. We don't begrudge it, we don't shout about it, we don't use lots of exclamation marks, we just get on with it as quietly and decently as we can, as do many many people, far more than you evidently realise.

Tuesday_Tenor

jabba42 wrote: »

... keep her in her home and get a live in Filipina for 15k a year.
....saves 20k a year ....

I'm all in favour of supporting people to live at home with live-in carers, where it's what they want, and can be afforded.

However, don't kid yourself it will necessaruily be much cheaper.

'A' carer, whereever he/she comes from, can't be employed to work all 168 hours per week.
At the very least.even if you don't need separate night cover, you need to cover holidays and days off.
If there are problems at night, you need two carers, to ensure all 24 hours/day are covered.
If mobility deteriorates to the extent of needing a hoist to move the person between bed-chair-toilet, then you need two people at the same time for such tasks.

So in some circumsyances the costs of staying at hom could well be very close to the £35K/year of the care home.

patanne

Well my personal viewpoint - my mother had to go in a care home and she is one of the very few that have at least one visitor a day often 2. She is self funding and the house has had to go. But so what - it was her house not mine/ours. There may be some left or there may not be, it is my job to grub around looking for the best interest rates I can get, a challenge at the moment.

My much bigger worry is the days when she realises her own deterioration and the good days like last week when her grandson went in and she managed to not only raise a smile but actually grinned at him & said hello .(his name).. and I was just so relieved that she remembered his name.

The money, well of course it would be nice, money usually is, but not at the expense of her well being. Believe me I have looked round a lot of care homes and more expensive does not mean more caring. The most expensive we looked round had my sibling gagging before we got through the entrance hall much to my amusement.

The biggest worry for self funders should be what happens if they live too long & the money runs out as if the home costs too much the LA won't fund it & they have to move. If they do have to move the deterioration is quite severe. So severe that some LAs who have made their homes only for things like rehab have actually kept some more elderly in there to avoid moving them.

Be grateful that you (actually they) can afford better care and feel sorry for those people who are not in that position especially if they have no family to look after their interests.

ChesterDog

I think we should be more sympathetic to the OP, who clearly feels he is dealing with a crisis - few of us are able to think clearly, calmly and perhaps even appropriately at such times.

He is trying to protect his father (inheritance) and his grandmother's no-doubt hard-won assets. To seek to do so is, in my opinion, honourable, justified and right.

I expect he will reflect upon the strongly stated flipside of that and realise that it cannot be done under the system as it stands, and for good, sensible, equitable, fair reasons. It IS uncomfortable to see people who can afford to pay losing their assets to do so, while those who cannot (some of whom might have been able to had they been more sensible with their finances) have it provided at others' expense.

Mistermeaner

My 2 penneth - while i can understand the reaction in some of the more negative posts i dont think the op intended anything immoral, just perhaps didnt frame the question in a diplomatic way.

My view is mixed , while i believe the welfare state should exist as a safety net for those with little i think the balance is wrong at the moment to act as an incentive for those with to do the right thing.

My parents before and me now are both very careful with money and save dilligently. I have friends who live well beyond their means and spend everything with no provision for futre (and not in realisable material assets)

All things bring equal if both me and mate x end up in a home at age 70 my sons potential inheretence will dwindle away on my care, where as fir mate x who has already spent his money the state will st e p in.

There should be some form of halfway house where those who can afford it do pay a portion of their care but also that they are allowed to ring fence aportion of their wealth, wi t h appropriat e taxation to pass on.

Only answer at the moment is to liquidate assets early and drip feed inheret ence so it s lips u nder the r a dar

lisyloo

Deleted_User (if you're still there).
I think you're clearly trying to do the best thing for your gran and there's nothing wrong with asking questions about the finances.
Bascially though if she has assets (a house) then she needs to pay and there is no easy way round it. So (for example) she can't give the house away to you or your dad.

Sorry that's not a good answer financially but unfortunately if she needs the money herself then it cannot be inherited.

If she had planned earlier and given away her assets then she's get free care.
There are a couple of big issues with this.
Firstly with free care you don't generally get a choice so you can end up in less good care homes or a poor room, perhaps not near family.
The second reason why it's difficult is that none of us know when we're going to die in advance so it's nigh on impossible to plan to be at zero when you need a care home.