Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Cameron/osborne To Confiscate Everybodies Home (On Average)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you were to treat a dog in the way that we treat our elderly and infirm, there would certainly be legal action, from the RSPCA.

The only way this will realistically be changed is by the families of the elderly or infirm. Unfortunately there aren't the numbers that care enough.

Most people seem to have themselves as their main priority and duty to family, both children and the elderly, are well down the list - divorce rates up, people moving away from parents etc.

Ironically many of these same people will complain loudly that the state is trying to destroy the family unit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way this will realistically be changed is by the families of the elderly or infirm. Unfortunately there aren't the numbers that care enough.

Most people seem to have themselves as their main priority and duty to family, both children and the elderly, are well down the list - divorce rates up, people moving away from parents etc.

Ironically many of these same people will complain loudly that the state is trying to destroy the family unit.

I meant keeping them alive in pain and misery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care, I've done my bit and my conscience is clear, that's what matters to me.

So knowing that your money has been wasted by successive governments who do you think should foot the bill for your old age care if not yourself?

I can understand you not being happy the government has wasted your money, but I dont understand why this makes you want the government to steal even more money off other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way this will realistically be changed is by the families of the elderly or infirm. Unfortunately there aren't the numbers that care enough.

Are you speaking from experience, or is this just off the top of your head?

I think very many families do care, desperately. Quite apart from family and friends, via a national forum for relatives of those with dementia I am in contact with many such people, often.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So knowing that your money has been wasted by successive governments who do you think should foot the bill for your old age care if not yourself?

I can understand you not being happy the government has wasted your money, but I dont understand why this makes you want the government to steal even more money off other people.

They stole it from me and gave it to others, now it's your turn to be robbed to pay my pension, that's the way it works.

Given a choice, I would have opted out of the welfare state, but I couldn't and was forced to play the game. Now it's my turn to be on the receiving end I don't feel in the least bit guilty and nothing anyone can say will change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They stole it from me and gave it to others, now it's your turn to be robbed to pay my pension, that's the way it works.

Given a choice, I would have opted out of the welfare state, but I couldn't and was forced to play the game. Now it's my turn to be on the receiving end I don't feel in the least bit guilty and nothing anyone can say will change that.

I think your going to be too late unfortunately, they are running out of people to steal from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All those who are complaining about this policy dont seem to have an answer to the question ."why should the children of those with large houses and who need to pay bills be protected from paying them?"

My father died a few years ago, My mum lives in a house just over £150k in value. My sister and I's first thoughts were to agree that if my mum needed care we'd sell the house immediately and use the money to get there the best available.

How could any child think differently? They'd really rather put their parents in council care if there was an alternative option? This proposal is ensuring that kids who are too tight to pay their parents bills with their parents assets don't get a further free ride from innocent taxpayers, that's all.

If you have a choice about where to put your parents and deliberately choose the cheapest option just so you will inherit more then you are a KUNT of the highest order. I support your right to be a KUNT but I'm frigged if I'll pay for it.

Well, we deliberately chose one of the cheapest homes for my mother who had dementia. It wasn't a council run home but church run, similar to the Salvation Army headed by 'The Captain'. It certainly wasn't the best available in terms of facilities, decor etc. We took a look at those immaculate, sterile, soulless, spa type homes that cost the earth and quickly rejected them for a very clean but tatty, large old victorian house with patterned carpets, mismatched chairs, untidy bookshelves and the most wonderful staff you could imagine.

The reason being it was the most familiar type of place for my mother, it would have been awful for her to be put in anything like those corporate run places. We were VERY fortunate to find such a homely, joyful place as The Grange. It was a pleasure to go and spend time there because it really was like one big family, so much so that the Captain took her funeral service when she died.

Unbelievably, when new regulations came in they had to close the place down as it was too costly to do the bedroom upgrades as some were below the required minimum size. The large plot was sold, the building demolished and flats put up in it's place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you speaking from experience, or is this just off the top of your head?

I think very many families do care, desperately. Quite apart from family and friends, via a national forum for relatives of those with dementia I am in contact with many such people, often.

To see people's priorities you just need to observe their actions. Clearly I didn't say that no-one cared.

However it is self evident that if we are currently in such a situation, not enough people care about it to make a change.

I see people constantly putting themselves - not their own survival or the basics of life, but their luxuries and indulgences - above their parents and children. They get divorced, move to a different country (for example) to satisfy themselves and others around them are less of a priority.

Edited by shipbuilder
Link to post
Share on other sites

If house prices were affordable, they wouldn't need inheritance.

Also - if the elderly had trusted their kids and signed the house over to them, or perhaps sold at a say, 50% discount - there would have been no inheritance tax to pay.

I am seeing this all around me know - in my family life and in my work life - people getting old who appear to be "surprised" by the whole thing. At the personal level these people have done no research and made no plans for the inevitable. At the country level, we have done almost nothing to plan for the demographic time bomb that has been ticking for decades.

Now everyone gets to reap the rewards of no planning and poor provision.

The one thing the young have on their side is time. When you only have 15-20 years left to live, your lack of planning becomes very, very expensive in all sorts of ways.

Good post sir!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we deliberately chose one of the cheapest homes for my mother who had dementia. It wasn't a council run home but church run, similar to the Salvation Army headed by 'The Captain'. It certainly wasn't the best available in terms of facilities, decor etc. We took a look at those immaculate, sterile, soulless, spa type homes that cost the earth and quickly rejected them for a very clean but tatty, large old victorian house with patterned carpets, mismatched chairs, untidy bookshelves and the most wonderful staff you could imagine.

The reason being it was the most familiar type of place for my mother, it would have been awful for her to be put in anything like those corporate run places. We were VERY fortunate to find such a homely, joyful place as The Grange. It was a pleasure to go and spend time there because it really was like one big family, so much so that the Captain took her funeral service when she died.

Unbelievably, when new regulations came in they had to close the place down as it was too costly to do the bedroom upgrades as some were below the required minimum size. The large plot was sold, the building demolished and flats put up in it's place.

Of course I apologise, I should have meant the most appropriate rather than most expensive. Im sure they are not always the same. My point was that some people (rather too many) will choose the care based on pure cost which is horrendous if the quality could be improved and there are assets to cover it.

In your case you obviously acted in what was best for your parent, as all children ought to

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who exactly did you expect to pay the £25K a year fees? :blink: The average person's lifetime net tax contributions won't cover it.

Yes because everyone lives for twenty years in a care home....

None of my Grandparents ended up in a care home..

Grandfather in law managed a month.

What's the average length of stay in one of these homes for non demanture patients?

Sorry but this "pay for your care" argument is pure and unaldulterated ********.

The care has been paid for ten times over. If the money isn't there then maybe the fookers who stole it should hand it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because everyone lives for twenty years in a care home....

None of my Grandparents ended up in a care home..

Grandfather in law managed a month.

What's the average length of stay in one of these homes for non demanture patients?

Sorry but this "pay for your care" argument is pure and unaldulterated ********.

The care has been paid for ten times over. If the money isn't there then maybe the fookers who stole it should hand it back.

It has not been paid for. We need to starve the state and try to look after ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because everyone lives for twenty years in a care home....

None of my Grandparents ended up in a care home..

Grandfather in law managed a month.

What's the average length of stay in one of these homes for non demanture patients?

Sorry but this "pay for your care" argument is pure and unaldulterated ********.

The care has been paid for ten times over. If the money isn't there then maybe the fookers who stole it should hand it back.

"THEY" had it already and more besides (you've heard about the national debt right? ). The NHS, schooling for their kids, national infrastructure and foreign wars.

Less working people left to pay, mostly up to their eyes in debt (equity passed to the older generations with a promise to pay it back to the bank).

So. .. they can either have less or the equity will need to be clawed back. It might be better if houses were 60k and taxes could pay for old age care. But that's not where we are.

The boomers made their bed, let them lie in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of money. Look how much has been spent on houses...

That's not been spent, just redistributed. If one person sells a house for £200,000 and another buys it for £200,000, then the overall amount of money that everyone has is unchanged, and more importantly, no one has had to do any work. If we pay money to people caring for the elderly, that means that they can't do something different instead that produces wealth, and that's a real cost, not just a redistribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not been spent, just redistributed. If one person sells a house for £200,000 and another buys it for £200,000, then the overall amount of money that everyone has is unchanged, and more importantly, no one has had to do any work. If we pay money to people caring for the elderly, that means that they can't do something different instead that produces wealth, and that's a real cost, not just a redistribution.

If only everyone could work behind the counter at Starbucks the UK would have more wealth than it could ever imagine.

Osborne's shortfall (article) is a trifling 1.7bn.

Confiscating the avg UK house per couple and giving it to private insurance companies and land owners as a solution is about as statist and anti-capitalist as one could get. Bizarre then that the right wing nutters are advocating a massive wealth transfer from the relatively poor (what the Tories have termed 'strivers' i.e. worked all their lives to buy and pay for their own modest home) to the relatively rich. i.e. people who own land in the South East/London, the City and anyone who has assets > than this fixed fee.

Very interesting thread on how far the UK already appears to have moved towards fascism, confiscation of land, pandering to a small elite, shocking treatment of the elderly and infirm and so on.

Thoroughly depressing, but sadly not at all surprising on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only everyone could work behind the counter at Starbucks the UK would have more wealth than it could ever imagine.

Osborne's shortfall (article) is a trifling 1.7bn.

Confiscating the avg UK house per couple and giving it to private insurance companies and land owners as a solution is about as statist and anti-capitalist as one could get. Bizarre then that the right wing nutters are advocating a massive wealth transfer from the relatively poor (what the Tories have termed 'strivers' i.e. worked all their lives to buy and pay for their own modest home) to the relatively rich. i.e. people who own land in the South East/London, the City and anyone who has assets > than this fixed fee.

Very interesting thread on how far the UK already appears to have moved towards fascism, confiscation of land, pandering to a small elite, shocking treatment of the elderly and infirm and so on.

Thoroughly depressing, but sadly not at all surprising on here.

What people like you do not seem to get is that if someone thinks people should provide for themselves, and not rely on the state for everything, they automaticly support everthing else that you disagree with.

I think people should look after themselves and their family's not the state. I do not think houses should be taken off people and given to private companies.

You seem to be ok with the state taking money of other people to pay for your old age care, but completely against them taking it off you to pay for it. Why do you think this is ok?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sickest part of it is they carry this stuff out (as in USA) except we have far higher taxes. Just like making students at Uni pay ever increasing charges - whilst trying to live in "RIP-OFF" Britain

Just wait till they privatise the NHS.

Strangely, I am agreeing with you again, Mr Erranta! Although you probably think the Masons told me to say that, and I've just had a quarter pounder Bilderburger, with double cheese! :huh:;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only everyone could work behind the counter at Starbucks the UK would have more wealth than it could ever imagine.

Osborne's shortfall (article) is a trifling 1.7bn.

Confiscating the avg UK house per couple and giving it to private insurance companies and land owners as a solution is about as statist and anti-capitalist as one could get. Bizarre then that the right wing nutters are advocating a massive wealth transfer from the relatively poor (what the Tories have termed 'strivers' i.e. worked all their lives to buy and pay for their own modest home) to the relatively rich. i.e. people who own land in the South East/London, the City and anyone who has assets > than this fixed fee.

Very interesting thread on how far the UK already appears to have moved towards fascism, confiscation of land, pandering to a small elite, shocking treatment of the elderly and infirm and so on.

Thoroughly depressing, but sadly not at all surprising on here.

Sorry perhaps I have missed it, but who are you suggesting should pay for someones care so that they can preserve their big pile of shares / gold? Or is it only houses which are sacred?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand is why elderly and their children are so eager to go to the care homes.. when I reach the end of the road, you know mid to late 80's.. body has hit the end of its useful life.. I just want a bunch of narcotic medications and accept the end.

On a philosophical level, I have to wonder why the western world is so terrified of death today. Oswald Spengler wrote about how 'panem et circus' was the new mythos. The idea to maximize the pleasure you get through your life. While that has always been a part of the human condition, it hasn't always been the dominant mythos. He describes the Norse ideal to have strong sons, who would carry on the family line, and to be remembered for your deeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand is why elderly and their children are so eager to go to the care homes.. when I reach the end of the road, you know mid to late 80's.. body has hit the end of its useful life.. I just want a bunch of narcotic medications and accept the end.

On a philosophical level, I have to wonder why the western world is so terrified of death today. Oswald Spengler wrote about how 'panem et circus' was the new mythos. The idea to maximize the pleasure you get through your life. While that has always been a part of the human condition, it hasn't always been the dominant mythos. He describes the Norse ideal to have strong sons, who would carry on the family line, and to be remembered for your deeds.

+1....who in their right mind would want to prolong a life of little or no quality, that only makes others rich by feeding on their misfortune....... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point here - this is nothing to do with what socialists think, it's how a welfare state works - everyone pays in to provide help for those who need it (i.e require a service but can't afford it), whether that be you or someone else.

You seem to be complaining that it is not some sort of savings fund, but the system has never been 'sold' as such and anyway, much of that £500K + will have been used for other things, including roads etc that will have helped your business and you would have had to pay for anyway.

In fact, any private insurance arrangement would work on more or less the same principles - pooling of risk.

By all means make the argument that making private arrangements for services instead of paying tax over your lifetime may well have been cheaper, but let's be realistic with the figures.

But the thing is when you are taxed or pay your NI it goes into a great big pot for everyone, not a special savings account for you. If you have assets they should be considered as you being able to afford care when you really need it. I should not have to pay for you in order to safeguard an inheritance for your family. Of all my grandparents none of them needed specialist care for more than three months each because we as a greater family cared for them and your family if they want your inheritance just remember to not piss them off

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.

  • 433 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.