Surprise, surprise!

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by longboat, May 2, 2017.

  1. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    I think it's the "why" you choose to suffer that I'm interested in.
    My opinion is sure, if you want to then spend your money on getting the best care you can afford. I assume that if you can afford it then you'll want something better than than a national care service anyway.
    But if[1] you're avoiding care because of blackmail by avaricious children wanting your assets, or some sense that you'd be letting your descendants down if you didn't pass on as much money as possible - then I see that as potentially unnecessary suffering and not really through choice.

    I'd need to speak to people who provide this sort of care to get an idea of what is going on in the minds of the elderly. I like to think that most old people would have the gumption to tell their offspring to get stuffed and get some luxury[2] when they need care. Dunno though. One hears such horror stories about the way the elderly are sometimes treated.

    As a taxpayer I already pay for health treatment which is mainly spent on the elderly. I don't ask the elderly to beggar themselves to pay for their cancer treatment until I agree to kick in.
    But perhaps we should? No party is offering this model for the NHS, but do you think that's a better way to finance other services too?

    [1] and it's an "if" - perhaps this doesn't happen.
    [2] It's a moot point with my Dad, but I'm pretty sure my Mom would have no qualms about this - and good for her too!
     
  2. No, it wasn't helpful :p.

    But I enjoyed it :D.

    Until you slapped my wrist :oops:.
     
  3. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    I don't understand this...if people can't or won't make decisions for themselves, then that's their look out. If people have avaricious children wanting your assets then that's their issue and need to deal with it. I can't accept that in this situation, others should have to pay for their upkeep in order to avoid suffering that was brought on by their own indecision or bad judgement.

    People need to take responsibility for their actions, choices and outcomes as a consequence.
     
    longboat likes this.
  4. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Labour seem to suggest that they also expect contributions (but at a lifetime capped amount?).

    Anyway, it's page 64 of the Conservative manifesto:
    https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/manifesto2017/Manifesto2017.pdf

    Page 71 of the Labour manifesto:
    http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour Manifesto 2017.pdf
     
  5. There seems to be a general culture in this country - probably others too - of kids thinking they are entitled to an inheritance from their parents; the family home, the savings, any cash in the bank.

    As soon as someone is approaching the time when they cannot take care of themselves, there's a flurry of phone calls to the council to see what care homes are available, and what methods can be employed to prevent the patient's assets being used to pay for it.

    Bottom line is - your home and your savings and your pension and your assets - should pay for your comfortable end of life care.
     
    Jord86, btiw2 and Dr Bodgit like this.
  6. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Don't you think the elderly sometimes in a different category when it comes to personal decisions? Dementia is a real phenomenon.
     
  7. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    Of course, if they are not able to make decisions for themselves, then others should be appointed to do so via Lasting Power of Attorney.
     
  8. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    I don't know what the right policy is, and both Labour and the Conservatives seem to expect money (but with different ways it's calculated?) from the person receiving care.
    Labour also want a national care service paid for out of general taxation.

    I think both parties seem to agree that some money (with a cap) will come from the person receiving the care based on my reading of:
    So this seem to be Labour's extra bit (although the bit above was embedded in this bit too):
    I can't make much sense of the difference because I don't really know how it works at the moment or what the challenges are.

    If this bit is important to you then read each manifesto.

    Labour are more willing to discuss costs than the Conservatives. I like that (because I like to know what I'm getting for my tax money and how much it'll cost me).

    I really don't know whether "pooled budgets" or the "Ethical Care Charter" are good things though.
     
  9. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    This is the exact situation I'm in at the moment, my sister and bother want my mum to put her house in trust to safeguard it from being used to pay for her care should she need it, (shes 78) I'm of the opinion that if the house pays for a better level of care for her then it should be used to do so.
    Not sure what's best long term at the mo to be honest.
     
  10. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    I think it's important not to get too caught up in the multi national tax avoidance.
    Yes, it's a problem and it causes moral outrage, but the amounts[1] aren't actually that large compared to overall uk revenues. Much less that 1%.

    If tax and spend is interesting to you then:
    The Conservatives are pretty silent on how they'll pay for their tax cut. That seems irresponsible to me.
    The largest spending spree in Labour's manifesto is free university places (about a quarter of the spending promised). As has been reported, the tax is mainly from higher earners.

    Labour want to borrow £250 billion over ten years to spend on infrastructure (including HS2). That's a lot of money. Capital investment on infrastructure improves the country (and can put money in the workers' pockets who build it) so paying for it with debt makes sense especially when interest rates are low. To put it into perspective though the BoE spend about £70b buying government and corporate bonds a few months ago to reassure the markets who were feeling a bit Brexit nervous. We didn't get any more houses or rail networks afterwards. For £250 billion I would have expected a more detailed breakdown of costs though.
    The Conservatives want ~£70 billion[2] for the high speed rail network and infrastructure (presumably they'll borrow it too, you wouldn't pay for capital expenses out of revenue).
    So either way (who am I kidding?-The Conservatives will win this one) we're getting a high speed rail network.

    Labour don't want fracking. The Conservatives do.

    Nobody likes the gig economy.

    The Brexit stuff is bizarre. In the Conservative's 88 page document they mention Brexit 15 times, but a third of those are on the first page, then they go pretty silent about it.
    Both manifestos try to say what they'd secure in the negotiations whilst forgetting that there's another party involved here - the other countries they'd negotiate with. Oh, they'll both put Britain first if that's any help.

    If the Conservatives were more honest about how they were intending to pay for stuff then I'd slightly prefer their manifesto.
    As it stands, I disagree with many of the items in the Labour manifesto, but at least it looks like someone owns a calculator.
    The narrative is supposed to be Labour is fiscally irresponsible and their numbers don't add up - which may be true - but at least they have some numbers so I can see how far out they are.
    Weird huh? It's supposed to be the other way around.

    [1] Working the amounts out is really tricky - nobody really knows how big the number is, so it's all best guess stuff. It's much worse for the US though, I think we sometimes get infected with the US outrage over the problem.
    [2] The numbers are scattered all over the place, I'm not sure if I'm catching them all or double counting any.
     
  11. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    Its your mum's money so her decision I'd say. Sounds like your sister and brother are being selfish.
     
  12. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    I'm interested that you don't say what your Mum's opinion is.
    What would happen if you weren't there?
     

  13. Im in a similar position, except I have a brother agrees my mum should use any assets she has to afford herself a comfortable last few years etc. My sister wants the house secured.

    The only downside that I see to the argument of selling houses to pay for care, is why bother buying a house. If you rent (assuming it is of similar cost/value) and then need care there is nothing to take away and puts full onus on the state.

    As always, those with nothing will pay nothing. Those with lots can afford it anyway.

    Poor old typical working man cops it either way

    Difficult thing is life
     
  14. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    If you save or have a house, then you get better care towards the end of your life.
     

  15. Better care?

    Or the same care, at a cost ?

    Having seen my dad in a care home, its really underfunded, regardless of how its paid.

    The staff care, but the system wants a profit from the care.
     
  16. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    I guess an opportunity to have better care by paying more, but I take your point...you might end up with the same or similar care at more cost to yourself.
     
  17. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    She would do as my sister says.
    I'm the oldest so mums asking my opinion and has told my sister that what ever I thinks best she will follow, I can see trouble ahead as i dont talk to my sister anyway haven't done do for years but that's another story that's not relevent to this situation.
     
  18. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select


    That's what's playing on my mind, the fact that those that bum they way through life get looked after and those that work hard have to pay for it.
    My mum still works a 4.5 day week selfemployed at 78 :eek: though she first to admit that if she retired she would just sit at home and waste away.:(
     
  19. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select


    That not quite true, its openly admitted that those that pay have to pay extra to help towards those that don't pay.

    Care is rated at £700 a week, most care homes charge between £900 & £1100+ this extra goes towards the shortfall paid by the council which I believe is nearer £450 a week.
     
  20. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    My wife's grandfather was a banker. At nearly one hundred years old he kept his mind active, read the FT, solved crosswords, that sort of thing.
    He protested, but they put him in a home.
    On the first day they wheeled him in front of daytime TV.
    He didn't see the second day. He died.
    I don't mean he metaphorically died, like his spirit died.
    I mean he literally died. Daytime TV killed him.

    You let your Mum stay active or at least go somewhere where care isn't provided by a telly... and maybe speak to your sister just long enough to tell her to get stuffed.
     
    longboat, Jord86 and Phil the Paver like this.

Share This Page