PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Protecting my house

Options
1246

Comments

  • GDB2222
    GDB2222 Posts: 26,171 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Will any parties meet the cost of really good care? At the moment, funded care is at the rock bottom end of the market. 



    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
  • Salemicus
    Salemicus Posts: 343 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.
  • Salemicus said:
    No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.
    Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

    Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  
  • While certain regions of Britain benefit from free care in old age while others don't, it seems unfair to berate the OP for wanting the same.  Welcome to the UK, folks.
    Certain people can afford champagne while others can’t, that doesn’t make it acceptable to shop lift.

    If you want to benefit from care that the state pays for then moving is an option. Trying to cheat isn’t.

    Another option is to vote for parties that plan to fund social care properly. 
    No thanks, as they’ll fund it “properly” by taxing me more and others less.

    My homes won’t be at risk as I’ve saved and invested enough from my post-tax income to make sure of it. If you want the same sort of care as I’ve provisioned for then you’ll need to do the same, it’s not reasonable to expect that I pay for mine, and yours, but that you get to keep a house to pass on to your children.
  • Salemicus said:
    No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.
    Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

    Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  
    But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

    It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
    There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.
  • Salemicus said:
    No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.
    Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

    Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  
    But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

    It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
    There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.
    We all contribute what we can, or at least that's the idea. 

    A hike in inheritance tax would be a good start. 
  • Salemicus said:
    No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.
    Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

    Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  
    House fire? How do you mean? Don't you take out insurance for that?
  • Salemicus said:
    No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.
    Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

    Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  
    But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

    It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
    There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.
    We all contribute what we can, or at least that's the idea. 

    A hike in inheritance tax would be a good start. 
    That's just picking and choosing.

    i think luxury goods tax should be increased - beer, fags, clothes, holidays, cars etc 
  • easterbunni
    easterbunni Posts: 146 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper
    Salemicus said:
    No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.
    Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

    Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  
    House fire? How do you mean? Don't you take out insurance for that?
    I think they mean the potential bill for the big red lorry and several highly trained persons who put their lives at risk fighting said house fire.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.8K Life & Family
  • 257.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.