jojojojojo

Slightly off topic, but its on the news this morning. I cannot for the life of me understand why the big deal about elderly people having to sell their houses to provide care for them when they need to go into residential homes????? Of course they should!! Why do they heed a house if they're going into care???? If they want to leave their houses to their families then their families should take their elderly relatives and look after them?? It mystifies me!

Jo xxx

agoreira

You're easily wound up! It's their choice, just as it would be yours not to go back to work. Personally I would never go back to work, but I respect their choice if that's what they want to do. Must be nice to have a job you miss, old work mates, a job that you want to go back to, can't say that's ever happened to me. For some, winning a lot of money has been a curse, false friends, marriages breaking up etc, perhaps the prefer the steady, boring old life they had before. I imagine once you have been on a few world cruises etc even that becomes a bit boring, repetitive. My BIL used to travel a lot to Japan and the States with his job, and I thought it all sounded great, but after several trips, staying alone in hotels he got to hate it. It sounded much better than it actually was.

agoreira

I don't have a problem with it either, but I think one of the arguments often offered against it is if you have p-----d all your money up against the wall and don't have a property, the state will pay for everything. Whereas if you haven't, put your money into property, got yourself a nice house to pass onto the kids, they'll grab most of it. As someone who has never been left a penny, nor likely to be, I'm all for grabbing their property!

jojojojojo

Yes, but you could use the p*** up against the wall argument all thru life, afterall those who dont own houses still have homes to live in (in general), those who buy their own get to have nicer homes ????? The same applies when you get placed in your care home! Either way, you cant take it with you and giving it to your kids simply means that they are the only ones who financially benefit and then when their day comes, they wont have to sell their homes and pass it on to their kids and eventually - well who gets to keep all that money??????? It doesnt add up or make sense to me.

When my mum was ill and due to go into a residential home, it made sense to me to sell her house to pay for the very best. I did try to look after her at my house (not for the money, but because it was the right thing to do), however, I had five kids, a responsible job and my mum was very poorly with bowel cancer and dementia - I did it for a few months tho!

Jo xxx

jackytoo

I have mixed feelings, depends on the circumstances. I have a cousin, her husband got early alzheimers at 61. They are not rich but comfortable with investments, savings etc. Last year he was committed to a special unit as he started having violent spells and attacking her, she still has to pay a considerable amount towards his care and all their life savings are dwindling rapidly. She is 62 and now faces going into old age in poverty.

If it's a case of say two or three children who can't be bothered to share the care of an elderly parent and dump them in a care home then the house should be sold to pay for it

Dick Dasterdly

It does seem unfair whichever way it works, though there is talk at present of putting a cap on how much individuals should be expected to contribute even if they have fairly substantial assets.
A figure of 50,000 sterling maximum is being mentioned at present, the rest to be paid by the state, but I imagine that could change on a regular basis due to inflation etc., should it be considered the right way to go.

jojojojojo

Its a start, but I still think its downright greedy and selfish of the family to expect that their elderly shouldnt have to sell their houses to pay for their care - I hope that my kids wont scrimp on my care when/if I have to go into a home. I want my house sold to pay for the very best and poshest old folks home that there is!!! I havent worked all my life to give my home and my money to my kids and to be thrown into a second rate home

Jo xxx

Dick Dasterdly

Apparently there's also talk of putting a block on the transfer of homes to the kids, though at what stage they would decide to do it I have no idea.

jojojojojo

I just find it hard to believe that I'm the only one who thinks like I do!????

I've given my kids everything over the years, life, love, education, money (bucketloads over the years), guidance....... And rightly so. They've grown up to be good and responsible, they have their own homes and lifes now. I'm sure this is the case for most parents - so why on earth does anyone feel that in their twilight years, they have should get free residential homes handed to them by the state so that these kids can have even more????

Jo xxx

JLFS

You are not the only one who thinks like this, I agree, while I am still here I want the best and for my marida.

The money and assets that are left behind are for my heirs, but till then it is mine and to be spent in the way I see fit.

I would never choose to live in a dump, stay in the grottiest B&Bs while I can afford a good hotel, so why should I spend my life in a crappy old folks home, if there is money that can be used to give me a better quality of life.

bil

Rather than go into some shitty hme while the state grabbed everything I had, I'd sooner put a shotgun in my mouth.

What, sit there bored as ****, abused, and paying thru the nose?

On second thoughts, a massive OD of heroin would be better.

JLFS

I sort of expected an answer like that from you.....

agoreira

Ditto! I read somewhere that said when you retire, this is now your time, you should only be thinking of yourselves, you put the kids first in everything until now, time to let go! We like to refer to ourselves as SKI's, spending our kids inheritance, and why not. When eventually we shuffle off the kids will still have a lot more to share than we ever have (zero). Like yours, both our kids are well set up, good well paid jobs, nice houses etc, they don't need anything from us. Like Bill, when the time comes I've told the wife to slip something in my tea, the thought of going gaga in an old folks home scares we to death.

Domino

not sure which poster I agree and disagree with most ! !

surely we have been told for decades to save, save, save for our retirement. Some of us have, with varying success against great odds.
Our pension plans have been knocked sideways by redundancy, by sky high charges from the people we entrusted the money to, by government taxation, by unscrupulous (but listed as approved) financial advisers, falling in value of our property assets, fluctuating currency rates - all of which have been circling like a pack of sharks smelling blood.

What anyone has in savings (house, cash, gold bars) should not have any reflection on the care they receive from the state. All should be treated equally. If that person wants to pay for the hotel instead of the B&B then that should be their right – but they should still receive the B&B value and just pay for the upgrade. The state should not be entitled to take back all the savings to pay for what has already been paid for in National Insurance and Taxation.

Conversely, why allow those who have not saved over the years to get care in later life, if they have ****** it up against a wall then they should have to rely on their family to look after them and provide or buy their care.

The current system of “stealing” people’s savings and also allowing annexation of past donations to relatives is nothing short of legalised theft.

Rant over, back to sleep

Domino

Isn't that what our parents did for us - gave us every assistance to get a good education, good jobs and make our way in the world.
That we have done so for our children is only modern man ensuring the future of the species and his direct descendants