Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
You have £300k but no one to leave it to. Should you pay for your own needs? And if you do have someone to leave it to why does that differ?
This country is phenomenal for level of security we receive but there are sane limits and giving taxpayer money to people who have money is a hard one to argue.
It's ok when foreign mothers fly in to take advantage of the NHS and give birth here, that's different. Giving money to people who don't even live here. What someone's net worth is, is irrelevant, maybe they worked harder, took more risks. All the people I know with big houses etc they all work very long hours and tbh work or have worked harder than me. IMO it's a leftie asset grab, purely and solely based on house price inflation. If they wanted to IHT could be adjusted to take more %, loads more if needed, but if you take away wat is rightfully, fairly, and prudently earned, we end up like the late 70's, with punitive tax rates that discourage anyone from bothering earning more. This country is phenomenal for level of security we receive but there are sane limits and giving taxpayer money to people who have money is a hard one to argue.
The IHT angle is dodged because it's a vote loser, so we are going for the heartstrings now, people are 'gaming' the system by protecting thier assets. Going after the easy money again, nasty 'rich' people not paying thier way.
markcoznottz said:
It's ok when foreign mothers fly in to take advantage of the NHS and give birth here, that's different. Giving money to people who don't even live here. What someone's net worth is, is irrelevant, maybe they worked harder, took more risks. All the people I know with big houses etc they all work very long hours and tbh work or have worked harder than me. IMO it's a leftie asset grab, purely and solely based on house price inflation. If they wanted to IHT could be adjusted to take more %, loads more if needed, but if you take away wat is rightfully, fairly, and prudently earned, we end up like the late 70's, with punitive tax rates that discourage anyone from bothering earning more.
The IHT angle is dodged because it's a vote loser, so we are going for the heartstrings now, people are 'gaming' the system by protecting thier assets. Going after the easy money again, nasty 'rich' people not paying thier way.
You're letting your true colours shine through. It's the fault of dirty foreigners, isn't it. The IHT angle is dodged because it's a vote loser, so we are going for the heartstrings now, people are 'gaming' the system by protecting thier assets. Going after the easy money again, nasty 'rich' people not paying thier way.
"Leftie asset grab" to ask people to pay for their own care, the mental gymnastics are astounding.
Answer the question: do you support large tax increases to fund the increasing requirement for elderly care? You clearly do not, yet you want the State to pay - how do you propose it is funded? The magic money tree?
Integroo said:
You're letting your true colours shine through. It's the fault of dirty foreigners, isn't it.
"Leftie asset grab" to ask people to pay for their own care, the mental gymnastics are astounding.
Answer the question: do you support large tax increases to fund the increasing requirement for elderly care? You clearly do not, yet you want the State to pay - how do you propose it is funded? The magic money tree?
Winston? Mark?"Leftie asset grab" to ask people to pay for their own care, the mental gymnastics are astounding.
Answer the question: do you support large tax increases to fund the increasing requirement for elderly care? You clearly do not, yet you want the State to pay - how do you propose it is funded? The magic money tree?
markcoznottz said:
DonkeyApple said:
You have £300k but no one to leave it to. Should you pay for your own needs? And if you do have someone to leave it to why does that differ?
This country is phenomenal for level of security we receive but there are sane limits and giving taxpayer money to people who have money is a hard one to argue.
It's ok when foreign mothers fly in to take advantage of the NHS and give birth here, that's different. Giving money to people who don't even live here. What someone's net worth is, is irrelevant, maybe they worked harder, took more risks. All the people I know with big houses etc they all work very long hours and tbh work or have worked harder than me. IMO it's a leftie asset grab, purely and solely based on house price inflation. If they wanted to IHT could be adjusted to take more %, loads more if needed, but if you take away wat is rightfully, fairly, and prudently earned, we end up like the late 70's, with punitive tax rates that discourage anyone from bothering earning more. This country is phenomenal for level of security we receive but there are sane limits and giving taxpayer money to people who have money is a hard one to argue.
The IHT angle is dodged because it's a vote loser, so we are going for the heartstrings now, people are 'gaming' the system by protecting thier assets. Going after the easy money again, nasty 'rich' people not paying thier way.
Bring on Brexit and all you lot can get sent back to mongolia.
Integroo said:
Integroo said:
You're letting your true colours shine through. It's the fault of dirty foreigners, isn't it.
"Leftie asset grab" to ask people to pay for their own care, the mental gymnastics are astounding.
Answer the question: do you support large tax increases to fund the increasing requirement for elderly care? You clearly do not, yet you want the State to pay - how do you propose it is funded? The magic money tree?
Winston? Mark?"Leftie asset grab" to ask people to pay for their own care, the mental gymnastics are astounding.
Answer the question: do you support large tax increases to fund the increasing requirement for elderly care? You clearly do not, yet you want the State to pay - how do you propose it is funded? The magic money tree?
When you buy your own place you'll probably feel differently.
Here's a novel idea, instead of accruing masses of wealth to leave to the 'kids' when they die (who, by the way, are most likely to be nearing pensionable age themselves by this point) and worrying constantly they're going to lose it all to the state to pay for their care, perhaps more people could actually help their kids and grandkids when it actually matters earlier in life? You know, instead of letting them struggle trying to scrape together deposits for a mortgage on a house that keeps increasing in price every time they get that bit closer to saving their 10% / 15% / 20% or whatever.
All these people who talk about not wanting their kids to struggle like they did yet their solution to this is to leave them a pot of cash at a stage in life that it most likely matters the least. It's bonkers.
All these people who talk about not wanting their kids to struggle like they did yet their solution to this is to leave them a pot of cash at a stage in life that it most likely matters the least. It's bonkers.
Oakey said:
Here's a novel idea, instead of accruing masses of wealth to leave to the 'kids' when they die (who, by the way, are most likely to be nearing pensionable age themselves by this point) and worrying constantly they're going to lose it all to the state to pay for their care, perhaps more people could actually help their kids and grandkids when it actually matters earlier in life? You know, instead of letting them struggle trying to scrape together deposits for a mortgage on a house that keeps increasing in price every time they get that bit closer to saving their 10% / 15% / 20% or whatever.
All these people who talk about not wanting their kids to struggle like they did yet their solution to this is to leave them a pot of cash at a stage in life that it most likely matters the least. It's bonkers.
So sell your house and move into rented accommodation? Genius!All these people who talk about not wanting their kids to struggle like they did yet their solution to this is to leave them a pot of cash at a stage in life that it most likely matters the least. It's bonkers.
WinstonWolf said:
I suspect anyone who has been touched by dementia would be in favour of clinically assessed euthanasia. Until there is a treatment or cure I'd have quite happily put those around me who have been affected to sleep.
I don't think any of us would like that condition to get us.
I don't think any of us would like that condition to get us.
First time I visited my dad in the dementia wing of a Care Home is one of the most depressing experiences I have ever had. Polls on the subject regularly show a high percentage of the public in favor of it with various polls showing 80% to 90% in favor. In a recent poll which asked a specific question about dementia 88% of the respondents would find it acceptable for dementia sufferers to receive help to end their lives, provided they consented before losing their mental capacity. Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm fine with it, but you'll get a free-ride anyway as you haven't invested in property like the rest of us.
When you buy your own place you'll probably feel differently.
You're fine with what? I'll get a free ride how?When you buy your own place you'll probably feel differently.
You won't have a house to give to the state to fund your care when you need it, why *would* you care.
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm fine with it, but you'll get a free-ride anyway as you haven't invested in property like the rest of us.
When you buy your own place you'll probably feel differently.
You're fine with what? I'll get a free ride how?When you buy your own place you'll probably feel differently.
WinstonWolf said:
It was a very basic reply, I specifically avoided using long words. I'm fine with increasing taxation to look after dementia sufferers, can you understand that reply a little better?
You won't have a house to give to the state to fund your care when you need it, why *would* you care.
You specifically avoided using any words. Great, glad we are in agreement. It still seems odd that you would like to increase taxation on yourself to pay the care for people that can afford to pay their own, but that's fine. You won't have a house to give to the state to fund your care when you need it, why *would* you care.
Emm, yes I will. I am forty years away from State retirement age, and hopefully a lot more years away from requiring care. I will have a house by then, and one that I would be happy to sell to fund my own care, if I needed it. (NB it is not a house to give to the state, it is a house to sell to pay for your own care).
markcoznottz said:
There's no guarantee you will have assets at the time that can be triple taxed. Hence your care costs will be met by the state assuming the pots not bare.
"Triple taxed". It is paying for your own care, you imbecile, it isn't a tax. I am not sure speculating on whether I will or will not have any assets in forty, fifty or sixty years in the future is particularly relevant.
I hope my parents spend all their money before they need it, and if they do need it I hope they sell their home to get the best care they can. It doesn't interest me trying to game the system to protect their wealth so they can leave it to me.
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
It was a very basic reply, I specifically avoided using long words. I'm fine with increasing taxation to look after dementia sufferers, can you understand that reply a little better?
You won't have a house to give to the state to fund your care when you need it, why *would* you care.
You specifically avoided using any words. Great, glad we are in agreement. It still seems odd that you would like to increase taxation on yourself to pay the care for people that can afford to pay their own, but that's fine. You won't have a house to give to the state to fund your care when you need it, why *would* you care.
Emm, yes I will. I am forty years away from State retirement age, and hopefully a lot more years away from requiring care. I will have a house by then, and one that I would be happy to sell to fund my own care, if I needed it. (NB it is not a house to give to the state, it is a house to sell to pay for your own care).
You get cancer the state will pay for all your care, you get dementia which has greater care needs you won't. That's not how the NHS should work, it isn't a disease lottery. We pay for NI to look after our health care needs, why should only some diseases attract funding?
WinstonWolf said:
Other than those required to answer your question that was even in bold type
You get cancer the state will pay for all your care, you get dementia which has greater care needs you won't. That's not how the NHS should work, it isn't a disease lottery. We pay for NI to look after our health care needs, why should only some diseases attract funding?
You will not recover from dementia. If you have to move into a care home, you are there for the rest of your life. You will never have any ability to spend the wealth you have amassed to that point. People aren't being asked to pay for things they cannot afford to pay for, or to become bankrupt trying to do so - if they cannot afford it, the State will provide. I don't think it is sensible policy to protect children's inheritance at the expense of the State and increased general taxation. Quite frankly, a nice lump sum going to people that will often have quite comfortable lives isn't something worth protecting. You get cancer the state will pay for all your care, you get dementia which has greater care needs you won't. That's not how the NHS should work, it isn't a disease lottery. We pay for NI to look after our health care needs, why should only some diseases attract funding?
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
Other than those required to answer your question that was even in bold type
You get cancer the state will pay for all your care, you get dementia which has greater care needs you won't. That's not how the NHS should work, it isn't a disease lottery. We pay for NI to look after our health care needs, why should only some diseases attract funding?
You will not recover from dementia. If you have to move into a care home, you are there for the rest of your life. You will never have any ability to spend the wealth you have amassed to that point. People aren't being asked to pay for things they cannot afford to pay for, or to become bankrupt trying to do so - if they cannot afford it, the State will provide. I don't think it is sensible policy to protect children's inheritance at the expense of the State and increased general taxation. Quite frankly, a nice lump sum going to people that will often have quite comfortable lives isn't something worth protecting. You get cancer the state will pay for all your care, you get dementia which has greater care needs you won't. That's not how the NHS should work, it isn't a disease lottery. We pay for NI to look after our health care needs, why should only some diseases attract funding?
WinstonWolf said:
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
Other than those required to answer your question that was even in bold type
You get cancer the state will pay for all your care, you get dementia which has greater care needs you won't. That's not how the NHS should work, it isn't a disease lottery. We pay for NI to look after our health care needs, why should only some diseases attract funding?
You will not recover from dementia. If you have to move into a care home, you are there for the rest of your life. You will never have any ability to spend the wealth you have amassed to that point. People aren't being asked to pay for things they cannot afford to pay for, or to become bankrupt trying to do so - if they cannot afford it, the State will provide. I don't think it is sensible policy to protect children's inheritance at the expense of the State and increased general taxation. Quite frankly, a nice lump sum going to people that will often have quite comfortable lives isn't something worth protecting. You get cancer the state will pay for all your care, you get dementia which has greater care needs you won't. That's not how the NHS should work, it isn't a disease lottery. We pay for NI to look after our health care needs, why should only some diseases attract funding?
I don't want any of your money for that purpose, until my money's run out.
Yet you want to keep your money when you get old and decrepit, and use my money instead.
WinstonWolf said:
And one day you'll have a family and a home that you've paid every penny of tax due on and your opinion will change.
No, it won't. My politics are not based on my own selfish desires. Oh, and no tax is paid on massive increases in wealth caused by house price inflation, which so many of the current senior generation have benefited from.
WinstonWolf said:
So sell your house and move into rented accommodation? Genius!
Is the only wealth you've accumulated your entire working life your house? My apologies, I thought your generation worked so much that you'd be going to sleep on a mattress stuffed with £50's. But no, selling your house and renting isn't the only option, there's always downsizing.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff