Fairyland

Middle-class pensioners to lose benefits under Tory plan to fund social care

243 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, Venger said:

Well I am not much closer to understanding all the possible wider implications of this change in policy.  

It doesn't seem such a major move to me.

(Care at Home being chargeable).

I'm read those who point to big costs of PFI (Democorruptcy) and that if we sorted stuff like that out no-one would have to pay for care.

While I against private sector feasting on easy money on bad deals (although presumable not all PFI were bad deals) as others have pointed out (Winkie and HovelInHove for example... objectively)... paying for care is fairer than the inheritor economy.  

And if we can save money anywhere else why should it go to free care anyway?  Why not to cutting costs for younger people... students for example, against the HPI and BTLers super-super-bubble.     

Why shouldn't people pay if they can afford it.  £500K+ of housing wealth, and expecting Gov to cover costs of care-at-home?  Put a charge on that house.  Or person in need of care can pay it out of pension/savings if not wanting the charge.   

I'm reading positions from those who have inherited big big big time (circa £1m estates...  house and cash) now enjoying those super-expensive houses, who came back to HPC with 'be careful what you wish for' and 'think of the pain of HPC', and 'HPC is wising misery on people' positions.   (All with a VI to protect the value of their own inherited house worth fortunes imo).  Some of their positioning I always look at with a 'protect value of my inherited house' slant.

HPC.

 

 

I think what we forget is that part of the problem with social care at present is that it is localised.

 

There are huge differences in policies, needs assessments, provisions and charges between the 150 English local authorities providing social care. Fine if you live in a big county – its consistent – but in metropolitan areas and London there are huge differences over small areas.

 

One London borough still provides free home care/home helps to residents irrespective of need/wealth. Another borough next door this year has a weekly cap on charges of £530 – if you are above the means test or refuse to provide your income details for assessment!

 

So if you lived in the former your social care at home was free – in a neighbouring borough wealthier clients could have to pay £27,000 a year for the same care.

 

Its quite scandalous really as a postcode lottery. Why isn’t it given to the NHS so all English pensioners are treated equally – how can £27k differences a year be justified for home care charges just based on which council you live under?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem, pay yerr money take your choice. People who have lots of savings and a mortgage free house haven't done that much to earn it all.

What we really need is affordable living for people doing a steady job. If you need to go into a home you won't care much about money.  The only ones who want it are the people who would inherit it.

If you don't want your money to go on a care home spend it before you need one. Maybe sell your house and move to a 100k flat and buy your kids things if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, frederico said:

If you don't want your money to go on a care home spend it before you need one. Maybe sell your house and move to a 100k flat and buy your kids things if you want.

I think this a a key point. They know there's nothing else left to squeeze now except houses, the cupboards bare. 

This was their idea with cashing in on the pensions early, so to presumably get the money circulating again in the 'consumerist' reliant economy we find ourselves in.  They're the only generation left with anything left to spend, everyone else is tapped out. 

They're now doing the same with equity in the house.  To release that money into the wider economy again by motivating them to sell up to some arbitrary level. 

This is potentially going to screw up a fair few spend-rift millennials I know whom have made no effort to save or buy a house on their own, all based around the idea they'll be gifted a house by the time they hit their 50's.

Good luck with that plan. 

 

Edited by casual_squash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

I think what we forget is that part of the problem with social care at present is that it is localised.

There are huge differences in policies, needs assessments, provisions and charges between the 150 English local authorities providing social care. Fine if you live in a big county – its consistent – but in metropolitan areas and London there are huge differences over small areas.

One London borough still provides free home care/home helps to residents irrespective of need/wealth. Another borough next door this year has a weekly cap on charges of £530 – if you are above the means test or refuse to provide your income details for assessment!

So if you lived in the former your social care at home was free – in a neighbouring borough wealthier clients could have to pay £27,000 a year for the same care.

Its quite scandalous really as a postcode lottery. Why isn’t it given to the NHS so all English pensioners are treated equallyhow can £27k differences a year be justified for home care charges just based on which council you live under?

Interesting MartinX9 (if true).

I guess those areas may have slightly higher house prices?   Although at that level perhaps it makes less of a difference (especially if care is basic) vs say how house prices in 'good school catchments' tend to have higher uplift.

I'm told there is a local-council in North-Manchester which is/was quite generous (financially) with care costs towards elderly and immobile/disabled (including monies towards improving homes to that end), and that it's a an area older people like to move to, with such advantages (£) in mind.

Postcode lottery... or postcode superiority?   

I don't know the answers to those final two questions!  Politics?  Choosing winners?  It's clear that life isn't fair, and many policies have very little by way of balance.

___

I still don't see what all the fuss is about in having to financially contribute to in-home care-costs, by bringing the value of their home into it.  (With a possible charge on it).  And with a £100,000 floor.  

Hopefully it might encourage more downsizers... or even people retiring abroad.    It's complicated.  I always assumed I would have to pay for our own care in older age (if we get there) and 40+ renter from an older landlord with 5-6 houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Venger said:

 

I still don't see what all the fuss is about in having to financially contribute to in-home care-costs, by bringing the value of their home into it.  (With a possible charge on it).  And with a £100,000 floor.  

Hopefully it might encourage more downsizers... or even people retiring abroad.    It's complicated.  I always assumed I would have to pay for our own care in older age (if we get there) and 40+ renter from an older landlord with 5-6 houses.

To my mind it's the worst kind of people farming.

Whilst spouting that human life is sacred, they take people who don't know what year it is, let alone what day of the week, stick them in a hell hole masquerading as a care home and charge them for it. If you tried to do it to a dog the RSPCA would prosecute.

Edit: I just noticed that you were talking about in-home care costs, but the same principle applies.

Edited by Bruce Banner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

To my mind it's the worst kind of people farming.

Whilst spouting that human life is sacred, they take people who don't know what year it is, let alone what day of the week, stick them in a hell hole masquerading as a care home and charge them for it. If you tried to do it to a dog the RSPCA would prosecute.

Think we're discussing different matters BB.   

My point is those who want care in their own home, should have the value of their home brought into the equation, towards paying costs for that care in their own home.   Care staff who come out to do care (often morning and evening) to an owner's home.....

 

As for the rest of it... who is they?

You're taking the worse case scenario there are you not?  Someone with no family, or not family who care, to help ensure they get a good home with good level of care. Someone who has done no planning?   And tbh... care costs money!    Someone has to pay, and I would rather it be those who have asset-wealth, than shouldered by renters/young.

It's something we all have to try and position towards... how best to ensure we have some dignity/good living in older age, especially if our health turns for the worse.  

I would not be surprised if some in the 'postcode lottery' pay more for houses where local authority has better budget for care / or don't want to sell.  I can't afford to buy a house in any decent 'good school catchment'.   BTLers have a load of houses there.  Unfair isn't it.

I did watch a show in 2008 where the 'Granny Farming' business owner had a Grade 1 mansion himself (luxury life) and lots of really naff care-homes (think 70s... looked like stepping into the 70s).  It was awful.  He did bare minimum in spending for the older residents.  TV in one lounge room.  So basic.  While living such a high-life himself.  One of the points made was that anyone can go into that business.  However I am positioning so that I am not left in that situation in the future.   I can't do anything for those who don't position, and certaintly don't want wider society to pick up the costs of care for very very very HPI rich house owners, who want free care, without value of their home brought into it.

Of course I would like a situation of great care/dignity for everyone, but it costs money, and we're in no fair society at all.

All I know is many of the young, who have to earn their own way in the economy (no inheritance to speak of even coming, and no bomad) are right up against it, against this long-wave HPI/BTL housing financialisation situation.

Quote

And anyway; I'm harsh! You just wasted my ship and all my friends and comrades and you call me harsh-

-Excession

 

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Venger said:

Think we're discussing different matters BB.   

My point is those who want care in their own home, should have the value of their home brought into the equation, towards paying costs for that care in their own home.   Care staff who come out to do care (often morning and evening) to an owner's home.....

 

As for the rest of it... who is they?

You're taking the worse case scenario there are you not?  Someone with no family, or not family who care, to help ensure they get a good home with good level of care. Someone who has done no planning?   And tbh... care costs money!    Someone has to pay, and I would rather it be those who have asset-wealth, than shouldered by renters/young.

It's something we all have to try and position towards... how best to ensure we have some dignity/good living in older age, especially if our health turns for the worse.  

I would not be surprised if some in the 'postcode lottery' pay more for houses where local authority has better budget for care / or don't want to sell.  I can't afford to buy a house in any decent 'good school catchment'.   BTLers have a load of houses there.  Unfair isn't it.

I did watch a show in 2008 where the 'Granny Farming' business owner had a Grade 1 mansion himself (luxury life) and lots of really naff care-homes (think 70s... looked like stepping into the 70s).  It was awful.  He did bare minimum in spending for the older residents.  TV in one lounge room.  So basic.  While living such a high-life himself.  One of the points made was that anyone can go into that business.  However I am positioning so that I am not left in that situation in the future.   I can't do anything for those who don't position, and certaintly don't want wider society to pick up the costs of care for very very very HPI rich house owners, who want free care, without value of their home brought into it.

Of course I would like a situation of great care/dignity for everyone, but it costs money, and we're in no fair society at all.

All I know is many of the young, who have to earn their own way in the economy (no inheritance to speak of even coming, and no bomad) are right up against it, against this long-wave HPI/BTL housing financialisation situation.

 

Yes, we probably are, but the same rule would seem to apply to all care. Anyway, it's a hobby horse of mine, being left with the choice of taking myself off to Zurich, if and when the time comes, leaving a nasty surprise for my loved ones coming home to a corpse, or letting the system bleed me dry when I am no longer able to do anything about it.

As I've said before, a good death is just as important as a good life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good if someone asked May etc why they rejected the Dilnot report recommendations - he had done a careful review of the overall situation and seemed to have a cohesive, non political way of tackling the problem.  His big thing was to pool part of the risk (the first 70 - 120k ish) of costs through private insurance or a charge on the house, with the govt paying above that.   A kind of `excess' on an insurance policy.

As I see it, what the tories are proposing is that there will be a massive financial hit on house owning families who are unfortunate enough to have a member needing care but not on those who don't.  The onset of dementia or other reasons for care need will be a double hit - the human one, to which is added the prospect of an unlimited amount of money above £100k being taken. 

And I know about deprivation of assets etc, but would another loophole be to finally sell the house privately for £100,001 ?  Maybe to a mate who returns the favour with their parent's house?  The complexity of policing what happens to the assets of families where dementia starts to be suspected is going to be impossible.  As others have said, keeping track of MEW and `values' will be horrendously complex.

And yet again, the `price' of houses is being considered as national wealth to be tapped into and spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Yes, we probably are, but the same rule would seem to apply to all care. Anyway, it's a hobby horse of mine, being left with the choice of taking myself off to Zurich, if and when the time comes, leaving a nasty surprise for my loved ones coming home to a corpse, or letting the system bleed me dry when I am no longer able to do anything about it.

As I've said before, a good death is just as important as a good life.

All the same concerns on my side.  

At least we have it in mind.  

Not going to live forever and take a reality view.   Wise words BB.

And one would expect you have not left yourself short of options... that you are not just at mercy of state if you needed care.... not going to be taken to the cheapest lowest grade local authority care home.

With a wider family I have tried to be generous in my support for them... I can hope that comes back in genuine love/support IF I need it in long-term old age future.  

I already have a Power of Attorney (done/officially-date-stamped before the new fangled ones came out, which cost a bit of money) with named loved-ones to oversee my affairs/financial affairs, if I am unable to do so myself.  (Better than the State taking control of one's financial affairs... which is my understanding they can, against loved ones wishes, if you haven't taken steps to protect yourself).  

PLANNING.

LPAs and EPAs.....   https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lasting-power-of-attorney-forms

 A saver.... although one priced-out by a raging HPI+/BTL double-down for years and years and years.... where I don't have to worry about value of any home coming into the equation, for a renter vs other people with 5 homes as landlords, and others on long-wave HPI mad-gainz of things.    

It's a hard-world of haves-and-have-even-mores... and wealthy homeowners should be prepared to pay for care-visits to their home.  Also they do have options to pay for higher level care if they want it.

We all get old.  Same risks for all of us.   Final Destination... any time.   And in a situation of Forever HPI/Generation Rent Forever/Mad-Gainz To Extremes, vs younger have-nots despite working to improve their situation, in matters of most importance, superb care for all paid for by taxpayer is very low down my list of priorities.

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Venger said:

All the same concerns on my side.  

At least we have it in mind.  

Not going to live forever and take a reality view.   Wise words BB.

And one would expect you have not left yourself short of options... that you are not just at mercy of state if you needed care.... not going to be taken to the cheapest lowest grade local authority care home.

With a wider family I have tried to be generous in my support for them... I can hope that comes back in genuine love/support IF I need it in long-term old age future.  

I already have a Power of Attorney (done/officially-date-stamped before the new fangled ones came out, which cost a bit of money) with named loved-ones to oversee my affairs/financial affairs, if I am unable to do so myself.  (Better than the State taking control of one's financial affairs... which is my understanding they can, against loved ones wishes, if you haven't taken steps to protect yourself).  

PLANNING.

LPAs and EPAs.....   https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lasting-power-of-attorney-forms

 A saver.... although one priced-out by a raging HPI+/BTL double-down for years and years and years.... where I don't have to worry about value of any home coming into the equation, for a renter vs other people with 5 homes as landlords, and others on long-wave HPI mad-gainz of things.    

It's a hard-world of haves-and-have-even-mores... and wealthy homeowners should be prepared to pay for care-visits to their home.  Also they do have options to pay for higher level care if they want it.

We all get old.  Same risks for all of us.   Final Destination... any time.   And in a situation of Forever HPI/Generation Rent Forever/Mad-Gainz To Extremes, vs younger have-nots despite working to improve their situation, in matters of most importance, superb care for all paid for by taxpayer is very low down my list of priorities.

Excellent advice re planning ahead and consideration setting up power of attorneys, link.......talk to family before they get old and possibly but hopefully not get a mental health dementia style illnesses......a property we can all see, but with so many passwords, banks, savings and other personal accounts everywhere......trying to sort that out when loved ones can no longer remember and don't know what day of the week it is....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, winkie said:

Excellent advice re planning ahead and consideration setting up power of attorneys, link.......talk to family before they get old and possibly but hopefully not get a mental health dementia style illnesses......a property we can all see, but with so many passwords, banks, savings and other personal accounts everywhere......trying to sort that out when loved ones can no longer remember and don't know what day of the week it is....;)

Agreed. :) 

Although I think it's the responsibility of the older person to talk to the younger loved ones you expect to be there for you, before they get in position of needing assistance.  Planning.  Setting up your LPAs with them.  

It shouldn't be for them to nudge you/me about.   Can't expect younger people to think it out for you, when they are priced-out renters themselves with busy and complicated lives!

In my family we all got EPAs done/officially date-stamped by a legal authority, just before (really in the final few hours before) the changeover to new regime (in 2007)... but having looked at it more closely, maybe I should get an LPA.  

They cover more it seems.  

My concern was and is the State/Court of Protection having too much power/delay what loved ones want to do for your best needs (in event you need someone to help you/make decisions for you.)

At the time we rushed to EPAs (easy to complete and free) before new scheme, for thought professional assistance to completing LPAs would be around £250-£500 each (such numbers were bandied around in the financial papers), but maybe it's become easier now.

Planning.  

Quote

 

If you’re married or in a civil partnership, you may have assumed that your spouse would automatically be able to deal with your bank account and pensions, and make decisions about your healthcare, if you lose the ability to do so. This is not the case. Without an LPA, they won’t have the authority.


LPA for health and care decisions

This covers health and care decisions and can only be used once you have lost mental capacity. An attorney can generally make decisions about things such as:

where you should live
your medical care
what you should eat
who you should have contact with
what kind of social activities you should take part in.
You can also give special permission for your attorney to make decisions about life-saving treatment.

Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPA) were replaced by LPAs in October 2007. However, if you made and signed an EPA before 1 October 2007, it should still be valid.

You might already be using an EPA without having registered it, so that someone can act on your behalf. This is fine, until you become unable to make your own decisions relating to financial and property matters. Once this happens, your attorney must register your EPA before they can take any further action on your behalf.

An EPA only covers decisions about your property and financial affairs; an attorney doesn’t have power under an EPA to make decisions about your health and care. You might want to consider setting up an LPA for health and care decisions to work alongside the existing EPA.


http://www.ageuk.org.uk/money-matters/legal-issues/powers-of-attorney/

 

 

 

Quote

 

Saturday 27 April 2013 

If you have a relative with dementia, there is a good chance you will have had dealings with the court of protection. It advocates on behalf of people deemed to lack the capacity to make decisions about their own welfare, property or finances. It performs a vital function, but is nonetheless, perhaps necessarily, a shadowy institution, and has been described as "Britain's most secretive court".


...I remain thankful that Dad had the foresight to set up the power of attorney before he lost capacity. For while we have to apply to the court for any major decisions, we have the freedom to manage Dad's day-to-day affairs as we see fit. And I believe we have a better idea of what he'd want than someone who had never met him. But without the lasting power of attorney, many relatively mundane choices would require authorisation, which could take months each time.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/court-of-protection-dementia

 

 

Quote

 

25 October 2009

A secret court is seizing the assets of thousands of elderly and mentally impaired people and turning control of their lives over to the State - against the wishes of their relatives.

The draconian measures are being imposed by the little-known Court of Protection, set up two years ago to act in the interests of people suffering from Alzheimer's or other mental incapacity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222764/Secret-court-seizes-3-2bn-elderly-mentally-impaired.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Venger said:

Had too many exchanges with older people, in houses worth big big money, often with solid pensions, who claim they 'worked for it'.  

(Non-means-tested Winter Fuel Allowance).

Ridiculous.   Although not as ridiculous as the tax-credit equalisation that followed.

As Mr.Tickle suggests... so much of the benefit system just crazy.  Work should pay.

Yes. Crazy is the word. I haven't posted this for a while (it's updated for 2015 benefit values, so the graph hasn't been updated for a while either :/ )

2015-gross-vs-net.thumb.png.1ed8d857d0777613f34034c271494734.png

How to read this graph: 

1. Start with Gross salary. Eg £20K.

2. Look up to see what you get with benefits added - eg the Red Dot shows that with 2 children, that £20K Gross gives you nearly £24 NET. Also, note that it's ABOVE the dotted line so you are not even paying into the system. You are leeching benefits which are paid for by multiple true taxpayers (those whose Net income falls BELOW the dotted line).

3. Trace across to see what salary you'd actually need to get this same income if you actually went out and earned it yourself: in this case a salary of £31K.

So the Tax Credits claimant gets an effective boost of over 50% of their salary for doing the same job.

Tax Credits equalisation: look how f**king flat those 2/3/4 kid lines are. Everyone gets almost the net same income - as long as they have children.

 

 

Edited by mrtickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

Yes. Crazy is the word. I haven't posted this for a while (it's updated for 2015 benefit values, so the graph hasn't been updated for a while either :/ )

2015-gross-vs-net.thumb.png.1ed8d857d0777613f34034c271494734.png

How to read this graph: 

1. Start with Gross salary. Eg £20K......

 

 

 

I'd love to see this upto say £200k, with tax and NI factored in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

 

I'd love to see this upto say £200k, with tax and NI factored in.

Well one reason I haven't updated it recently is that it's such a lot of work. People only ever want more :rolleyes:.

Above £60K Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit are zero. You can already see how the lines all taper to 60K - that's the £50-£60K Child Benefit withdrawal taking effect.

Other resources are available for Tax and NI calculations for high earners. My graph is all about how much free money people get claiming Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit off the backs of true taxpayers.

Edited by mrtickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Venger said:

All the same concerns on my side.  

At least we have it in mind.  

Not going to live forever and take a reality view.   Wise words BB.

And one would expect you have not left yourself short of options... that you are not just at mercy of state if you needed care.... not going to be taken to the cheapest lowest grade local authority care home.

With a wider family I have tried to be generous in my support for them... I can hope that comes back in genuine love/support IF I need it in long-term old age future.  

I already have a Power of Attorney (done/officially-date-stamped before the new fangled ones came out, which cost a bit of money) with named loved-ones to oversee my affairs/financial affairs, if I am unable to do so myself.  (Better than the State taking control of one's financial affairs... which is my understanding they can, against loved ones wishes, if you haven't taken steps to protect yourself).  

PLANNING.

LPAs and EPAs.....   https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lasting-power-of-attorney-forms

 A saver.... although one priced-out by a raging HPI+/BTL double-down for years and years and years.... where I don't have to worry about value of any home coming into the equation, for a renter vs other people with 5 homes as landlords, and others on long-wave HPI mad-gainz of things.    

It's a hard-world of haves-and-have-even-mores... and wealthy homeowners should be prepared to pay for care-visits to their home.  Also they do have options to pay for higher level care if they want it.

We all get old.  Same risks for all of us.   Final Destination... any time.   And in a situation of Forever HPI/Generation Rent Forever/Mad-Gainz To Extremes, vs younger have-nots despite working to improve their situation, in matters of most importance, superb care for all paid for by taxpayer is very low down my list of priorities.

We have options, reasonable financial security, loving children who want us to live with them should the need ever arise, although I doubt that they have thought through the reality of their lives being taken over by the demands of increasingly curmudgeonly old farts. Physical infirmity is one thing, but dementia is something that leaves one with few options, the most important one being vigilance so that one can take the necessary action before it is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

Well one reason I haven't updated it recently is that it's such a lot of work. People only ever want more :rolleyes:.

Above £60K Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit are zero. You can already see how the lines all taper to 60K - that's the £50-£60K Child Benefit withdrawal taking effect.

Other resources are available for Tax and NI calculations for high earners. My graph is all about how much free money people get claiming Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit off the backs of true taxpayers.

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

We have options, reasonable financial security, loving children who want us to live with them should the need ever arise, although I doubt that they have thought through the reality of their lives being taken over by the demands of increasingly curmudgeonly old farts. Physical infirmity is one thing, but dementia is something that leaves one with few options, the most important one being vigilance so that one can take the necessary action before it is too late.

I'd be prepared to muddle along with a degree of physical infirmity but if I notice early signs of dementia in myself (I believe I would) then I have a method in my mind to despatch myself fairly easily and painlessly if voluntary euthanasia has not been sanctioned in uk. No way am I going to put myself or my family through the burden of years of dementia and no quality of life for all.

Like you said in a previous post a good death is as important as a good life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

We have options, reasonable financial security, loving children who want us to live with them should the need ever arise, although I doubt that they have thought through the reality of their lives being taken over by the demands of increasingly curmudgeonly old farts. Physical infirmity is one thing, but dementia is something that leaves one with few options, the most important one being vigilance so that one can take the necessary action before it is too late.

Sounds like the pinnacle of achievement to me...  especially with caring loved offspring.   That they offer such out of free-will.   Ultimate achievement.

It's how it should work imo.   Bonds of family for added help and care and... love.

And I have taken note of HPCers in that position in the past (elderly parents & caring and looking out for them), including on this thread, and saluted their actions.

 

Read similar for Greece... going back to antiquity....  parents.. looking after parents.  Cultural very high importance.

However in this economy, I don't think I am a monster for agreeing that the house should come into the equation, toward paying costs for those who want/need care in their own homes.  With a £100,000 .   Woe woe woe if it impacts on the fat and easy inheritance that some children might have been expecting.

Dementia costs money for decent care, as do many ailments which require in home care visitations.   And from living much longer lives we should be grateful for (imo).

Vs HPI of today.  It's a balance.  Someone has to pay the bills, and if you need care, and have the money, you should pay towards it (imo).  And if you have lot of housing wealth, as many older owners do, you have even more options, including downsizing and releasing funds for superb care.   We don't live in a market where can just wish to have the best and it's all laid on.... else I would be a homeowner and wouldn't be renting off someone much older with 5 BTLs.

 

Great chart @mrtickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Yes, we probably are, but the same rule would seem to apply to all care. Anyway, it's a hobby horse of mine, being left with the choice of taking myself off to Zurich, if and when the time comes, leaving a nasty surprise for my loved ones coming home to a corpse, or letting the system bleed me dry when I am no longer able to do anything about it.

As I've said before, a good death is just as important as a good life.

Switzerland for me, a good death with dignity is absolutely just as important as a good life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, casual_squash said:

I think this a a key point. They know there's nothing else left to squeeze now except houses, the cupboards bare. 

This was their idea with cashing in on the pensions early, so to presumably get the money circulating again in the 'consumerist' reliant economy we find ourselves in.  They're the only generation left with anything left to spend, everyone else is tapped out. 

They're now doing the same with equity in the house.  To release that money into the wider economy again by motivating them to sell up to some arbitrary level. 

This is potentially going to screw up a fair few spend-rift millennials I know whom have made no effort to save or buy a house on their own, all based around the idea they'll be gifted a house by the time they hit their 50's.

Good luck with that plan. 

 

That is their plan,but perhaps not for those reasons.This country is pretty simple underneath.The rich who stole all the land need to stop the poor / 20% who want / get benefits taking it back.To do that they tax the middle and give it to the 20%.If the middle ever stopped working and paying the tax the rich would have to pay it,or kiss goodbye to their grouse moors.The fact this tax also flows through the poor /benefit claims to end up with them is a bonus to as well.

More and more people are entering the benefit class,and less and less people are in the middle.A lot of those in the middle can retire once they inherit as they have been prudent themselves.They need to stop that inheritance and keep them working (and paying the tax) until they drop.That is what the pension age is being pushed back for.

The young need to be in huge debt so they also keep working.That is why house prices are so high.By design.The two though dont go together.If houses are high the young work forever yes,but those getting an inheritance can retire.The government need to remove that housing wealth while keeping the young in debt.That is what this is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, durhamborn said:

That is their plan,but perhaps not for those reasons.This country is pretty simple underneath.The rich who stole all the land need to stop the poor / 20% who want / get benefits taking it back.To do that they tax the middle and give it to the 20%.If the middle ever stopped working and paying the tax the rich would have to pay it,or kiss goodbye to their grouse moors.The fact this tax also flows through the poor /benefit claims to end up with them is a bonus to as well.

More and more people are entering the benefit class,and less and less people are in the middle.A lot of those in the middle can retire once they inherit as they have been prudent themselves.They need to stop that inheritance and keep them working (and paying the tax) until they drop.That is what the pension age is being pushed back for.

The young need to be in huge debt so they also keep working.That is why house prices are so high.By design.The two though dont go together.If houses are high the young work forever yes,but those getting an inheritance can retire.The government need to remove that housing wealth while keeping the young in debt.That is what this is about.

What is this debt from younger people you speak of?

No debt for many renter-savers I know, just refusal/inability to pay these asking prices for a house.

No one has dragged anyone into paying these prices for a home.

Problem I have with an elite conspiracy is that semis are £350K+ and millions of owners sat on £Trillions in asset wealth.  

If you're asking me to look at the rich, I look at many older property owners (long-wave HPI) and BTLers.   

Not just a few 100 in the elite with lands.

I will take on the debt (less debt) if and when house prices fall (and no one drags me into it).   If these moves do have any effect in making houses cheaper (although it's not clear if they will have any real bearing), and fewer £750K house + £250K cash inheritances.... even after the 'woe of IHT' (hello you know who), then better for younger people who have to make their own way in life.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2017 at 11:52 PM, shindigger said:

Ive spent too long on Twitter these last few weeks.

I had a quiet boycott of this place due to the islam thread being pulled, but this really is the only forum where these matters are pulled apart properly.

Without being attacked by every single ******ing virtue signaller known to man jumping on your head.

Tragedy of the commons. Welcome back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Venger said:

Interesting MartinX9 (if true).

I guess those areas may have slightly higher house prices?   Although at that level perhaps it makes less of a difference (especially if care is basic) vs say how house prices in 'good school catchments' tend to have higher uplift.

I'm told there is a local-council in North-Manchester which is/was quite generous (financially) with care costs towards elderly and immobile/disabled (including monies towards improving homes to that end), and that it's a an area older people like to move to, with such advantages (£) in mind.

Postcode lottery... or postcode superiority?   

I don't know the answers to those final two questions!  Politics?  Choosing winners?  It's clear that life isn't fair, and many policies have very little by way of balance.

___

I still don't see what all the fuss is about in having to financially contribute to in-home care-costs, by bringing the value of their home into it.  (With a possible charge on it).  And with a £100,000 floor.  

Hopefully it might encourage more downsizers... or even people retiring abroad.    It's complicated.  I always assumed I would have to pay for our own care in older age (if we get there) and 40+ renter from an older landlord with 5-6 houses.

 

In Tower Hamlets home care services are currently provided for free. Greenwich can charge you up to £530 a week. How is that right?

http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2304/charging_information_for_people_who_are_cared_for_at_home

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/16/free-home-care-elderly-people

A lot of it is about funding differences and funding priorities by councils. If you are an elderly person you need to pick very carefully where you live - because you will be left with far worse services and higher charges in some place than others. 

And all this assumes the council will give you a care package at all!

Edited by MARTINX9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest elephant n the room is another compulsory insurance......there are only two compulsory insurances, car and public liability......no way would the common man ever benefit from any kind of health or elderly health insurance......far better to take the gamble and spend the house on quality care.;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/05/2017 at 9:15 PM, Economic Exile said:

I'd be prepared to muddle along with a degree of physical infirmity but if I notice early signs of dementia in myself (I believe I would) then I have a method in my mind to despatch myself fairly easily and painlessly if voluntary euthanasia has not been sanctioned in uk. No way am I going to put myself or my family through the burden of years of dementia and no quality of life for all.

Like you said in a previous post a good death is as important as a good life.

I feel exactly the same, especially after having witnessed so many years of dementia in close relatives. 

The trouble is, I'm afraid that by the time I was showing signs of it, I would have forgotten what I was going to do, or where I had stashed my pills.  Or, even if I remembered, I would have forgotten what I was going to do before I'd had time to do it.  

The thing that made me realise (with sinking heart) that my mother really did have dementia, it wasn't just old age forgetfulness, was when she rang her bank about something.  She had always been very clued up with money, and had been with First Direct since they started.  

Once she had put the phone down after speaking to them, literally an instant later, I said, 'What did they say?' 

'I can't remember.'  

Of course I phoned them back, but they wouldn't speak to me, since at that stage we had no Power  of Attorney. 

Only moments later she had forgotten the incident completely - she could not remember that she couldn't remember anything. 

And this was quite early on in her dementia.  She never really seemed aware that there was anything wrong with her. 

What I have done is to make a living will to state that if I ever develop dementia, or any other condition where I am unable both to care for myself and speak for myself, with the exception of the likes of broken bones, I emphatically do NOT want any medical or surgical interventions to keep me going when Nature might be trying to let me go.  Palliative care only, thank you.  I have seen and heard of far too much 'striving to keep alive' - even the albeit well meant endless coaxing and badgering to eat and drink when the poor, pathetic old thing (no relative of mine, I would have put my foot down) no longer wanted  to, and was whimpering and repeatedly turning her head away. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.