Forum menu
A long post and a tricky topic but a subject I am interested in and that causes much debate and resentment. The government have set up [url= http://www.dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk/ ]The Dilnot commission[/url]to look into this.
One of the fundamental issues is should people be forced to sell their house to pay for care? On the surface this seems unfair but if they don't then the taxpayer has to pay instead and it makes no difference the person in receipt of the care, all that happens is their children get to inherit.
Why should the taxpayer pay so that the children of middle-class parents still inherit? On the other hand why should one person who built up an asset have to sell it when the person next to them gets the same care but spent all their money?
The key[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jul/04/elderly-care-proposals-dinot-report ] dilnot proposals are[/url] a cap on the amount that people should have to contribute and a large increase in the threshold below which you don't have to contribute.
This will mean a significant increase in taxation to ensure this is so - are you prepared to pay more taxes so that other folk get to inherit?
This nettle needs to be grasped however - state funding of private care home places has not kept up with costs - hence the collapse of southern cross care homes and recently homes are surviving by cross subsidy - overcharging private payers to subsidise the state funded. This clearly will decease if these proposals are adopted. Nursing homes are so cash strapped that they really struggle to pay staff decent rates so cannot recruit and retain quality staff - this leads toe the various scandals over poor care standards.
So - is this the right way to go - and how much extra tax are you prepared to pay?
[i]should people be forced to sell their house to pay for care?[/i]
Absolutely - all of your assets should be included - whether it's money in a bank account or invested in bricks and mortar.
The argument that it'll discourage people from saving for their old age is a fallacy, although I can see all sorts of 'early inheritance' loopholes allowing property to be passed on to children for those with the nous and funds to exploit them
So - is this the right way to go - and how much extra tax are you prepared to pay?
yes, 5%
yes, 5%
Prividing the care is provided based on th individual's care needs and not just their age.
Whats been happening over the last twenty years is the division of our society into property owners (some of whom own multiple properties) and 'the rest' who realistically haven't got a cat in hells chance of getting onto the property ladder.
Whyon earth should the latter pay for the former to pass their good luck (for it is mainly luck rather than judgement) onto their children, while looking to people who will never share this good fortune to cover the cost of their care.
I'm sorry, but its just further entrenching the already ridiculously wide division in our society
i vote for binners. binners for prezidant x
should people be forced to sell their house to pay for care?
Hmm, this old chesnut?
I'm going to say no. Someone who has saved and put money aside (be that in property or savings) should not be made to pay more than someone who has made no provision for this. Given you can't withold the care for people who don't have funds available then you have to provide a completely state funded care system.
[troll]how about we cut some pensions to pay for it? That we we give with one hand and take away with the other.[/troll]
Lunge - so you will be prepared to pay significant extra taxation - around £200 a year - so that middle class people can inherit their parents wealth?
So the state should subsides peoples inheritence?
Edit - the reason for the post is the Dilnot commission proposals which are an attempt to get an answer for this
I'm sorry, but its just further entrenching the already ridiculously wide division in our society
No it's not, it's providing equality of care to people regardless of their financial situation.
Edit - the reason for the post is the Dilnot commission proposals which are an attempt to get an answer for this
Yeah, right! 🙄
Personally, I think the answer is euthanasia.
Charlie - actually thats why I started this - read the summary of the proposals to see if you think thats the right way to go.
To me they are just a messy comprimise
Couger - when people reach retirement age... BANG bullet to the head.
No need for pensions then.
No it's not, it's providing equality of care to people regardless of their financial situation.
And that's completely unaffordable. So somethings got to give. Either the quality of care is done on the cheap and universally crap! Or people with resources (that they're just going to pass onto their brattish offspring - while, if Dave has his way, paying no inheritance tax) contribute in some way.
Or we go down cougars route and replace Sunny View Rest Home for the Terminally Bewildered into Dignitas. Actually.... that gets my vote 🙂
El Presidente
Or people with resources (that they're just going to pass onto their brattish offspring............contribute in some way
In the same way as they do for their NHS health care or state pension?
[b]And that's completely unaffordable.[/b] So somethings got to give. Either the quality of care is done on the cheap and universally crap! Or people with resources (that they're just going to pass onto their brattish offspring - while if Dave has his way paying no inheritance tax) contribute in some way
False premise. Besides, the rich (should) have paid more tax throughout their lives why should they continue to subsidise the other lot?
Or we go down cougars route and replace Sunny View Rest Home for the Terminally Bewildered into Dignitas
and we could use the old people's bodies to solve the great meat shortage!
i think this should also apply to people who retire early and those who don't work full time.... as i feel its only fair that people work as hard as me and don't have more money/opportunity/fun than me.
and we could use the old people's bodies to solve the great meat shortage!
Speak for yourself. There's no shortage of my meat.
we can have free universal social care for the elderly if you want - but there is a cost and it is not small. Care to a reasonable level cost £35 000 PA minimum. State funding is under £25 000 pa
And how long do you really think NHS health care and state pensions are going to remain universal?
Anyway... thats not the same as paying for someone to sit around sucking Werthers Originals and pissing themselves
when people reach retirement age... BANG bullet to the head.
Absolutely!
Nah, obviously that's not what I was meaning. But quality of life should be taken into account. We are so fixated on extending life as long as possible that we'll do it at all costs; there must be a point where someone isn't going to get better, is in a lot of pain, has lost their marbles, whatever. Prolonging their agony is selfish and cruel.
There's plenty of people who [i]want[/i] to die and we won't let them. Look at Terry Pratchett - he knows he's not going to get better and he's chosen to have an assisted suicide when he gets to a point where he's not himself any more. For this he has to go to a different country.
In his situation I'd make the same decision, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. But if I go senile I've got no option other to sit drooling in a chair whilst strangers feed me soup through a straw, where the only challenge I've got to look forward to is not shitting my pants. Bugger that.
State provided, but, and this is important... Only state provided, no private care allowed at all on pain of death and deportation to foreign.
If the only care you can get is state provided, then everyone has a vested interest in making it as good as possible, so will pay the tax.
Works better for education, but still.
There's no shortage of my meat.
Have you considered the iDave diet?
Lunge - so you will be prepared to pay significant extra taxation - around £200 a year - so that middle class people can inherit their parents wealth?
No, but I am prepared to pay an extra £200 per year to get everyone an equal level of healthcare in their latter years irrelevent of financial situation.
Dilnot seems a reasonable compromise.
My mum worked hard and saved all her life to give me and my siblings an inheritance, she's gutted she'll now have to blow it on care, as I would be.
TandemJeremy - Member
Lunge - so you will be prepared to pay significant extra taxation - around £200 a year - so that middle class people can inherit their parents wealth?
£4 is "significant taxation" WTF?
Seems to me those that can save should be rewarded - they will likely have paid more taxes than those with no savings (and of course most likely were bron into better circumstances)
Lunge - in order to do that you would have to pay a lot more than that in taxation and ban private care.
Remember this is not healthcare as such - its social care mainly.
I'm absolutely amazed how many middle class people regard inheriting a property as some kind of divine entitlement, passed down through the ages from god himself. It isn't!
And if you are going to inherit it, its a windfall, so top bleating about having to pay tax on it
They should pay for it themselves. God damn baby boomers enjoyed affordable housing, cheap money, accessible education, cheap fuel, stable, well paying jobs with great pensions, the list goes on and on - they had it all and what did they do? Poisoned the earth then set about systematically tearing apart for future generations the systems that provided the benefits they themselves enjoyed. They haven't even got the decency to die early.
binners - Member
I'm absolutely amazed how many middle class people regard inheriting a property as some kind of divine entitlement, passed down through the ages from god himself. It isn't!
Well given that in our society you have been able to choose what happens to your money on your death for a fairly long time, I'd have to disagree a bit, it's a legal entitlement at least.
I guess it matters less to those with less to bequeath/inherit.
Haven't read the report but I basically agree with binners - there's no reason why people should pay more tax so that others can inherit money. There must be some way that state care payments can be sort of added up and then added on as a sort of inheritence tax when the person dies, and if there isn't enough in the estate then the outstanding amount is written off - that seems to be fair to everyone, tax is increased for those who can afford it but we don't all end up paying for other people's inheritence. I'm sure someone else will have proposed this and no doubt there are all sorts of problems with it though - there always are with tax!
randomjeremy pretty much sums it up perfectly. They made sure they pulled the ladder up behind them!
Al - are you talking about the common peasantry interfering with your birthright 😉
Lunge - in order to do that you would have to pay a lot more than that in taxation and ban private care
Fine, I was going on your original number. But the principle still stands, yes, I would be prepared to pay the tax.
As usual, science gives us the answer...
I hope I have something to pass on to my children (or brats if you will) when I'm old and p*ssing myself (regularly). If there's a chance that what I have gets taken away from them, then Cougars hit the nail on the head. For that reason some sort of state funding compromise and subsequent tax increase is my vote.
[s]Caring for[/s]Looking after people is expensive, if you pay people to do it. So is fixing cars, decorating, gardening, laundry and bringing up children. Why have we chosen to sometimes outsource some of these from the family home and not others. When my mother was ill my family each took turns going and staying with her. My father knows that as soon as he needs it there is a home with us, or another of the family. I'm not looking forward to the time with great relish, but just seems the right thing to do, perhaps because my grandmother lived with us for her last fifteen years or so. Oh and I don't see £200pa going very far if universal provision is to be paid for.
The £200 per year per taxpayer is just the amount of money to implement the dilnot proposals. Universal free provision would be very much more
£200 seems cheap to me.
Binners - I suppose, it's a shame working classes are allowed on teh internet really.
Re. inheritance, I would suggest that if you remove the right for people to pass on their money when they die then most people would make sure they had spent and/or already passed it on before the time came.
What would then happen is that the people who died suddenly would get to pass nothing on where as those that had time to plan would have already shifted things.
I know. Its an inevitable consequence of them being allowed to
a) breed
b) vote
c) not be hunted down and killed or enslaved by their superiors
Christ only knows where its all going to end?
Lunge - hard to do when its a house and various ways of dealing with this already - remember thats what currently happens - people sell their hous e to pay for their care
£200 extra tax is £8000ish over a working life. so you are happy to pay £8000 extra tax to ensure i can inherit more? Thanks
TJ, still yes, absolutely.
Fairy snuff
People's view on housing as a function of their age:
People in their 30's: My house is my pension.
People in their 40's: My house is my pension.
People in their 50's: My house is my pension.
People in their 60's / 70's: I'm not selling my house, give me a pension!
My mother in law currently needs almost round the clock care. Can't really be left alone for longer than 2 hours. But as all the family live fairly locally I've set the house up with wireless broadband, coffee machine, cable TV, comfortable guest room with double bed, spare room with desk etc. and we offer family members £60 a night to stay, but expect a couple of day sessions as well.
It works well, We arrived at the price by gradually upping the amount until we filled the schedule. Supply & demand etc.
In the long term there is no justification for the state to pay carers simply in order to protect middle class inheritances. That's all it is.
And as the population grows older, we're all going to have to revert to the nuclear family. From what I see of Indian & ****stani families, (and I visit quite a lot in my job) they've got it right. They get a great big house and everybody lives there together. It's like a party every night as well.
Sounds like a sensible and pragmatic approach BigJohn