Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.
Discussion
covmutley said:
But you still haven't explained why you think the state should pay for you to live in a care home?
Surely you must see that people not paying their own care is 'leftie'. You cant just switch completely from 'I'm earning, it's my money' to, 'I'm paying out, someone else needs to pay for me'. It would be your care, that you need! not mine or anyone elses!
It’s the most bizarre aspect of the thread. One poster makes the traditional right of centre observation that people with wealth should use that wealth to pay their own way. And then someone steps up with the left of centre view that the taxpayer should pick up the tab but calling everyone on the right a Commie or Marxist. Surely you must see that people not paying their own care is 'leftie'. You cant just switch completely from 'I'm earning, it's my money' to, 'I'm paying out, someone else needs to pay for me'. It would be your care, that you need! not mine or anyone elses!
I think the confusion has arisen purely as a result of the asset type. If in the example the individual lived in a rented apartment and held £300k in an equity portfolio then maybe there wouldn’t be this intellectual cloud of emotion?
What is clear is that there are two types of people who desire to leave wealth to their children. Those who do something about it to dementia proof their wealth as best as possible and those who do nothing at all with everyone whinging that it’s all someone else’s fault and that the State should be wiping their bottoms and giving them some free money.
People need to discuss dementia planning as part of the whole conversation that they have with their parents about IHT planning and/or the division of wealth/assets among siblings.
markcoznottz said:
Should be free at the point of use like the NHS. No other component is means tested i.e. operations. Yes I know certain benefits are means tested re savings, which again is wrong. If others get it for free and you are a taxpayer then the system should be there. Like I say the only reason the issue is raised is because t
ts like integroo can see an asset to be raided. To ask people to pay for something others get for free is the issue, nothing to do with leftie.
Some people get council houses for free, do you want one of those? How about motability cars? ts like integroo can see an asset to be raided. To ask people to pay for something others get for free is the issue, nothing to do with leftie. Your communist views are pretty extreme.
And again, its not an asset grab to ask people to pay for their own care you imbecile.
Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 15th May 08:18
Integroo said:
markcoznottz said:
Should be free at the point of use like the NHS. No other component is means tested i.e. operations. Yes I know certain benefits are means tested re savings, which again is wrong. If others get it for free and you are a taxpayer then the system should be there. Like I say the only reason the issue is raised is because tts like integroo can see an asset to be raided. To ask people to pay for something others get for free is the issue, nothing to do with leftie.
Some people get council houses for free, do you want one of those? How about motability cars? ts like integroo can see an asset to be raided. To ask people to pay for something others get for free is the issue, nothing to do with leftie. Your communist views are pretty extreme.
And again, its not an asset grab to ask people to pay for their own care you imbecile.
Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 15th May 08:18
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
So you'd support people selling their homes to pay for cancer treatment then?
The reasons that cancer and dementia are very different has already been covered in this thread. Problem is there is a double standard. People who have worked hard and bought their houses are being stripped of their assets through no fault of their own except needing care in old age. Do fk all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.
Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
k all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
Schmed said:
Problem is there is a double standard. People who have worked hard and bought their houses are being stripped of their assets through no fault of their own except needing care in old age. Do fk all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.
Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
No there isn't. If you have half a million in liquid assets and rent you will have to pay. That is not a double standard. It is not a double standard to ask people who have wealth to use it to pay for their own care and not expecting those without it to do so (given the whole point is they cannot afford to do so).k all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
Again, it's bizarre that people that speak with right wing terminology - asset grabs, insidious State - hold such strong left wing views on the State providing care.
Politics of the selfish?
Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 15th May 09:05
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
You do realise dementia care can be fully funded by the state? It's just a lottery as to whether the patient receives it or not...
We are talking about what the position should be not what it is.Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?
WinstonWolf said:
Ah, so you want to change the parameters of the discussion to suit your case now?
Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?
I'm not changing anything that's what we have been discussing all along. Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?
No. I agree the rules should be consistent across all postcodes. Those that can afford to pay for their own care should do so.
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ah, so you want to change the parameters of the discussion to suit your case now?
Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?
I'm not changing anything that's what we have been discussing all along. Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?
No. I agree the rules should be consistent across all postcodes. Those that can afford to pay for their own care should do so.
Integroo said:
Schmed said:
Problem is there is a double standard. People who have worked hard and bought their houses are being stripped of their assets through no fault of their own except needing care in old age. Do fk all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.
Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
No there isn't. If you have half a million in liquid assets and rent you will have to pay. That is not a double standard. It is not a double standard to ask people who have wealth to use it to pay for their own care and not expecting those without it to do so (given the whole point is they cannot afford to do so).k all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
Schmed said:
It is not a level playing field at all. Either you treat everybody the same and it is free at the point of use like the nhs, or you expect everybody to pay. Anything else is indeed a double standard because you are treating people differently based on their assets, but I fear it is as pointless trying to argue with a brainwashed leftie as it would be trying to command the tide.
How can people that cannot afford to pay be expected to pay? Is progressive taxation a double standard? Giving only some people council houses? Giving only some people disability benefit? Giving only some people Universal Credit? 'Brainwashed leftie'? You are as ridiculous as mark. Care universally funded by the State is a left wing policy, people paying for their own care is not. Your position is based on your own selfishness, and nothing to do with principle.
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
For all diseases or just some?
For end of life care where the person moves into full time residential care on a permanent basis. We now have a generation of people with really healthy hearts thanks to bypasses etc but their brains are utterly f
ked.In the specific case of dementia we should be asking the question "is it really in the best interests of the patient to keep them alive"?
WinstonWolf said:
So it's the type of building that matters? A person with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time, they need full time care to stay alive.
We now have a generation of people with really healthy hearts thanks to bypasses etc but their brains are utterly fked.
In the specific case of dementia we should be asking the question "is it really in the best interests of the patient to keep them alive"?
Sorry, I don't know what point you are trying to make. The question of whether or not individuals with dementia should have the right to assisted suicide prior to losing the ability to consent to it is a separate question altogether. We now have a generation of people with really healthy hearts thanks to bypasses etc but their brains are utterly f
ked.In the specific case of dementia we should be asking the question "is it really in the best interests of the patient to keep them alive"?
Oh, and no, a person with dementia will not die if left alone for even a short period of time. Which one of us doesn't understand dementia? Dementia is a disease of varying degrees of severity where sufferers tend to slowly (or indeed in some circumstances quickly) deteriorate. Those with the most severe dementia require full time care, agreed, but there are many with dementia that is much less severe and who can manage some degree of independent living.
Schmed said:
It is not a level playing field at all. Either you treat everybody the same and it is free at the point of use like the nhs, or you expect everybody to pay. Anything else is indeed a double standard because you are treating people differently based on their assets, but I fear it is as pointless trying to argue with a brainwashed leftie as it would be trying to command the tide.
Look at your pay slip. Month-in, month-out, you're being treated differently to every other person on this thread. Some pay less, some pay more.This is no different.
If you can pay, you pay. If you can't, you don't. Our whole society operates quite happily around this principle. My daughter can't pay for the costs of sending her to primary school. But that's ok, because you and I can pay instead, so we do.
Nowhere on earth has found a better way to do it.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff