BBC News Families hide their wealth to avoid care home costs
Discussion
Who'd have thought it?
BBC article
You can't really blame people for not wanting to pay twice (their current local taxes and NI) for something they've already paid for (oldies past NI) to get exactly the same result as if you never paid a penny.
The real problem is a truly warped sense of fairness.
BBC article
You can't really blame people for not wanting to pay twice (their current local taxes and NI) for something they've already paid for (oldies past NI) to get exactly the same result as if you never paid a penny.
The real problem is a truly warped sense of fairness.
i will be doing the same for when my parents time comes ( if it ever comes ).
they've worked hard all their life for what they have, the state can f
k off if they think they're getting any of it...
if my folks sat on their arses all their life and claimed benefits for their entire adult life... they wouldn't be expected to pay a penny, so i will make sure they don't.
they've worked hard all their life for what they have, the state can f
k off if they think they're getting any of it...if my folks sat on their arses all their life and claimed benefits for their entire adult life... they wouldn't be expected to pay a penny, so i will make sure they don't.
cymtriks said:
.. to get exactly the same result as if you never paid a penny.
It's not exactly the same - some of the basic rate places are pretty ropey. And if a person is local authority funded then they have all their current income taken off them, and are given back a few pounds pocket money. If they've got a house and savings, then chances are they may have a reasonable pension so their state and private pensions plus any other benefits that get (such as Attendance Allowance) won't be far off the basic rate anyway.
cymtriks said:
The real problem is a truly warped sense of fairness.
And also that local authorities don't pursue the funds. OK, you can hide a savings accout, but the financial assessment we did for my wife's elderly Godfather asked if he owned land or property or had ever owned land or property. How the heck do people get away with simply saying 'no'?SystemParanoia said:
i will be doing the same for when my parents time comes ( if it ever comes ).
they've worked hard all their life for what they have, the state can fk off if they think they're getting any of it...
if my folks sat on their arses all their life and claimed benefits for their entire adult life... they wouldn't be expected to pay a penny, so i will make sure they don't.
you're happy for someone else to pay but they shouldn't. care to have a go at coming up with a reasonable justification for this because i can' t see one here?they've worked hard all their life for what they have, the state can f
k off if they think they're getting any of it...if my folks sat on their arses all their life and claimed benefits for their entire adult life... they wouldn't be expected to pay a penny, so i will make sure they don't.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Seems pretty simple to me.
Either look after your parents in their dotage, and inherit their house, or sell their house to pay someone else (the state) to look after them.
What's the problem?
exactly. anyone who hides the value of any savings or assets so the taxpayer has to foot the bill they could pay themselves is nothing more than a thief. Either look after your parents in their dotage, and inherit their house, or sell their house to pay someone else (the state) to look after them.
What's the problem?
Deva Link said:
SystemParanoia said:
they've worked hard all their life for what they have, the state can fk off if they think they're getting any of it...
Who should get it?k off if they think they're getting any of it...ill make sure their able to go on all the cruises and holidays and enjoyable things that they can possibly fit into their remaining years.
morally, i dont care if it means the *system* looses out a little bit, the countless life long dole dossers have taken more out and never contributed, and governments have wasted billions at the stroke of a pen... the meagre earnings of x2 individuals in comparison will not be missed by the system, but will make a significant difference to their retirement.
i love my parents and wish all the best for them. system and socialist morality be damned.
SystemParanoia said:
Them!
ill make sure their able to go on all the cruises and holidays and enjoyable things that they can possibly fit into their remaining years.
Hmmm...OK. So they'll have spend down to below £23K including the value of their house? Good luck with that. Apart from my FIL, who really does seem determined to spend the lot (he's on yet another holiday at the moment and has released equity from his house) most old people are incredibly tight.ill make sure their able to go on all the cruises and holidays and enjoyable things that they can possibly fit into their remaining years.
SystemParanoia said:
Deva Link said:
SystemParanoia said:
they've worked hard all their life for what they have, the state can fk off if they think they're getting any of it...
Who should get it?k off if they think they're getting any of it...ill make sure their able to go on all the cruises and holidays and enjoyable things that they can possibly fit into their remaining years.
morally, i dont care if it means the *system* looses out a little bit, the countless life long dole dossers have taken more out and never contributed, and governments have wasted billions at the stroke of a pen... the meagre earnings of x2 individuals in comparison will not be missed by the system, but will make a significant difference to their retirement.
i love my parents and wish all the best for them. system and socialist morality be damned.
If they can go on cruises etc, then they obviously don't need looking after, so there's no issue.
One thing that puzzles me about elderly care is that more than likely the majority of people will need it, so why isn't it part of the welfare state system?
It just seems out of step with the whole point of the welfare state of not having proper provisions in place for when elderly people are no longer able to look after themselves. Old people are no less valid to society and have contributed a lot during their lives, so why abandon them during their time of greatest need?
I imagine most people would happily contribute a little extra in tax if it meant that elderly people were ensured of a dignified and comfortable end to their lives. It's the least we owe them, and what I want for my parents and when the time comes for myself too.
It saddens me terribly when I hear these stories of old folk living/dieing alone and in squalor when it would be so easy for this sort of thing to not ever happen.
It just seems out of step with the whole point of the welfare state of not having proper provisions in place for when elderly people are no longer able to look after themselves. Old people are no less valid to society and have contributed a lot during their lives, so why abandon them during their time of greatest need?
I imagine most people would happily contribute a little extra in tax if it meant that elderly people were ensured of a dignified and comfortable end to their lives. It's the least we owe them, and what I want for my parents and when the time comes for myself too.
It saddens me terribly when I hear these stories of old folk living/dieing alone and in squalor when it would be so easy for this sort of thing to not ever happen.
PaulHogan said:
Please show me where NI was stated to be used for care home costs?
The older generation were told that the money would be used to provide a saftey net from the cradle to the grave. Many older people also claim that they were told the money would be "put aside" for them. The very name "national insurance" combined with the popular "cradle to grave" description arguably implies that you are paying into a state run insurance scheme that covers old age care.cymtriks said:
The older generation were told that the money would be used to provide a saftey net from the cradle to the grave. Many older people also claim that they were told the money would be "put aside" for them. The very name "national insurance" combined with the popular "cradle to grave" description arguably implies that you are paying into a state run insurance scheme that covers old age care.
^^^ This... we have been over to the MiL's today for lunch etc and were discussing this very thing, she is by no means wealthy but owns her own home, has a rental property neither of which has a mortgage and low/mid five figure savings as well as a very good pension. She has said that within the next 4-5 years (she is mid sixties and in good health) she will be transferring this all to my wife, myself and son to ensure that should the worst happen she would qualify for the local authority run home down the road and her principle for this is exactly the above.... in her words...
"I worked all my life and was told from a young age that my 'stamp' was to pay for my healthcare and state pension plus my care when I was elderly. I chose to live the life I did and leave a legacy for my daughter and her family and I am dammed if I am going to give that away to pay twice for something I have already paid for"
Not withstanding the fact I will of course benefit from this even if I did not I happen to agree with her!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have no issue with the elderly blowing their money, going on cruises etc. Good for them. My issue is with children thinking they should inherit a house while the state looks after their ailing parents. If you want to inherit a house, look after your folks. If looking after them is all to much trouble, then let the state look after them, and flog the house to pay for it.
If they can go on cruises etc, then they obviously don't need looking after, so there's no issue.
What is the difference from either the state's point of view or from the tax payers point of view?If they can go on cruises etc, then they obviously don't need looking after, so there's no issue.
Spend money on toys and holidays, the state pays for care
or
Stash money away for kids, the state pays for care.
You seem to think that its OK to do the former but somehow not OK to do the later? Why?
You also convieniently forget that the elderly, if they have ever paid tax and NI, have paid into a system that was claimed to provide care. Why should they pay twice?
I expect that the "look after your folks" comment is due to a complete lack of experience. Would you have someone who repeatedly forgot to switch off taps, electric fires, kettles or cookers, and often used them at odd hours, in your house with your kids? Would you leave them alone in their own home? We made sure that nothing electrical worked in the MILs house. She was a walking death trap, a danger to herself, her neighbours and anyone under her roof. The truth is that it just isn't a sensible option in many cases, and nearly always not a sensible option towards the end.
cymtriks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have no issue with the elderly blowing their money, going on cruises etc. Good for them. My issue is with children thinking they should inherit a house while the state looks after their ailing parents. If you want to inherit a house, look after your folks. If looking after them is all to much trouble, then let the state look after them, and flog the house to pay for it.
If they can go on cruises etc, then they obviously don't need looking after, so there's no issue.
What is the difference from either the state's point of view or from the tax payers point of view?If they can go on cruises etc, then they obviously don't need looking after, so there's no issue.
Spend money on toys and holidays, the state pays for care
or
Stash money away for kids, the state pays for care.
You seem to think that its OK to do the former but somehow not OK to do the later? Why?
I'm not suggesting looking after elderly relatives is easy. I know it isn't. That's why it's so damn expensive!!
As for what they were promised by the state, we've all had promises broken. The tories promised me they wouldn't touch child allowance but they are scapping it for people earning over £42K. The country is in a hole and sacrifices have to be made. Why should I pay to look after someone elses parents while their kids flog the house and get the money??
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Because as a tax payer I don't mind elderly people enjoying their twilight years with cruises and whatever, and then paying for their care if they don't have the money themselves. But I do object to paying for their care so that their feckless lazy kids can go on cruises with the proceeds of the folks house, when they couldn't even be arsed to look after them in their final years!!!
I'm not suggesting looking after elderly relatives is easy. I know it isn't. That's why it's so damn expensive!!
As for what they were promised by the state, we've all had promises broken. The tories promised me they wouldn't touch child allowance but they are scapping it for people earning over £42K. The country is in a hole and sacrifices have to be made. Why should I pay to look after your parents while their kids flog the house and get the money??
So I take umbrage to that on many levels, the first being the assumption I am feckless and lazy (I am far from it!) so thanks for that! The second being that two wrongs make a right.... i.e. I lost something therefore so should someone else. Also thirdly I am a taxpayer and I believe that this level of double taxation is a step far to far so I have no problem with it at all and would not whether or not I benefit from it. I'm not suggesting looking after elderly relatives is easy. I know it isn't. That's why it's so damn expensive!!
As for what they were promised by the state, we've all had promises broken. The tories promised me they wouldn't touch child allowance but they are scapping it for people earning over £42K. The country is in a hole and sacrifices have to be made. Why should I pay to look after your parents while their kids flog the house and get the money??
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff