Grandparents 'Gifting' to grandkids

Keep_pedalling

diamonds wrote: »

Well she was told the NHS from her tax

That was never the model, it is current tax payers who fund the pensions and health needs of the elderly. If we want free universal care for everyone then taxes are going to have to rise dramatically to fund the every increasing demand, and frankly few people are going to vote for that.

My mother like many of her generation, never worked after giving birth to me, has payed very little tax, owns no property and has few savings. Until she was recently hospitalised she had care at home, and I know this cost the LA £15,000 a year. On leaving hospital she will be going into residential care so that cost is going to rise dramatically.

We on the other have good pensions, have significant savings and thanks to silly house price inflation are sitting on a house worth £500k. Do I think the state should pay for our care so we can leave everything we have to our children? Absolutely not.

diamonds

Gadfium wrote: »

So you want the tax-payer to fund her upkeep then, even though she has the funds?

We already do - as she was promised, just it shifted from gross tax to post net tax earnings in council tax.

Break down £23,000, 16 until the then 65 years pension ie 49 years, working hard after tax to buy a home and then put into care, you are left with £40 a month protected savings for a lifetime of work with no state pension income which is used by the local authority for your care home with housing benefit and topped up by social work.

Again Tory privatisation of care from NHS (to save money) and pass the cost on to you/council tax payers and DWP after income tax via council tax under the guise of social care was lunacy. The DHSS was integrated in costs, now its two government depts costs and further post tax funding of care. The NHS moved care costs to DWP (housing benefit) and local authorities and thus taxpayers AFTER income tax. Direct and indirect funding to private companies, a mix of gross and net taxpayers funding for care.

Of course the rise to £100,000+ asset protection should have been kept for April '16, the mantra 'work pays' should not just be for the current in pre-retirement employment age group. They worked and paid in to the system for future care and built up assets, now 'work pays' equals £40 a month of your own savings to live off!?


Hardly fair.

diamonds

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

That was never the model, it is current tax payers who fund the pensions and health needs of the elderly. If we want free universal care for everyone then taxes are going to have to rise dramatically to fund the every increasing demand, and frankly few people are going to vote for that.

My mother like many of her generation, never worked after giving birth to me, has payed very little tax, owns no property and has few savings. Until she was recently hospitalised she had care at home, and I know this cost the LA £15,000 a year. On leaving hospital she will be going into residential care so that cost is going to rise dramatically.

We on the other have good pensions, have significant savings and thanks to silly house price inflation are sitting on a house worth £500k. Do I think the state should pay for our care so we can leave everything we have to our children? Absolutely not.

NHS was built on free HEALTH/CARE. The older generation were indeed told.


No not at all, but your mother if she had a £500K home as a asset should be able to keep the £100K+ plus protected savings and pay her share off the remaining. Not leave £40 a month to live on out her own savings. And leave nothing or minimal in her will to wherever she wishes, family or charity for working and amassing assets.

By the way the £15,000 you quote is not paid just by the council, the housing benefit element is administered by the council out of DWP funds, some may well be by NHS paid, case dependant.


'We' who own 500K homes and have savings are the minority not a majority. And thus why your dear mum has perhaps means tested benefits ontop of a basic state pension which is only right - which also was protected for most your childhood by TAX incentives to ensure she could claim a state pension.


Of course £100,000+ savings threshold is fair for those who worked hard as much as it is fair your mum has a protected minimum state pension by her parentage tax protections.


Leaving £40 a month for someone out all their assets... even Jobseekers Allowance is almost double a week. And again for how many years have DWP paid carers less than JS? Even the private healthcare homes staff get minimum wage.

missbiggles1

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

That was never the model, it is current tax payers who fund the pensions and health needs of the elderly. If we want free universal care for everyone then taxes are going to have to rise dramatically to fund the every increasing demand, and frankly few people are going to vote for that.

My mother like many of her generation, never worked after giving birth to me, has payed very little tax, owns no property and has few savings. Until she was recently hospitalised she had care at home, and I know this cost the LA £15,000 a year. On leaving hospital she will be going into residential care so that cost is going to rise dramatically.

We on the other have good pensions, have significant savings and thanks to silly house price inflation are sitting on a house worth £500k. Do I think the state should pay for our care so we can leave everything we have to our children? Absolutely not.

You could make a pretty good argument that the state shouldn't fund (or at least not totally) your mother's care either, as would be the case if she were to live in France.:)

diamonds

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You could make a pretty good argument that the state shouldn't fund (or at least not totally) your mother's care either, as would be the case if she were to live in France.:)

Very true, the UK does not enforce a child to contribute to care. In my opinion if I was a 40% taxpayer I would expect to pay a small sum monthly gross out my salary direct to care. Less at 20% and nothing under the personal allowance tax threshold.

As it stands I dont pay tax but I would be contributing to my parent in care voluntary not just leaving them with £40 a month after the local authority stole everything.


Further but not entirely related/unrelated: There are people with £40 a month who depend on say the poorest (Jobseekers and ESA) to help buy them personal items as £40 does not cover them, and as it is a private care provider not NHS they cannot even claim travelling costs as per a visit to a NHS establishment. Lunacy.

Keep_pedalling

diamonds wrote: »

NHS was built on free HEALTH/CARE. The older generation were indeed told.


No not at all, but your mother if she had a £500K home as a asset should be able to keep the £100K+ plus protected savings and pay her share off the remaining. Not leave £40 a month to live on out her own savings. And leave nothing or minimal in her will to wherever she wishes, family or charity for working and amassing assets.

By the way the £15,000 you quote is not paid just by the council, the housing benefit element is administered by the council out of DWP funds, some may well be by NHS paid, case dependant.


'We' who own 500K homes and have savings are the minority not a majority. And thus why your dear mum has perhaps means tested benefits ontop of a basic state pension which is only right - which also was protected for most your childhood by TAX incentives to ensure she could claim a state pension.


Of course £100,000+ savings threshold is fair for those who worked hard as much as it is fair your mum has a protected minimum state pension by her parentage tax protections.


Leaving £40 a month for someone out all their assets... even Jobseekers Allowance is almost double a week. And again for how many years have DWP paid carers less than JS? Even the private healthcare homes staff get minimum wage.

The amount I quoted does not include HB.

When you are in a care home, you have very little to spend your money on so £40 a month covers most things you would need.

In 1945 my parents generation were promised cradle to grave care, but it was never based on the taxes that they had paid in the past but on the taxes of the working population, and back in the 40s 50s and 60s that worked fine because few actually went into care and as a proportion there were more working people and less pensioners.

Had we, like Norway did, preserve our oil revenue, instead of spending it on trying to be a world power, we might have still been able to afford to do such things but unfortunately that horse has already bolted.

Us baby boomers are the lucky generation, we don't really deserve any more special treatment at the expense of those following us.

Keep_pedalling

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You could make a pretty good argument that the state shouldn't fund (or at least not totally) your mother's care either, as would be the case if she were to live in France.:)

That is true, although I would be concerned that a number of people might be tempted to bump off their elderly parents should such a system come about here.

We might still have to contribute because depending on what she is offered we may be looking at top up fees for something better and we have already paid for periods of respite care.

Keep_pedalling

It should also be remembered that when NHS and welfare state was first set up, there was not much in the way of care homes available and around half of those that did exist had previously been work houses.

If you had dementia and no one willing to look after you, your likely destination would be a ward in the local metal asylum, so despite the lack of funding you are still better off getting old today.

N1AK

diamonds wrote: »

It is unfair to blame any generation for successive governments failures, even if it falls on us now

It's entirely fair. If the electorate can't be expected to pick competent representatives or to be held responsible for their choices then what's the point in giving them a democratic voice.

N1AK

diamonds wrote: »

Leaving £40 a month for someone out all their assets... even Jobseekers Allowance is almost double a week.

Unless you're 18 to 24 when it's £57 but everyone seems fine with the young getting the short end but god forbid it happen to the elderly.