Labour are promising to stop this happening in the future - not sure a) if they will live up to their promise or b) whether any other party will do so (seems a Lib Dem sort of thing since they became the nearest thing to a socialist party in mainstream UK politics).
But should they? Why shouldn't someone pay for their own care (excluding medical care) as at present.
Labour are promising to stop this happening in the future - not sure a) if they will live up to their promise or b) whether any other party will do so (seems a Lib Dem sort of thing since they became the nearest thing to a socialist party in mainstream UK politics).
But should they? Why shouldn't someone pay for their own care (excluding medical care) as at present.
The problem as I see it is
Person A struggles to buy their own house by living a fairly frugal lifestyle and wishes to leave it to their children. Needs care and has to pay for it.
Person B has the same income as A but lives in a council house (or equivalent) and pisses their income against the wall by going to the pub every night.
Why should person B get preferential treatment of free care??
It is inequalities like that that encourage over borrowing and not saving for a rainy day!!
Person A struggles to buy their own house by living a fairly frugal lifestyle and wishes to leave it to their children. Needs care and has to pay for it.
Person B has the same income as A but lives in a council house (or equivalent) and pisses their income against the wall by going to the pub every night.
Why should person B get preferential treatment of free care??
It is inequalities like that that encourage over borrowing and not saving for a rainy day!!
You obviously understand, but Blackdog has a problem with it..OK If you should pay for your care because you have saved for it, then those without savings should not get it, right?
I'm afraid, all the time it's available people will abuse it with welcoming hands..That is part of the reason we have a £759 Billion national debt..Sorry make that £760, apologies make that £761 and rising as quick as that! The attitude now seems to be 'you can't take it with you, so lets pi-- it down the drain..and when the time comes let someone else pay to look after us!..Guess who that will be....Me for one ..not through choice
Person A struggles to buy their own house by living a fairly frugal lifestyle and wishes to leave it to their children. Needs care and has to pay for it.
Person B has the same income as A but lives in a council house (or equivalent) and pisses their income against the wall by going to the pub every night.
Why should person B get preferential treatment of free care??
It is inequalities like that that encourage over borrowing and not saving for a rainy day!!
Using the same logic we should all be housed at the taxpayers expense and given some cash to blow at the pub.
It might be wonderful to give everyone the same - but can we afford it? Where is the money going to come from?
Person A struggles to buy their own house by living a fairly frugal lifestyle and wishes to leave it to their children. Needs care and has to pay for it.
Person B has the same income as A but lives in a council house (or equivalent) and pisses their income against the wall by going to the pub every night.
Why should person B get preferential treatment of free care??
It is inequalities like that that encourage over borrowing and not saving for a rainy day!!
Or could be:
Person A struggles to buy their own house by living a fairly frugal lifestyle and wishes to leave it to their children. Needs care and has to pay for it.
Person B is a widow, with two children who is in a low income job, leads a decent life but lives in a council house. Needs care but cannot pay for it.
Should person B be left to rot or should the government give assistance?
Person A lives a frugal lifestyle and supports themselves, buying/renting accomodation and working for a living. Person B doesn't do an honest days work in their life, is housed by the council and handed money to support their family (or blow in the pub).
Persons A & B both exist in our current system.
Following Nobby's logic Person A should get what Person B is getting - ie housed by the council and handed cash to do with as they may.
Person A lives a frugal lifestyle and supports themselves, buying/renting accomodation and working for a living. Person B doesn't do an honest days work in their life, is housed by the council and handed money to support their family (or blow in the pub).
Persons A & B both exist in our current system.
Following Nobby's logic Person A should get what Person B is getting - ie housed by the council and handed cash to do with as they may.
I prefer Jay's viewpoint.
I see an out-come where people As, will start to think sod this and start doing as people B. People need to see the benefit of hard work and sensible money management, otherwise, what is the point?
If anyone can repay the £175000 I forked out of my inheritance for my Mother's Home Care fees..they will certainly get my vote!!! Get my drift??
It gets better though, because if your dear old mum were lucky enough to live independently to her natural end, Labour are alleged to want to swipe £50,000 (might have been less) in death tax to care for person B.
It gets better though, because if your dear old mum were lucky enough to live independently to her natural end, Labour are alleged to want to swipe £50,000 (might have been less) in death tax to care for person B.
I think the proposal was to apply the tax to all estates - so Dodgy's mum would not have had to fork out £175k - just £50k or whatever.
However, I am about as sure as I can be that no one will be refunding the money already spent.
Logged
Male
