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.
'scuse me, but didn't the rich brid 'ave a better life?
Not necessarily, it might be that some people, with large estates, have been very frugal and lived a very modest life, in the (sadly, seemingly old fashioned) hope to leave a tidy some for their offspring.
'scuse me, but didn't the rich brid 'ave a better life?
Can you explain what a brid is? If it's what I think you meant to put but dislexia ruled then Have a little respect will you!!!! I don't think you will find having assets of that kind of value is classified as rich either.. Also completely missed the plot anyway to---r! And no i'm afraid her life was pretty miserable in the Home! I wonder what you will make of it, presumably subsidised by me and others....if you ever make it!!!!
i'm afraid her life was pretty miserable in the Home!
I'm guessing it saved you from having to look after her though.
Actually, there are several ways to prevent the draining of assets on health care (wether the individual is self-medicating or not, and / or covered, in the first instance, by a local Primary Healthcare Trust) but it takes a bit of determination and time. It also depends on how much effort the family are prepared to put in.
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.
No just cared for when they are ill or infirm - perhaps you feel we should pay for healthcare until our bank account is bled dry!
Ar-When I were A young lad, me National Insurance stamp covered the lookin after of the elderly and infirm...Also gave you a pension.. Where did all that go???
No just cared for when they are ill or infirm - perhaps you feel we should pay for healthcare until our bank account is bled dry!
Healthcare is available on the NHS - the care that is charged for is for non-medical care. The bit that families used to do - and, to be fair, often do today.
Ar-When I were A young lad, me National Insurance stamp covered the lookin after of the elderly and infirm...Also gave you a pension.. Where did all that go???
When I were a young lad old folk had the decency to die a lot younger.
If we want to fund decent pensions and free care for all we will have to pay for it - fancy a big tax hike?
Ar-When I were A young lad, me National Insurance stamp covered the lookin after of the elderly and infirm...Also gave you a pension.. Where did all that go???
Not strictly true old bean.
When the National Health Service Act of 1946 came in, they totally underestimated the number of people who would use it and at the end of the first year alone it was 52 million pounds over budget. That, by 1946 standards was a huge amount of money, hell, it's a huge amount of money now.
N.I contributions never covered the costs 'in the old days'.
It's only fairly recently that the NI fund has shown an enormous surplus. (Estimated £114.7 billion by 2012)
Healthcare is available on the NHS - the care that is charged for is for non-medical care. The bit that families used to do - and, to be fair, often do today.
Exactly the point. If you want to protect your inheritance then look after the old incapable person at home and it will not erode away their funds. Healthcare is free, if they get sick then they are admitted to an NHS hospital, and then when ready to be discharged, can have full care in a home for six weeks, after that then the cost usually has to be borne either by their assets or the family.
I think you will find that in 1935, an Act was passed to include Pension payments and Afters care (for want of a better phrase) in your National Insurance contributions..and to my knowlegde this was not changed for 30 odd years!
I think you will find that in 1935, an Act was passed to include Pension payments and Afters care (for want of a better phrase) in your National Insurance contributions..and to my knowlegde this was not changed for 30 odd years!
Citation needed please.
One of the easist ways around this problem (apart from looking after the relative yourself) is to put the names of those whom the property is due to be left too on the title deeds. (Preferably as soon as it is decided to leave the property to them). If need be, leave it to a group of people / relatives who agree between them to restore it to the rightful benificary at a later date. The more the merrier.
The patient can only be assesed on their part of the worth of the property. not the full amount. Without getting bogged down here in financial thingys, all you do then, having reduced considerably their interest, is to rent the property out for the same amount as any healthcare contributions expected from them.
Ar-When I were A young lad, me National Insurance stamp covered the lookin after of the elderly and infirm...Also gave you a pension.. Where did all that go???
Er?.....one ROBERT MAXWELL found a way to fraudulently use millions of pounds of peoples hard earned contributions to buy ,amongst other things, a massive yatch...the rest is History.
Logged
Male
