People complaining about paying for their own care again = massive entitlement

Admiral Huddy said:
OP is miss informed.. My old man has been in a care home for the best part of a year.. even though he can't look after himself and needs full time medical care, his choice to go into a home was by choice, and therefore he has to pay. Now that his life time savings have gone, his care costs will be deducted from his estate on probate. If his estate can't cover the costs, then the state will pay. A full financial assessment was done at the time.
Click to expand...

My nan will be in a similar sitution very soon as is 92 and in late stages of alzheimer's. If she didnt have savings and a house though would it all be funded instantly from the state? That doesnt seem right to me
 
Admiral Huddy said:
OP is miss informed.. My old man has been in a care home for the best part of a year.. even though he can't look after himself and needs full time medical care, his choice to go into a home was by choice, and therefore he has to pay. Now that his life time savings have gone, his care costs will be deducted from his estate on probate. If his estate can't cover the costs, then the state will pay. A full financial assessment was done at the time.
Click to expand...
OP is talking about a proposal to cap contributions so that people can die with lots of assets. A change to the current system.
 
tenofspades said:
to be fair that is essentially a chronic disease.
And I think the NHS do, do this way(Labr@t) on cosmetic stuff. I tried to have an unsightly mole removed, and NHS refused and I had to go private.
Click to expand...

One of my previous GPs that could do minor surgery removed a mole that while still benign, started growing like a mushroom. From reading around it didn't seem I could get that done for free but my GP simply said 'I can remove that for you', and did so a few weeks later.
 
adolf hamster said:
except the kids that are renting won't inherit, their parents who by this point are well into their careers with paid off mortgages will.

this is the by-product of folks living longer.
Click to expand...
Isn't that down to the individual? I know for example that I don't inherit anything from my mum when she dies, it all goes to my kids.
 
3 ways to look at it / solve it.... Cos ill be facing this soon. MY mums in her 70s. Still has all her faculties, for now.

1. You care for her yourself in her home, until she dies... Like some other cultures do.. Put your own life on complete hold...Suits Incels probably.
2. She sells all her assets, mostly house and we pack heroff to a home to die in. (nice) That costs probably a grand a week if not more in London...
So she's probably got 8 years worth + pension income, saved all in all. I doubt anyone lives more than 12 months in a care home. (honestly who would want to?)
Privately run companies designed to rinse old people for everything they have so that the kids can turn a blind eye to it all and get on with their lives.
3. She gifts everything to me and my sister and lives 7 more years and then all the tax is avoided. Gets it free.

What a weird country the UK is.

TIme to raise the tax rate in the UK? Hopefully obesity and diabetic complications will make these issues a thing of the past. Everyone dying at 65. They might even still be working. contributing more tax.
 
Guest2 said:
My nan will be in a similar sitution very soon as is 92 and in late stages of alzheimer's. If she didnt have savings and a house though would it all be funded instantly from the state? That doesnt seem right to me
Click to expand...
Ideally we want everything to be paid by the state, unfortunately in reality in most things the government only steps in when you have nothing.
The simple solution for this is for the relatives to step up. Instead of the state taking everything then the relatives can keep hold of the assets etc.. even then though the government wants a piece of the pie through inheritance tax etc.
 
Efour said:
3 ways to look at it / solve it.... Cos ill be facing this soon. MY mums in her 70s. Still has all her faculties, for now.

1. You care for her yourself in her home, until she dies... Like some other cultures do.. Put your own life on complete hold...Suits Incels probably.
2. She sells all her assets, mostly house and we pack heroff to a home to die in. (nice) That costs probably a grand a week if not more in London...
So she's probably got 8 years worth + pension income, saved all in all. I doubt anyone lives more than 12 months in a care home. (honestly who would want to?)
Privately run companies designed to rinse old people for everything they have so that the kids can turn a blind eye to it all and get on with their lives.
3. She gifts everything to me and my sister and lives 7 more years and then all the tax is avoided. Gets it free.

What a weird country the UK is.

TIme to raise the tax rate in the UK? Hopefully obesity and diabetic complications will make these issues a thing of the past. Everyone dying at 65. They might even still be working. contributing more tax.
Click to expand...

You missed an option, which is the one we took with my late mother in law, you have a multi-generational house, or a property with an annexe or similar.

I accept it requires resource and therefore isn't for everyone, and I also accept that not everyone has the required relationships for it to work, but it is an option.
 
Basher said:
Isn't that down to the individual? I know for example that I don't inherit anything from my mum when she dies, it all goes to my kids.
Click to expand...

yes families can choose to skip a generation, but unless it's specified in a will by someone willingly breaking with tradition the default path is still going to be children not grandchildren.
 
Outcast440 said:
This story is doing the rounds again - looks like Jeremy Corbo-Hunt is banging the drum for 'free' care agin - capped at 45k max, even for those with 2million pound houses.

Now, if it's not enough for the vast majority of healthy people being locked up for 1 year, to 'help out' the old and unproductive - why should we now have to fork out for the oldies' care? What's wrong with them just getting a loan on their houses or selling them etc..? Gotta love these baby boomers overinflated sense of entitlement!:rolleyes:

You want excessive health care, you pay! What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Just another old age entitlement, they believe they should be able to pass millions of pounds of wealth to their children, but have other people's children, who are working class and renting, pay for their care.

People should be cared for, of course, but all of that cost needs to come from their estate when they die. This should also include the state pension. Only after they pay for all of their burden on the rest of society should they be able to pass down wealth to their children. Laws should be changed to make sure people can't use the 7-year loophole either.

Efour said:
TIme to raise the tax rate in the UK? Hopefully obesity and diabetic complications will make these issues a thing of the past. Everyone dying at 65. They might even still be working. contributing more tax.
Click to expand...

Retirement, irrespective of age or health, will be a thing of the past in this country (and many other countries). There's just no way this level of spending can be sustained. Each extra £1 spending on pensioners per week costs an extra £25 in annual tax for working people right now who are paying 50% of their income for rent and childcare costs another 40% of that income. There's just nothing left to take from young people to give to the old. They've already taken all they could, childhood poverty at the highest rate since records began while our pensioner wealth (as a percentage of nation's wealth) is the highest in the entire developed world. This can't be sustained.

We should just get used to the idea of "work until you die".
 
Last edited:
LabR@t said:
NHS should be for a&,e, and chronic diseases

Boob joins, gender realignment , tattoo removal etc should be covered by seperate plan or private
Click to expand...
How many of those does the NHS do?

They get a lot of press because the papers know they get people upset etc, but the numbers are probably vanishingly small, for example most of the "boob jobs" done on the NHS will be either reconstructive after things like breast cancer, or to alleviate pain . Big breasts are apparently unsurprisingly bad for your back/can cause problems so the NHS is far more likely to do a breast reduction than enlargement and it's not exactly a cosmetic thing if the reason for an op is to reduce pain or stop another physical issue getting worse.

I remember the fuss in America when the likes of Fox decided to run articles on how military surgeons were giving free/cheap boob jobs to female soldiers and the spouses of service men, and it turned out that the primary reason they were doing it was because at the time the US wasn't in any active wars, but the military surgeons still needed training in things like reconstructive and "cosmetic" work, so they were using things like boob jobs and elective cosmetic work to ensure their skills were current by doing a small number of them at effectively zero cost to the tax payer (the staff were there and needed the training, the facilities were there and had to be ready to use anyway the only thing missing was wounded service people, so they went with volunteers).
 
Robi_uk said:
Ideally we want everything to be paid by the state, unfortunately in reality in most things the government only steps in when you have nothing.
The simple solution for this is for the relatives to step up. Instead of the state taking everything then the relatives can keep hold of the assets etc.. even then though the government wants a piece of the pie through inheritance tax etc.
Click to expand...
I guess the key is siphoning off your money whilst you still can in later years. That may sound turd but why should many people work hard all their life then have a huge chunk of money taken away whilst others who do not work (some ever) get everything for free.
 
Dolph said:
You missed an option, which is the one we took with my late mother in law, you have a multi-generational house, or a property with an annexe or similar.

I accept it requires resource and therefore isn't for everyone, and I also accept that not everyone has the required relationships for it to work, but it is an option.
Click to expand...

That true, totally forgot that option and it's one my sister, her still living in London, with a big house has eluded to the possibility of
 
Robi_uk said:
Ideally we want everything to be paid by the state, unfortunately in reality in most things the government only steps in when you have nothing.
The simple solution for this is for the relatives to step up. Instead of the state taking everything then the relatives can keep hold of the assets etc.. even then though the government wants a piece of the pie through inheritance tax etc.
Click to expand...

And what about for people without relatives / family?
 
Robi_uk said:
Then you don't have to worry about the government taking anything from you in return for providing care when the time comes.

My response was with regards to care for someone that does not have any friends and family but have savings/property.
Click to expand...
If someone doesn't have friends/family, why would losing your house to provide care matter? It's not like you're going to need/see it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom