Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.
Discussion
markcoznottz said:
SpeckledJim said:
markcoznottz said:
troika said:
This is the problem with elderly care. Everyone wants it and wants it to be of the best quality, but wants someone else to pay for it.
Just an honest debate would do, under no circumstances should it be means tested.The parents of this generation paid for their education, they've been the lucky recipients of peace and prosperity, so are they really expecting their children to pay for their retirements?
The money is almost all theirs, the problem is almost all theirs. They, of all of us, are the best-placed to pay for what they need.
Unless we're really saying that middle-aged kids who couldn't even nearly afford to buy the house they grew up in are going to pay for their parents' care through their mid-life taxation, whilst the large family house just sits untouchable and irrelevant to the whole situation?
Your last comment on middle-England heroes is bonkers. Any work they do on their house allows them to sell it more easily, for more money. My parents look after their home because they have pride in it and want to live in a nice home. To suggest they look after it as some kind of national service to ageing stock is so laughable, I haven't got the words to respond!
markcoznottz said:
It's al stick and no carrot at the moment though. Anything that is easy pickings for donkey Kong or integroo is unearned and undeserved wealth. Presumably because they didn't earn it. I can't think of any analogy that comes close re care home costs. The idea that you could be sat next to someone that paid nothing while you fund them and yourself out of already taxed income is unreal. You are getting no real benefit from your prudence. If you pay for private education, you do it because presumably your child has a better chance academically. Same for opting for a private operation. You get seen faster and you would think, a better service. You opt for a private pension, you have a better quality retirement. You pay tax all your life, and even death taxes, yet you have to pay for something that others get free. Nice.
You can pay for whatever care you want out of your own pocket, if you can afford it. You can pay to live in your own home and have some nice young girls feed you grapes and fan you, if that's what tickles you. Society is based upon some people paying more tax than others to pay for services that others can't afford. If your position was that you want low taxation and limited public services, I would disagree, but at least your politics would be consistent. To argue against paying for your own care on the basis that you think you have paid enough tax and want the state to cover it because otherwise it is unfair that some people get what they haven't paid for is laughable.
You should trying living your life being less hateful, it might make you enjoy it a bit more.
Edited by Integroo on Tuesday 14th May 10:33
oyster said:
The idea that people have 'earned' the £1m sitting on paper in their houses and not just received it as a windfall is nonsensical.
Your last comment on middle-England heroes is bonkers. Any work they do on their house allows them to sell it more easily, for more money. My parents look after their home because they have pride in it and want to live in a nice home. To suggest they look after it as some kind of national service to ageing stock is so laughable, I haven't got the words to respond!
It is the single most mental thing I have read on here, and this place is full of nutters. Your last comment on middle-England heroes is bonkers. Any work they do on their house allows them to sell it more easily, for more money. My parents look after their home because they have pride in it and want to live in a nice home. To suggest they look after it as some kind of national service to ageing stock is so laughable, I haven't got the words to respond!
plasticpig said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Visiting a care home with a wing full of dementia sufferers is a very persuasive argument for assisted suicide. I would rather top myself than potentially living like that for several years. 
DonkeyApple said:
Welcome to the real world princess. The Capitalist world. If you can get to the end of your life before you’ve sat next to someone who has paid nothing and is being financed by yourself and others then that’s a bit of a result. Some of us spend our entire lives subsidising the masses. And we don’t mind because it makes the country we live in a better place.
Savings are to cover your costs when you stop being employable. If you’ve any left over when you die then happy days but you’re the commie douchbag who wants your fellow countrymen to finance someone unnecessarily so that you can get your hands on a handout.
There are currently relatively inexpensive methods of getting round paying care home fees if people are so inclined. As already pointed out in this thread a house where 50% of the ownership is in a trust is worth very little. Just needs some forward planning.Savings are to cover your costs when you stop being employable. If you’ve any left over when you die then happy days but you’re the commie douchbag who wants your fellow countrymen to finance someone unnecessarily so that you can get your hands on a handout.
.
plasticpig said:
There are currently relatively inexpensive methods of getting round paying care home fees if people are so inclined. As already pointed out in this thread a house where 50% of the ownership is in a trust is worth very little. Just needs some forward planning.
.
Indeed, and these loopholes should be closed. .
Integroo said:
markcoznottz said:
It's al stick and no carrot at the moment though. Anything that is easy pickings for donkey Kong or integroo is unearned and undeserved wealth. Presumably because they didn't earn it. I can't think of any analogy that comes close re care home costs. The idea that you could be sat next to someone that paid nothing while you fund them and yourself out of already taxed income is unreal. You are getting no real benefit from your prudence. If you pay for private education, you do it because presumably your child has a better chance academically. Same for opting for a private operation. You get seen faster and you would think, a better service. You opt for a private pension, you have a better quality retirement. You pay tax all your life, and even death taxes, yet you have to pay for something that others get free. Nice.
You can pay for whatever care you want out of your own pocket, if you can afford it. You can pay to live in your own home and have some nice young girls feed you grapes and fan you, if that's what tickles you. Society is based upon some people paying more tax than others to pay for services that others can't afford. If your position was that you want low taxation and limited public services, I would disagree, but at least your politics would be consistent. To argue against paying for your own care on the basis that you think you have paid enough tax and want the state to cover it because otherwise it is unfair that some people get what they haven't paid for is laughable.
You should trying living your life being less hateful, it might make you enjoy it a bit more.
Edited by Integroo on Tuesday 14th May 10:33
What's the point in NI if you can't draw on it when you're in need? We pay to look after those with cancer, why don't we pay for those with dementia?
markcoznottz said:
It's al stick and no carrot at the moment though. Anything that is easy pickings for donkey Kong or integroo is unearned and undeserved wealth. Presumably because they didn't earn it. I can't think of any analogy that comes close re care home costs. The idea that you could be sat next to someone that paid nothing while you fund them and yourself out of already taxed income is unreal. You are getting no real benefit from your prudence.
There is no perfect system. Nothing is fair. You won't be sat next to someone who paid in nothing- not all care homes are equal!!
WinstonWolf said:
I'm guessing you rent?
What's the point in NI if you can't draw on it when you're in need? We pay to look after those with cancer, why don't we pay for those with dementia?
I do, is it relevant? I will buy in the near future and by the time I may need care for the elderly I will no doubt own. What's the point in NI if you can't draw on it when you're in need? We pay to look after those with cancer, why don't we pay for those with dementia?
If you want general taxation and NI to pay, taxes need to go up considerably, as quite frankly we cannot afford it. Do you support large tax increases? Generally I find those against paying for your own care are also against tax increases...odd that one.
Cancer and dementia are not the same. Once you have dementia and are moved to a care home, you arent leaving. You will never get better and move back into your home. The only person that not selling your home benefits is the beneficiaries of your inheritance.
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm guessing you rent?
What's the point in NI if you can't draw on it when you're in need? We pay to look after those with cancer, why don't we pay for those with dementia?
I do, is it relevant? I will buy in the near future and by the time I may need care for the elderly I will no doubt own. What's the point in NI if you can't draw on it when you're in need? We pay to look after those with cancer, why don't we pay for those with dementia?
If you want general taxation and NI to pay, taxes need to go up considerably, as quite frankly we cannot afford it. Do you support large tax increases? Generally I find those against paying for your own care are also against tax increases...odd that one.
Cancer and dementia are not the same. Once you have dementia and are moved to a care home, you arent leaving. You will never get better and move back into your home. The only person that not selling your home benefits is the beneficiaries of your inheritance.
WinstonWolf said:
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm guessing you rent?
What's the point in NI if you can't draw on it when you're in need? We pay to look after those with cancer, why don't we pay for those with dementia?
I do, is it relevant? I will buy in the near future and by the time I may need care for the elderly I will no doubt own. What's the point in NI if you can't draw on it when you're in need? We pay to look after those with cancer, why don't we pay for those with dementia?
If you want general taxation and NI to pay, taxes need to go up considerably, as quite frankly we cannot afford it. Do you support large tax increases? Generally I find those against paying for your own care are also against tax increases...odd that one.
Cancer and dementia are not the same. Once you have dementia and are moved to a care home, you arent leaving. You will never get better and move back into your home. The only person that not selling your home benefits is the beneficiaries of your inheritance.
He's right. If you're unlucky enough to have cancer, there's a good chance the NHS can fix you.
If you have dementia and you need to live in a care home, then that's a one-way street. You won't need your house again. Nor will you need a round-the-world cruise, his-and-hers Rolexes and a new Range Rover every other year.
Whatever satisfaction wealth and material things brought to you is now over. You don't need any of it any more. It's all useless to you.
So the question is - do you pay your way as far as you're able, or do you get people you don't know to pay for your care instead?
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.
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.
WinstonWolf said:
Your view is selfish, you want others to subsidise the NHS because you've not planned for your future.
Eh? I am arguing that I want people to pay for their own care and not have the NHS fund it. You want people with their own cash to be propped up by the State. I don't think the State should support people with plenty money. FYI, I will certainly be in the camp of having to pay for my own care, if I need it. I would support increasing personal taxation (on myself I hasten to add) to cover the costs, but that is a very unpopular opinion around here. Answer the question that everyone is ignoring: do you support large tax increases to pay for the increasing cost of elderly care, given you don't want people to have to pay for it themselves?
I suspect the answer is no, but humour me. I want to see if your politics are consistent.
Edited by Integroo on Tuesday 14th May 12:10
WinstonWolf said:
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
It is very relevant, once you own your own home you'll understand.
It is irrelevant. Do you admit your view is based solely on selfishness?
markcoznottz said:
Touché. He was whinging in another thread about the fees incurred in moving to his new flat. Maybe we should have a whip round. He will just counter that the fees are immoral etc, there's always an answer, he's the new (old?) countdown.
There's a strawman if I have ever seen one. What does the estate agency racket have to do with this? I am a net contributor to the State and take nothing from it. Can you say the same?
WinstonWolf said:
We often keep people alive far longer than we should simply because we can
And that’s the enormous debate that as a country we must have. My father has made it abundantly clear to us that if his mind is gone then he manifestly does not wish his body to be forced to keep going.
As a society we need clearer guidelines on how a fellow human’s wishes can be legally met and helped to be humane to the ones we love, both the sufferer and those left.
I suspect that most of us would not wish to be a blank canvas sitting there sucking family and State resources but prefer to have a defined and protected point at which we and our loved ones are given freedom.
DonkeyApple said:
WinstonWolf said:
We often keep people alive far longer than we should simply because we can
And that’s the enormous debate that as a country we must have. My father has made it abundantly clear to us that if his mind is gone then he manifestly does not wish his body to be forced to keep going.
As a society we need clearer guidelines on how a fellow human’s wishes can be legally met and helped to be humane to the ones we love, both the sufferer and those left.
I suspect that most of us would not wish to be a blank canvas sitting there sucking family and State resources but prefer to have a defined and protected point at which we and our loved ones are given freedom.
I don't think any of us would like that condition to get us.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff