Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
ingermany

Daily Mail: Pensioners Could Be Spared Having To Sell Homes

Recommended Posts

Interesting because:

a. The motivation behind this is purely one of protecting accrued housing wealth, and using taxpayers money for that purpose.

b. Another proposal to use public money to manipulate housing availability, therefore price.

c. If you don't need your house anymore, and have large bills to pay for alternative accommodation, and if selling the house allows you to pay those bills, then I believe that selling is a reasonable thing to do. Why should the State intervene?

d. In the long term the costs are going to be massive.

e. The terms are very generous when compared to the new student finance bill, which saddles young people with £60k of debt when they have no assets at all, whilst allowing an old person with £500k of assets to only part with £50k (for a bill which may bee £400k in todays values) with the taxpayer funding the rest.

It's another measure to be introduced by the wealthy with the sole aim of retaining their wealth by making everyone else pay for it.

Daily Mail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ingermany, you do not mention the fact that the elderly now needing care had worked and paid TAX and NI throughout their lives on the income with which they bought the property.

The idea that this measure is to protect accrued housing wealth and manipulate housing availability is absolute nonsense.

Just like the disgraceful State Pension scandal where the pension is frozen if you move to the wrong country in retirement it seems the Govt. carries out legalised robbery.

Remember, somewhere along the line, we as a nation have forgotten the fact that the State takes a tremendous amount of our money during our working lives and has a duty of care to it's citizens in return.

That duty does not include stealing all their hard earned assets and wealth in their old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want something you pay for it .....the trouble is people have gotten too used to getting what they want without having to pay for it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting because:

a. The motivation behind this is purely one of protecting accrued housing wealth, and using taxpayers money for that purpose.

b. Another proposal to use public money to manipulate housing availability, therefore price.

c. If you don't need your house anymore, and have large bills to pay for alternative accommodation, and if selling the house allows you to pay those bills, then I believe that selling is a reasonable thing to do. Why should the State intervene?

d. In the long term the costs are going to be massive.

e. The terms are very generous when compared to the new student finance bill, which saddles young people with £60k of debt when they have no assets at all, whilst allowing an old person with £500k of assets to only part with £50k (for a bill which may bee £400k in todays values) with the taxpayer funding the rest.

It's another measure to be introduced by the wealthy with the sole aim of retaining their wealth by making everyone else pay for it.

Daily Mail

Hope you don't mind I have added this comment to the daily mail article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ingermany, you do not mention the fact that the elderly now needing care had worked and paid TAX and NI throughout their lives on the income with which they bought the property.

The idea that this measure is to protect accrued housing wealth and manipulate housing availability is absolute nonsense.

Just like the disgraceful State Pension scandal where the pension is frozen if you move to the wrong country in retirement it seems the Govt. carries out legalised robbery.

Remember, somewhere along the line, we as a nation have forgotten the fact that the State takes a tremendous amount of our money during our working lives and has a duty of care to it's citizens in return.

That duty does not include stealing all their hard earned assets and wealth in their old age.

+1

The State selling and seizing the proceeds of assets from the vulnerable is thuggery, pure and simple. It may raise heckles on HPC, but any sane individual ought to be extremely concerned about the manner in which Government men can strip private assets from citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The State selling and seizing the proceeds of assets from the vulnerable is thuggery, pure and simple. It may raise heckles on HPC, but any sane individual ought to be extremely concerned about the manner in which Government men can strip private assets from citizens.

yay!

Boomers vs The Board, seconds out, round 275...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I paid for it I should get it mentality.... and people say the youth have an overinflated sense of entitlement.

Really people should sit down and do the maths with some of these people to show that in reality they paid didly squat towards their pensions and care.

I did this the other day with my dad and his state pension, his NIC came to nowhere near the amount you'd have to pay into your pension pot. When there was about a 80K shortfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, somewhere along the line, we as a nation have forgotten the fact that the State takes a tremendous amount of our money during our working lives and has a duty of care to it's citizens in return.

the problem is - the state has not taken a tremendous amount of money at all, taxes were low during most baby boomers' lives, that is those that worked from early 80s onwards, and said taxes were insufficient to prepare the ground for that generations retirement (I say this with some deference to the early stage boomers, born late 1940s, as they seem cut from a different cloth)

they want to hold onto their gains from a low taxation era and make impoverished younger generations cough up instead.

the welfare state was founded to help the poor and needy, it was a system founded on the basis 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'

It is a an element of justified socialism - having a backstop, a safety net to stop us falling thru the cracks; but the welfare state was not founded as a savings scheme you can withdraw from when it suits you if you're rich

if Bevan, Atlee et al had forseen a welfare state where the young homeless and poor have to pay for the needs of old property-hoarding beneficiairies, they would roll in their graves, I am sure

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yay!

Boomers vs The Board, seconds out, round 275...

It doesn't matter, because in the end everything ends up in collaspe, everything people think they are entitled to or not, it is all immaterial because in a few years it simply will be defaulted on one way or another. Probably via hyperinflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is - the state has not taken a tremendous amount of money at all, taxes were low during most baby boomers' lives, that is those that worked from early 80s onwards, and said taxes were insufficient to prepare the ground for that generations retirement (I say this with some deference to the early stage boomers, born late 1940s, as they seem cut from a different cloth)

they want to hold onto their gains from a low taxation era and make impoverished younger generations cough up instead.

the welfare state was founded to help the poor and needy, it was a system founded on the basis 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'

It is a an element of justified socialism - having a backstop, a safety net to stop us falling thru the cracks; but the welfare state was not founded as a savings scheme you can withdraw from when it suits you irrespective of need

if Bevan, Atlee et al had forseen a welfare state where the young homeless and poor have to pay for the needs of old property-hoarding beneficiairies, they would roll in their graves, I am sure

It makes no difference, Brown would have spent the lot however much there had been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no difference, Brown would have spent the lot however much there had been.

and it was, peculiarly, the late stage baby boomers who Brown (a) is a part of and (B) had as his power base

your good self not included!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no difference, Brown would have spent the lot however much there had been.

One day we will all be dead.....if you have it why not spend it living your last in the best comfort possible using the proceeds gained from life......starting out equal, so ending equal. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely when you need to be having lots of care and someone has to pay for it, and you have a large asset then that asset should be used...

When people get all emotive and say "granny has to sell her home to pay for her nursing home"

what they mean is "my gran won't be leaving me her house"

Where you live is your home so when you are in a nursing home that is your home (the clue is in the name) - and the house you used to live in is just an asset.

Pensions and care for the old is going to keeping weighing down on younger generations until they snap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pensions and care for the old is going to keeping weighing down on younger generations until they snap.

it's what, a decade or so until, in democratic terms, the late-stage boomers' power wanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day we will all be dead.....if you have it why not spend it living your last in the best comfort possible using the proceeds gained from life......starting out equal, so ending equal. ;)

The trick is to time one's death to coincide with the onset of intolerable quality of life ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The State selling and seizing the proceeds of assets from the vulnerable is thuggery, pure and simple. It may raise heckles on HPC, but any sane individual ought to be extremely concerned about the manner in which Government men can strip private assets from citizens.

Well someone had to pay for it, you can't get around that. The alternative is they steal the resources from someone else.

Better to steal the resources from the person gaining the benefit of the service.

FWIW, I would just abandon all state assistance in thus area, let the charities deal with it. No theft at all then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The State selling and seizing the proceeds of assets from the vulnerable is thuggery, pure and simple. It may raise heckles on HPC, but any sane individual ought to be extremely concerned about the manner in which Government men can strip private assets from citizens.

it's not seizing, it's selling a service

please explain how rich property owners are somehow more vulnerable than the poor b*ggers who will have to pay for all this instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elderly do not need need a second home when they go into care. They only wish to retain it so they can pass it on as inheritance. The problem is that all the benefit of this goes to the inheritor whilst the costs fall on the taxpayer. Thus the result of all this is that the general public is paying not for care, but for another man's inheritance. I am opposed to paying tax simply so that another man can receive a lump sum for an accident of birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elderly do not need need a second home when they go into care. They only wish to retain it so they can pass it on as inheritance. The problem is that all the benefit of this goes to the inheritor whilst the costs fall on the taxpayer. Thus the result of all this is that the general public is paying not for care, but for another man's inheritance. I am opposed to paying tax simply so that another man can receive a lump sum for an accident of birth.

I can see there being a problem here - one of the most basic motivations in life is to give your kids a better chance than you, and leaving an inheritance is part of that

at the same time, I do wonder why parents leave it so damned late to give their kids a financial hand, considering livng costs, but that is another matter (I notice how smug many in older generations are about how hard it is for the young now, I do wonder why they are like this, has it ever been thus)

from a societal point of view, it may have negative consequences if the entirety of someone's estate was socialised, people may stop bothering in the first place to build a sufficient amoutn of wealth to transfer on, which would have knock on effects elsewhere in the economy, ie people simply working less hard

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The State selling and seizing the proceeds of assets from the vulnerable is thuggery, pure and simple. It may raise heckles on HPC, but any sane individual ought to be extremely concerned about the manner in which Government men can strip private assets from citizens.

Can you imagine what would happen if Tesco forced me to give up some of my pounds in return for food? What kind of a world would that be?

EDIT: Sorry cancel that, I had forgotten that housing wealth didn't count as wealth unless you didn't have any.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well someone had to pay for it, you can't get around that. The alternative is they steal the resources from someone else.

Better to steal the resources from the person gaining the benefit of the service.

FWIW, I would just abandon all state assistance in thus area, let the charities deal with it. No theft at all then.

I've got this crazy idea. I don't think it's ever been done before, ever in the history of mankind. No, not ever. How about pensioners' children look after them? They're more than welcome to inherit the house then. Nuts, I know.

Edited by mikthe20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it would be better to raise this money by hiking inheritance tax rather than fart around with a new system. In the end they both amount to the same thing, the dead person has paid for there care rather than the tax payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the proposal says the pensioner needs to pay the first £50k

after this it is subsidised

from the article, 10% of people will end up costing 150k+, 1% will cost 400k; if we make the 1st half of this an average of 200k, so 9 out of 100 people cost 200k, and final 1% costs 400k - total 2200k, minus 50k each comes to £1,700k , avaeraged over the 100 people, comes to £17k each - £17,000 per person on average

£17k per pensioner on average we will have to subsidise - no idea if this is good or bad, if they all earned an average of (inlfation adjusted) £15k per year for 40 years, £600k in total, then having paid, say, 35% of that in taxes over their lifetimes, then paid totyal of bit more than 200k in taxes, which i know all got spent, but less than 10% of their total lifetime taxes, as a group, would go towards supporting the principle of inheritance

just a thought - some poster on thsi thread for sure misunderstand the intentions of the welfare state, it really is not there to support inheritances - however, there is a clear point that in a capitalist society inheritance IS a valid and genuine motivation for wealth-production, and we should not destroy it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.