Jump to content
Barry Fish

General News Discussion

Recommended Posts

this care payment cap is a great idea, eh? Just what this country needs when in the middle of an economic crisis caused by the rich running off with all the money is to change the laws to ensure that the rich keep all of the money, even after they've died.

It's as natural human idea to want to care and provide for your children, but when those children are fit and able adults why do they need inheritances from their parents? Especially when those inheritances will be in the later years of their lives when they are likely tobe (if they're ever going to be) financially comfortable anyway?

Are we a society where ability and work gets you the privilege of money, or are we to be a society where the already rich have govt guarantees that their children will be rich too?

We need to provide free care for *all* elderly people, and we need to provide no people with a free lift thru life via inheritance. Pay for the care of the elderly via the money that the just-dead elderly no longer have need for.

Inheritance is 100% wrong in a meritocracy, because no one merits a free ride thru life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny how you flip Neil :)

One day arguing the richer in society should get NOTHING from the state and then the next suggesting they should get free elderly care :P

Make your mind up... You are almost suggesting the elderly should have an entitlement to elderly care :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pope is retiring?! Can they do that?

no, as to have 2 popes alive (even if one has retired) would lead to a potential split in the church.

They have technically had it happen before last one was Benedict XIII in 1416.

Makes the old Saint Malachy's The Prophecy of the Popes, in 1139, look a bit accurate - if they don't announce a successor.

Look forward to the 'burning of Rome' within a week then.

Wonder if the Catholics will go nuts now? Perhaps The Pope knows the anti-Christ is here?

Edited to add: First the Mayan apocalypse, now it's Revelations - what doomsday prophecy can be dragged up next?

Edited by 5co77ie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny how you flip Neil :)

One day arguing the richer in society should get NOTHING from the state and then the next suggesting they should get free elderly care :P

Make your mind up... You are almost suggesting the elderly should have an entitlement to elderly care :P

I have no problem with the rich getting stuff from the state, as long as its financially viable - and it's only financially if the rich are paying far more for getting that benefit than the benefit costs. Which is nothing of what these new proposals are.

These new proposals are about ensuring that the rich remain rich, and nothing else. They're actually designed to ensure as much as possible that new people can't join their rich club, because these new rules will impoverish all but the top 10% of people, while ensuring that the top 10% will have a very nice wedge to pass onto their idle children.

Are we a meritocracy, or not? If we are a meritocracy then no one needs inheritance.

If we're not a meritocracy then the path to a better tomorrow is dead for everyone - which is the very purpose of these new rules. They're about ensuring the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, and nothing else.

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, as to have 2 popes alive (even if one has retired) would lead to a potential split in the church.

They have technically had it happen before last one was Benedict XIII in 1416.

Makes the old Saint Malachy's The Prophecy of the Popes, in 1139, look a bit accurate - if they don't announce a successor.

Look forward to the 'burning of Rome' within a week then.

Wonder if the Catholics will go nuts now? Perhaps The Pope knows the anti-Christ is here?

Edited to add: First the Mayan apocalypse, now it's Revelations - what doomsday prophecy can be dragged up next?

How long before Harry Redknapp is seen outside the Vatican with a Sky Sports mic stuck in the window talking about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problem with the rich getting stuff from the state,

You changed your opinion from last week. You could at least admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 75k figure is very misleading with food and accomodation not included, it may mean a few wealthy people keep their houses but I suspect the majority will have to sell their own homes to meet the needs of their care. In general I have no problem with people funding their own care through their assests, why should the taxpayers effectively pay for a childs inheritance? However I do acknowledge that there is some unfairness where people who have saved are expected to contribute where people who have been wasteful with their money are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 75k figure is very misleading with food and accomodation not included, it may mean a few wealthy people keep their houses but I suspect the majority will have to sell their own homes to meet the needs of their care. In general I have no problem with people funding their own care through their assests, why should the taxpayers effectively pay for a childs inheritance? However I do acknowledge that there is some unfairness where people who have saved are expected to contribute where people who have been wasteful with their money are not.

I also have no problem with selling assets to fund care but it can be problematic when two people own the house (married couple) and one needs care and the other needs the home. What do you do then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm genuinely worried about 'our' future.

I like my home, I don't think of it as an asset, it's where I live. Our kids come here when they want or need to, we've just about got enough space for guests/family/friends to come and stay for a few days when needed (with a bit of musical beds, sleeping on spare mattresses etc) it's a home...

everything's a fucking 'asset' these days!

(that's not a 'go' at you Barry)

I was born into Thatchers Britain.... A house as been an asset for my entire life.

GIven a choice I would prefer to see it as more of a home than a asset but considering the level of mortgage I am paying that is difficult :P

Saying this... I spent a lot of money on an extension last summer making it into even more of a house for my family and I won't see that money again (well not all of it) so the concept of it being a home first isn't lost on me. You just can't hide away from the its financial value either....

Edited by Barry Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also have no problem with selling assets to fund care but it can be problematic when two people own the house (married couple) and one needs care and the other needs the home. What do you do then ?

I also dont have a problem with the idea of funding my own care through my home. In an aging population it is unrealistic to expect taxpayers to subsidize care for everyone. I would like to help my child get on the housing ladder as my parents did, but to me them getting an inheritance isnt a priority. I cant make my mind up about the joint ownership concept, the idealist in me thinks a husband and wife should be allowed to stay in their own home indefinetely. However thinking about people trying to get on the housing market, having a lot of people on their own living in big houses, pushes supply down and prices up. I am also concerned that funding the wealthys care indefintely will leave a load of empty houses empty in the long term, with their children just waiting to cash in sometime in the future.

I am very much in favour of doing everything possible to keep people at home in the community as long as possible and have seen incidents of people being pushed into care because its the easiest. However living in an aging population with a "not in my back yard" atttiude to building new houses, if people arent expected to sell houses to fund their care, where will we get the houses from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How long before Harry Redknapp is seen outside the Vatican with a Sky Sports mic stuck in the window talking about it?

Are Paddy Power taking bets on someone called Peter from Italy being the next one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they'll be dead soon enough.

Not necassarily, I work in the NHS and regularly see people who have been in care homes for years. In an aging population this will only increase. If we arent going to build significanlty more new homes and at the same time are going to make it easier for people to hold on to their homes for longer, its inevitable that it will become more difficult for the next generation to get on the housing ladder. If at the same time we are going to expect that generation to pay for the long term care of people with more wealth than themselves, then they will be lucky to have any disposable income at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necassarily, I work in the NHS and regularly see people who have been in care homes for years. In an aging population this will only increase. If we arent going to build significanlty more new homes and at the same time are going to make it easier for people to hold on to their homes for longer, its inevitable that it will become more difficult for the next generation to get on the housing ladder. If at the same time we are going to expect that generation to pay for the long term care of people with more wealth than themselves, then they will be lucky to have any disposable income at all.

Every single person I know in their 20s feels they have a choice between living with parents and having a small amount of disposable income or living independently and having none. It's a tough choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You changed your opinion from last week. You could at least admit it.

Nope, my opinion is constant. :)

It's your understanding of complex opinions that is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like my home, I don't think of it as an asset, it's where I live.

but it's not where you live when you're in a care home. When you're in a care home you'll have no further need of it.

Which is the whole bleeding point.

Despite that very relevant point, the tories have cooked up a plan so that the dying and rich (but not the dying and poor, or even the dying and moderately comfortable) keep hold of their assets.

As someone very well worded it above, it's the taxpayer effectively paying for the inheritances of the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my partner, possibly my kids, my mum... what happens to anyone else who might still be living at home?

there's stuff in the current rules to protect a shared home with your partner. As far as I'm aware they stay in place.

Meanwhile, on the presumption that your kids are fully formed adults capable of supporting themselves, that's all that needs saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's stuff in the current rules to protect a shared home with your partner. As far as I'm aware they stay in place.

there are certain circumstances in which it is disregarded – the most important being if a spouse, partner or relative aged 60 or over is living there.

After some googling... That is the current rule! Hopefully it is still going to be there as its vital I would say.

Edited by Barry Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should be prepared to sell your house to fund your care if you are not going to need it anymore...

But I disagree with Neil on inheritance... Tax it but it should still be possible to leave a bit behind....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think care for the elderly is a massive problem which no one has still yet properly addressed. I don't see why people should have to sell their homes to fund it. If it were the case that people had to sell their homes to cover their medical bills people would be up in arms, probably because no one gives a fuck about old people.

Edited by zero000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I disagree with Neil on inheritance... Tax it but it should still be possible to leave a bit behind....

so you believe in a meritocracy, unless your daughter is thick as pig shit - in which case she should be privileged above everyone else.

It takes a special kind of person to outdo Dave Moron with saying "we're all in this together". Congratulations Barry.

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   1 member



×