... 1,411 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Nice to see a lifetimes work to buy my house and keeping it maintained will be taken from me if I am ill,I used to think that people that neglected thier property must have problems ,but I now think whats the point,surely this can only be a short term fix for any government,people will not be queing up to buy their home for the government to s natch it to pay for care,they will eventually have to face the true reasons for shortfalls in community care and who will buy the houses they snatch. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bubblewrap 3,815 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 This not a complaint but an observation. In reality this is polatics so is this thread to be allowed?(I certainly say YES) As I have said before polatics in an earlier thread are everywhere & one has to be careful how one treads. I for one understand where Andy is coming from & understand as I have a aged mother(85) who's health is non too good.. You pay taxes(and other dues) all your working life only to have your property to be taken off you because had the misfortune to get ill. So please mods allow discussion on this topic. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tomlinson 879 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 This fact of financial life leads me to something I really shouldn't feel I know, but when we are fleeced in this manner, I can't help but think good luck to benefit frauds who have their hands in the pockets of governments while governments are giving all attention to picking ours. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TBI 2,351 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 It makes you wonder why you graft hard all your life, struggle buy your own house, be thrifty and save for your retirement. Then when you get ill or need care, the lot goes. Yet if you've done none of the above, you get everything for free. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DJBrenton 738 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hasn't this been the case for a while? My wife's grandmother had to sell her pit house in Bestwood village when she went into care. If I remember rightly the amount that could be retained was £8,000 in the mid-90's out of the £30k or so she got. I'm in 2 minds whether it's fair or not. These days extended families are less likely to take care of their elderly relatives then expect their share of the house on demise. I'm not sure it's right that we (the taxpayer) should subsidise that. It does seem unfair when some people save nothing all their lives and then get their care free though. Fwiw my objection to politics is largely anything that's purely party politics. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
banjo48 928 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Think mentioned before in another thread, my old mum was 85, she had scrimped and saved all her adult life, never bought on tic, only bought when she could afford it. When dad died young at 54, she carried on working to keep the house and did this for the rest of her life, till she retired, she wasn't rich but had a little over the allowable social services limit in the bank, to claim any benefits apart from her pension. She took ill with dementia at 85 and the social deemed her unable to care for herself, so they put her in a home, I got a phone call saying she would have to be self funded as she was just over the limit for cash in the bank, they wanted the deeds to the house and the house cleared so they could sell it to fund her care ! This was in 2005, sad but she didn't adapt to the nursing home and only lasted 5 weeks in there so the house was saved from their clutches. Maybe a godsend really. It's a disgrace to be able to do that to elderly people who have worked all their lives and paid their dues. The residential care home fee's was over 500 pounds a week then ! as her power of attorney I had to sign all the paperwork. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DJBrenton 738 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 The thing is though, you aren't really doing it to the elderly person, more the beneficiaries of their will. We seem (and this certainly isn't aimed at anyone and isn't true in all cases) to have stopped seeing our elderly as firstly our responsibility. Years ago we didn't expect the state to take the first role in caring for our relatives, it was a last resort as the extended family would step in. Whilst it can be difficult, my opinion is that each generation seems to be getting more selfish and less willing to forego their own lifestyle to take care of their parents. Is it right that the rest of us should pay so that the assets go to the children when, in some cases, the children could take care of the parent themselves but can't be bothered? ( I repeat, this isn't aimed at anyone and isn't always the case). The state has a role but personal responsibility should come first, surely. Houses are a form of saving and, in the end, are a form of insurance as a disposable asset. Look at it another way. How valuable a house do we feel you should be able to leave whilst the taxpayer covers all your care? At the moment you can keep over £23,000 which, while nowhere near the value of a house, is at least something to bequeath. You also have the option of setting up a family trust, moving the ownership of your home to the family over a period of years or even renting the house out to help meet care fees. Not doing anything to plan for eventualities is no-one else's responsibility. As dementia is in my wife's family ( may have arrived really early with my wife as she married me) we already have plans in place should her mother become terminally bewildered. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I apritiate what you say dj,but we have paid our dues since the age of 15,we was not told at that time that we would have to pay for our own care,had we known that we could have opted out of the nhs scheme and immiediately had private insurance deducted from our wages,the current set up is grossly unfair,my child and grandchilds future are important to me I appritiate that some think different,I chose not to sit on my backside amd worked hard for the future,I dont.even have a choice to terminate my life,in a genetation where a lot dont and havent worked there is a even bigger problem in the future and young people that see how we are being treat will not inspire them to work hard and who can blame them, 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DJBrenton 738 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 So plan for the future now. Set up a trust, transfer part of the value of your house to your children year on year. It's easy to avoid both death duties and having to sell your house for care if you plan now. You also btw don't have the value of your house taken into account if you still have a spouse living in the property. One of the solutions we came up with was for the mother-in-law to sell her house, then for us to buy a house with a granny flat and for her to pay rent such that all the value of her house quite quickly moved from her to us. Lots of ways of not losing the value. If you choose not to make arrangements then that's your and your family's business. Incidentally, working hard niw won't get our children what we got through unearned property booms. we've already stolen much of their future and tied it up in high propert prices that we can then sue to subsidise our retirements while they can't afford to buy a house. I think our generation was lucky compared to the next one. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
StephenFord 866 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 There is another issue here. As house prices are bumped up and up, it becomes more and more difficult for our children/grandchildren to become home-owners, unless they become so-called high-flyers who get silly money salaries. By definition, only a few can do that. For the rest, by the time they leave the mandatory university they not only have nothing to buy a house, they are also saddled with a multi-thousand pound mandatory debt as well. The only possibility for many of them to get onto the home-ownership ladder is the inheritance involving mum and dad's house. By removing that from the equation the government guarantee the growth of "buy to let" by the silly money rich folks, and the eventual collapse of widespread home ownership. So there will be no homes being sold to fund the care of the elderly. And don't be too sure about family trusts. As soon as the above starts to happen, you can be sure that the government of the day will put a stop to that loophole with the stroke of a pen. To put it in Fraser's words, "We're aaaallll doomed!" - except that what we are actually saying is "THEY (the next generation - not we) are aaaalll doomed." 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Thanks for cheering me up stephenford,interesting just seeing how in depth this subject is ,dj interesting I will check some of your info out ,thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bilbraborn 1,594 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I told my family that if my wife and/or I need care in old age then it's up to them. If they want to keep the house, then they may hay have to look after us. Sad fact. Personally. When it comes to a time when someone else has to wipe my ass, then I think I'll be ready for a long sleep. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
terence12 725 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 bilbraborn #13 i'm with you on that Quote Link to post Share on other sites
catfan 14,793 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Me as well, a quick bullet in the head ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
swe62 334 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 total agreement when its time ,quick overdose of morphine or what have you whats the point of a pointless existence 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
catfan 14,793 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 We care more for pets, off to the Vet for euphanasia when needed.. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
benjamin1945 16,158 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Bloody hell,.....cheer up..............it won't always be dark at 6,...................and as 'me Dad' used to say.......'no it'll be dark at 4......... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
don walker 122 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 it seems to me that if you graft all your life and struggle o pay of your mortgage the gannets ( local government etc)take the only real asset the ordinary working man &woman has to pay for a bed in a home ,,but in the bed next to you could be somebody that's never even tried to buy a house or been to work, they would probably get it for free,, this can,t be fair, this is just a generalisation, I am not pointing a finger at any one in particular, and how on earth do these people come with the figures it costs to keep some one in a home,, do they think of a figure and then double it. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loppylugs 8,429 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Tough topic. Came into it late my Ipad has been updating today. Seems to be a pretty similar situation in each of our countries. I agree with those who say it is not fair that the person who never made any provision should be covered and the hard worker have all they worked for taken away. As others have noted. Often the kids don't want to help the ones that wiped their butts when they were babies, but if they want to keep that house they are going to have to do some pre-planning. As I remember it in times passed families did have to take care of their own much more. I think I will be finding a lawyer or financial advisor that can give some advice on this. About time to revise my will anyway. The system is mostly stacked against us guys. Over here in the US the healthcare system seems to do its best to clean out your wallet before you expire. Gotta keep the 1% in the luxury they are used to. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
banjo48 928 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 To place your property in a trust or give it to a family member prior to death or illness takes a minimum of 10 years, so you have to do it 10 years previous to any medical/ death or social service dealings. My mums solicitor told me this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bubblewrap 3,815 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 My mother sold her bungerlow and moved to be near my sister. She banked/stashed the money & my sister & brother in law bought a bungerlow for her. My mother pays rent for the bungerlow which pays the mortgage on it. So sister & brother in law own the property & not my mother. Of coarse there is still the question of my mothers cash.(she has been quite generous with it over the last few years ) At the moment my mother is in good(ish) health for her age(85)& hopefully has a few years in her yet. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bilbraborn 1,594 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 What frightens me is you don't always have the choice. There was one in the news the other day who was kidnapped by Social Workers and put in a home and took out a law of secrecy on the whole affair. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DJBrenton 738 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 To place your property in a trust or give it to a family member prior to death or illness takes a minimum of 10 years, so you have to do it 10 years previous to any medical/ death or social service dealings. My mums solicitor told me this. That apllies to death duties but not social care bills and is 7 years not 10. The only problem with placing your home in trust to avoid care bills is that it has to be clear that's not what you're doing. In other words, you should be healthy at the time, not wait until it's inevitable you'll need care. There's no time stipulation regarding such a transfer but the earlier you set the trust up the easier it is to argue it's not an avoidance scheme. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
catfan 14,793 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I didn't think housing benefit was payable if renting from a relative ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robbie 39 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Firstly I agree with the content of the majority of these threads but playing devils advocate before the introduction of this £72,000 cap there was no cap, therefore apart from about £20,000 you would have to find what ever the total costs of social care came to from your assets and savings. Personally I think good quality social care should be free and funded by the state, we have all contributed throughout our working lives and should be rewarded without the worry of where the monies are coming from to pay for such care or worry about the stress it brings on our families associated with the social care system I also believe in euthanasia, not too sure about a bullet to the head though, far to messy. I also believe if foreign aid was reduced the saving, no matter how small could be left in the pot for use by the NHS. I realise the academics on this site will disagree for political reasons. I also believe that there would be a lot more monies made available if all these tax avoidance schemes were made illegal. Remember before anybody decides to have a go......I agree with what has already been said, I am just expressing my views on what is a very emotive topic 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.