alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Thanks to all those expressing concern, and giving advice.

NO THANKS as usual to Pissy Lewis, who, dispite my request NOT to do so, the very next post, immedialtely took the thread off topic with more of his Tory ranting thinly disguised as New Labia

Pete: why interfere in something someone else is obviously upset about and trying to do something about? Do you think they NEED your lectures about what YOU think is right and proper?

Idiot

Alcazar

pslewis

Alcazar

Sorry my friend - you did indeed ask for no socialist comments and on the very next post I post one ............... but, did I?? Surely, a Socialist/Labour aim would be to help out the elderly at taxpayers expense?

A Tory government would say, "tough luck - pay for it youself"!

The situation sucks, I agree, but if you boil it down it is not fair at all to ask someone earning £16,000 a year to pay their taxes so that an 18 year old can get a free house - is it??

Everyone would accept it, I think, if the council house scumbag who has done NOTHING all their lives did NOT get old age care free ..... as they milk the last drop of money from the system.

Thats why I say, if scum can't pay then they live in some social old peoples home, without luxuries.

Those who have saved and bought a home can afford better care - more luxuries - but it needs to be paid for.

All those who want the elderly to keep all their wealth - I have one question, will you pay EXTRA taxes so that the heirs can behefit to the tune of £100,000's?? Because thats the REALITY of what you're all crying and bleeting about! It needs to be paid for by us, the Taxpayers!!

The elderly now, paid for those who went before them - they do NOT pay for THEIR retirement/old age care!!!!!!! Just as we must meet the cost of those who have wealth enough to pay for themselves.

I repeat what I said earlier ... why should we pay for an 18 year old to get a free house?? WE SHOULDN'T!! In my opinion!

But, neither should the scum get free care in old age either!

Pete

Chris L

But there is more to it than that. Previous generations bought into the idea of the welfare state on the basis that it would provide health care and support for all - as long as you made the necessary NI payments etc. An ageing population and the huge amount of waste within the NHS and other government agencies makes this almost impossible now.

There is also a limited amount of space in state care homes which leaves many people with no choice, but to go private. I don't know what the answer is to all of this either. Pete is right about one thing - we are now paying for the care of the elderly rather than than the elderly relying on the contributions they made earlier in their lives. I dread to think what the situation will be in 40 or 50 years time.

Alcazar - have a look at the Help The Aged website - they have loads of information about financing for care homes. There is a good PDF you can download here

Chris

Turbohot

They can sell the house, leave the money in the bank and name it to their grandson. Then, social security will bear their costs for care in the care home.
Or, they can let the grandson have the house now, let him move in there( if he is too young, they can let his father have the house, they can still state in the will that eventually after the age of 18, thier grandson will be the owner of this property). Then they can persue to move into care home. As long as they have any property, assets, bank balance, they will be expected to pay from it for their care.
Alternatively, they can have "care on call" in their own home which is pretty shoite, TBH! Many of the elderly in this country have to put up with it.Care homes are a bit better.

Chris L

Good idea, but illegal.

It is illegal to make over property or savings to another person in order to qualify for financial help from your local authority. The technical term is 'deprivation of assets' - the PDF I linked to in my previous post explains it all.

AudiLover

dont they have a pension that can help pay for it?

Turbohot

I know a lady who named the house to her son( well, her son did a fiddle on her, TBH). Then, her son looked into council bunglow for her. She got it. When she became immobile, she went into a care home on state's money. I feel really sorry for the lady. She wanted her house to be split equally between her son and daughter.
^Just a realistic example of what goes on sometimes.

Turbohot

They do and it does help pay towards it. But even the cheap care homes cost about 450 quid a week! Pension alone would never cover that.

Lydia72

My Mother ran nursing homes for years, the residents who got state help and the residents who paid from their own funds got exactly the same care, the same activities, the same standard of rooms and the same meals, no difference at all except one residents bank account was drained to the tune of £300 per week and the other paid nothing.

Turbohot

On the whole, very sad state for the elderly, IMO. The Thought of anyone going into care is depressing. I know it is inevitable for the elderly with mental health. They are never as well looked after there as they would, if family supported them. Long days to be spent among many inactive people! No same familiarity to the wallls they stare what one would have at home. Care gets given so mechanically,activities etc. only take place for definite time of the day. Hardly any stimulation there.Visitors visit when they can.Rest is just a dead time.<sighs>

I don't want to go to any care home when I am old. I will die before that, with a bit of luck.
My thoughts.

Hoppy

Pete, presumably it was okay for your generation to inherit wealth, but that's no longer right? Why not?

Do you have children and grandchildren? If you don't, I understand where you're coming from. But by the same token, you will not understand the backdrop of Alcazar's friends, and their life-long emotional as well as financial investment.

There are a number of ways of looking at this, and yours is valid, but those were not the rules of the game when today's older generation signed up for the deal. Tony Blair said exactly that in an election address, but his government and the NHS is going back on its word, is moving the goal-posts, and is indeed stealing money illegally from the old and infirm.

This is well known, BBC Panorma investigated it at some length. Some wrongs have been righted under threat of heavy legal action, but it's still going on. I am naive enough to think something might be done about it in government policy but in the meantime my family is also looking into taking what precautions we can.

Richard.

PS This is a national problem that government has known about for a couple of decades at least - ageing population, consecutive parties promoting spending not saving, spiralling social costs. But until now, all governments have known that they will be out of office before the **** hits the fan. Tony might just slip under the wire, but the next (Tory?) government is going to get thoroughly splattered.

StickyMicky

could you not flog the house now, give the boy the cash and then go into free care in a few years time??

Turbohot

Read ChrisL's post no.35, SM.

StickyMicky

what i meant was, would 2/3 years not give enough "buffer"

Chris L

No - there is no defined time limit. If the local authority suspects that assets have been transferred to avoid paying fees, then they are within their rights to inspect any transaction. I don't know whether the precedent has been set in a court yet. I suspect that you would have a good case if the transaction had happened some time ago. I doubt that a couple of years would qualify.

Stainy

Anyone else pick up on this in the Pdf that Chris L posted ? :-

1. If a relative under the age of 60 who is ‘incapacitated’ lives there, then again the value will not be counted. (In general, someone could be judged to be incapacitated if they are receiving a sickness or disability benefit such as Incapacity Benefit or Disability Living Allowance).

So yet again the lazy ****** with the 'bad back' that's lived on benefits and paid **** all into the system gets away with it New Labour motto "the sick, lame and lazy shall inherit the earth"

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Les, I agree, especially for those who have actually paid it, rather than have turned up cap in hand expecting it.

2000TLondon

My Gran signed over her share of the house to my Grandfather at the onset of dementia. It took several years, maybe 5 or 6, before she was so bad she had to go into care, and she was only in care for about six weeks, as the care home was so shocking, it was probably what tipped her over the edge. There were no issues regarding payment from the council, although I am not sure of the exact time frame. If the government are going to re-tax the money that has been aquired over a life time, and re-charge for something that has already been paid for, then the standards need to be much, much higher.

PSLenin - everyone in this country contributes to National Insurance, whether they are employed or not, therefore everyone contributes to free state healthcare. Therefore it is purely extortion to charge OAP's for care.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, OK, Pete, I understand your point, and apologise for my earlier outburst, I was a bit upset for my mates.

I still don't agree with you, but we'll agree to differ.

You're sure you aren't a secret Thatcherite?

Alcazar

Chris L

From what I can make out from the Help The Aged document, it is at the discretion of the local authority if they choose to investigate. So it's a bit of a lottery. Also, the rules are different if you are the partner of the person in care.

As it says in the document, if you're going to do this, take legal advice first!

Stainy

Just run me through how the unemployed/wont work (apologies to the 6 genuine people in the UK who cant find work) lazy benefit scrounging *******s contribute in any way to National Insurance when they receive everything they have from the tax payer

DCI Gene Hunt

WHEELSHOP0_0

I agree with the sentiment(mostly) of this, however the accurate ans. is that even unemployed people pay NIC. however this is paid on their behalf into the system so its like "borrowing from Peter to pay Peter".

Leslie

Thats a good point JCKO, I suppose they could favour those who have actually paid their National Insurance and stuff the lazy pigs who live off the rest of us.

Les

r32

My friend, lives in a council house, is on income support because he doesnt work, he is ill and gets his treatment at the local hospital provided free. What is really annoying him is that people who own their own house, have a job with an income are also getting their treatment (such as it is) on the NHS free too. Surely this is wrong? Shouldnt they pay for their care? Why should we all pay through taxes so that people with money get their treatment for free, they should pay...... sound familiar .............?

davegtt

Give the house to the lad on the condition he looks after them that way he earns the property and the granparents get the appropriate care, everyones a winner.

Seriously though it is a sad state of affairs, it makes you think why bother owning your own home in the long run.

SJ_Skyline

Alcazar,

Several years ago my grandmother had to be taken into care. She was on her own, 40-odd miles away and sliding into dementia. We sold the house and the proceeds of the sale went on the home's fees - it was a long, painfull 3 years and as the home's fees easily gobbled up the proceeds of the sale, so her dementia worsened until she finally died.

This is one of those burdens that families really don't need lumbering with as it confuses financial and emotional issues.

Hope it works out for your friends.

stilover

If they made euthanasia legal, a lot of the elderly in care would probably take this option. Now don't chastise me yet.

My Gran, who's 83, and still lives in her own home has said to all her family that she just wants to die. Now this does sound a bit morbid, but if you think about it it does make sense. She's still got her marbles, and was still working until the age of 75 (part time after 65) for a accountancy firm.
Now though, she's just sick of spending every day the same. She dreads the thought of having to go into a care home, and also wants to leave her house, and some money to her daughter and grandchildren. She has worked all her life, and paid taxes, so I feel she has a right to leave something of what she has spent her whole life earning towards her loved ones.

If the government legalized Euthanasia, I know my Gran would probably have this done, although at the time I'm sure it would hurt her family. But, wouldn't you prefer your elderly relatives to die on their own terms instead of dieing of either ill health or old age?
This would then cut the amount of money the government spends on the elderly care. The upside is that the government could then change the rules to allow the elderly to leave cash/assets to their families.

I for one don't want to live past the age of 70. Yes, everyone's different, but if you have little to live for when you're old, then why not be allowed to end your life.

I'm sure if you asked all the elderly in care, if they would like to terminate their lives now or spend the rest of their lives in a care home, I bet most you'd take the needle in the arm.

pslewis

NO it is NOT ok if, by getting that wealth, the taxpayers have to fund old age care!!

I have never been given anything, at anytime, by anyone .. what I have I have worked for.

If the person leaving the wealth have not called on the state for Old Age Care then the siblings should get the wealth.

I am NOT against inheritance - I AM against taxpayers paying for the care of a person who has wealth enough to pay but would rather give a house, say, to a grandchild!!! The taxpayer is effectively buying that house for the grandson AND THATS PLAIN WRONG!

Pete

David Lock

But do see my post #20 about Abbeyfield Homes. And it was really nice. dl