BBC News Families hide their wealth to avoid care home costs
Discussion
cymtriks said:
First, yes they are. The ammount not being sufficient doesn't change this, the deal was made.
The deal was bogus from the start but its hardly the fault of those that paid in good faith.
As I said above I don't recall care of the elderly ever being "gauranteed". In any case circumstances change. They changed when means testing was brought in.The deal was bogus from the start but its hardly the fault of those that paid in good faith.
cymtriks said:
The government is "the rest of us", they only have money of their own if they borrow it and we pay for that in the end to.
Yep. Which means if people deliberately transfer their assets to their children to achieve the means test criteria the "rest of us" have to pay for their care. the only people to benefit are their children.cymtriks said:
In a post further up someone pointed out that its a bit like having car insurance, making a valid claim, and then being told that because you have some cash handy you can pay it yourself. I'd add that it's also like then being told that that same bit of cash is being confiscated to pay for an uninsured driver's accident!
To use the car insurance as an example - its why premiums rise. The insurers put up premiums to cover increasing costs, your premium is not guaranteed to remain low even if you've never had any accidents. And you wouldn't deliberately have an accident just to claim back all the premiums you've paid, would you?The deal changed when they brought in means testing
roachcoach said:
Simond S said:
This may be the case at the moment, but in 20 years it's fair to say a lot of those requiring care will never have worked and have relied on the social care system for their whole lives.
in 40 years we'll have the whole gammut of Blair's babies to contend with. Every non working, justice seeking self righteaous victim of the world who has never contributed but knows it is their right to have a place in a care home.
Would it be unfair to say that people fitting that category probably don't live the healthiest of lifestyles and therefore a diminished number would make it that far?in 40 years we'll have the whole gammut of Blair's babies to contend with. Every non working, justice seeking self righteaous victim of the world who has never contributed but knows it is their right to have a place in a care home.
Countdown said:
heppers75 said:
Also and I am not sure if this is a good analogy or not but was thinking about this on the drive to the office this morning a little and I thought. For those born in the 30's & 40's they were sold it as a genuine Insurance Premium (Pay your Stamp get these benefits) and to me the current situation is rather akin to taking out a policy on a car then 10 months into the policy making a legitimate claim only to be told by the insurer that they won't pay out as you won £50k on a scratch card a few weeks ago so can afford to repair it yourself!
I don't think Universal free elderly care was ever promised, was it?Even if it was unfortunately circumstances change. People are living longer. Much like public sector workers complaining about having to work longer and/or changes to their pensions
In fairness this is nothing like the same, the same using that analogy would be like being told you would get a pension after paying into it for 40 years and simply being told you can't have one the money is gone!
GTDNB said:
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.
Yes it's a form of thievery.BUT, why should the person who drinks, or gambles their savings away not pay, whilst those who don't do that have to pay?
They've both paid the same amount of tax in their lifetimes.
oyster said:
Yes it's a form of thievery.
BUT, why should the person who drinks, or gambles their savings away not pay, whilst those who don't do that have to pay?
They've both paid the same amount of tax in their lifetimes.
I think that's a fair point but it could equally apply to othe means tested benefits. Why should the feckless receive free housing/cash/medecines when those who work hard and save do not?BUT, why should the person who drinks, or gambles their savings away not pay, whilst those who don't do that have to pay?
They've both paid the same amount of tax in their lifetimes.
Pride and self-respect?
No matter how you look at it, going into an LA care home means you are living on welfare benefits. If you do so because you have no other option then fair enough. However to deliberately put yourself into that position, so that your nearest and dearest benefit at the cost of everybody else, seems wrong to me.
Edited by Countdown on Monday 27th February 12:05
Countdown said:
No matter how you look at it, going into an LA care home means you are living on welfare benefits. If you do so because you have no other option then fair enough. However to deliberately put yourself into that position, so that your nearest and dearest benefit at the cost of everybody else, seems wrong to me.
There aren't many (maybe there aren't any now) LA care homes. People go in private homes and they're funded by the LA - assuming the home will accept the LA rate, which is usually lower than the hame is charging people who are self-funding.They can go pretty well anywhere if the family is prepared to pay the extra cost - the old person can't pay it themselves as they're supposed to have little money.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Agreed. That said there can be a massive difference in the quality of two homes with the same income and the same asset costs to service. One could almost suggest that there are some Care Home owners who care and make a good living and some who are ONLY out to make as much money as possible, regardless of what the end result of this might be for those paying the fees...So far as my folks are concerned I would rather they spent all my inheritance on their comfort than spent their last days in some hell hole to save money for my siblings and I.
I have long since said "Just leave me enough to pay for the BBQ and bonfire and I'll be happy."
NoNeed said:
Deva Link said:
SystemParanoia said:
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...
Who should get it?k off if they think they're getting any of it...As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
NoNeed 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...As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.
Bluequay said:
That is not a fair system, why is person 1 being punished for being responsible?
Person Number 1 will be able to pick and chose where they are cared for.Person Number 2 will be placed in the first available home with LA spaces which firstly tend to be a slightly revised version of an axis power POW camp and secondly could be 200+ miles from any relatives.
SystemParanoia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Why should they be able to leave a house worth hundreds of grand to their kids whilst the taxpayer has to pay thousands to look after them??
As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.
so from this I assume that you're going to make sure that your parents leave everything they have on this earth to the treasury in their will ?As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.
Countdown said:
SystemParanoia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Why should they be able to leave a house worth hundreds of grand to their kids whilst the taxpayer has to pay thousands to look after them??
As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.
so from this I assume that you're going to make sure that your parents leave everything they have on this earth to the treasury in their will ?As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.
all of this without receiving a single penny or support from the state?
SystemParanoia said:
so ( heaven forbid, touch wood etc etc ) you and your partners parents living in your home, all 4 of them get somehow manage to aquire an assortment of age related illnesses meaning each of them requires 1 on 1 24/7 care.. you're confident that you are going to be able to look after them all by yourselves and still provide an income into your house as well as providing the 24/7 care they will needed for the next XX years?
all of this without receiving a single penny or support from the state?
Probably. I come from a large family.all of this without receiving a single penny or support from the state?
If they do need to go into a nursing home for medical reasons (and, to be fair, the circumstances you describe seem fairly extreme) I'll be making sure all the assets they have (plus whatever we can afford to pay on top) are used to ensure they have the best quality of life possible.
They're my parents. If they can look after themselves why should I expect the State (other taxpayers) to look after them?
GTDNB said:
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.
You could equally well say that anyone who speaks of fairness when someone who has has carefully saved or worked hard is effectively taxed at close to 100% of all income and assets while their feckless or lazy neighbour gets exactly the same deal for free at their expense is a bare faced lying fraudster.dvs_dave said:
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?
Health care is and is always free at the point of delivery , 'social care' is but isn't free at the point of delivery if you have assets ... we'll also conveniently avoid those who put the NHS in the position of having to go to court to forcibly discharge patients from Acute Care because they or more usually their family refuse to accept the indicated discharge plan
<snip>.
dvs_dave said:
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.
suprising numbers of these people , especially those who remain in their own homes choose to refuse or are abusive towards homecare staff and make frivolous or vexatious complaints ( yes there are people who abuse and steal from vulnerable people , but the whole thing cuts both ways )Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff