ChatterBank2 mins ago
Avoiding Care Charges
162 Answers
If I owned my own house and have money in the bank what is the best way to avoid charges if I were to go into a home
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lisdar. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ. We could do what Maggie Thatcher did and live in a nice hotel until the money runs out. She chose the the Dorchester, but there are many nice hotels to live in for less than a lot of "care homes" charge. Lets face it, when you are old you don't need a lot to eat and with a free breakfast each day it's a good start. I think you could do well for 30k a year.
Old_Geezer 22:05, I think you are right but then also quite wrong.
You are right that in the UK people tend to look to "the system" (i.e. government) to solve their problems but this is not because of some concept of the community pulling together. It is noticeable how people in the UK in effect ask what the council, government, etc. is going to do about something they feel needs to be addressed in circumstances where elsewhere this is not so - the UK population relies more on (i.e. demands) a much wider range of interventions by "the system". Sometimes it looks like people sit back and (in relatively large groups) wash their hands of something that is for the whole of society to address - it's "over to you, councillor/politician" and then people get on with something in which the British are true world leaders: Moaning but all the while fiercely resisting systemic change.
You are wrong that in other countries the elderly are more often cared for at home by relations because the family are abandoned to that "fate" by society - the vast majority want it this way, willingly choose this out of devotion to the individual who they feel is theirs and would feel ashamed of placing/pushing the person into an institution until it becomes unavoidable. There is much greater/stronger family bonding in other countries and England/the UK is notorious abroad for what is seen as heartless attitudes toward offspring, the elderly, etc. in the UK. By comparison it is more common in the UK for close relatives to simply but completely lose touch with each other whereas elsewhere it is incomprehensible how this could happen (except for some form of catastrophic development along the way).
You are right that in the UK people tend to look to "the system" (i.e. government) to solve their problems but this is not because of some concept of the community pulling together. It is noticeable how people in the UK in effect ask what the council, government, etc. is going to do about something they feel needs to be addressed in circumstances where elsewhere this is not so - the UK population relies more on (i.e. demands) a much wider range of interventions by "the system". Sometimes it looks like people sit back and (in relatively large groups) wash their hands of something that is for the whole of society to address - it's "over to you, councillor/politician" and then people get on with something in which the British are true world leaders: Moaning but all the while fiercely resisting systemic change.
You are wrong that in other countries the elderly are more often cared for at home by relations because the family are abandoned to that "fate" by society - the vast majority want it this way, willingly choose this out of devotion to the individual who they feel is theirs and would feel ashamed of placing/pushing the person into an institution until it becomes unavoidable. There is much greater/stronger family bonding in other countries and England/the UK is notorious abroad for what is seen as heartless attitudes toward offspring, the elderly, etc. in the UK. By comparison it is more common in the UK for close relatives to simply but completely lose touch with each other whereas elsewhere it is incomprehensible how this could happen (except for some form of catastrophic development along the way).
It is sufficient that one counters the unfair implication that we do not care, and to question the implication that the 'leave to the family' obligation is better. All well and good that folk wish to help family, but not that responsibility is left there. Attitudes need to change; society comes together for mutual benefit.
I don’t really understand why it isn’t fair that we have to fund some of our care if we can. I am a pensioner myself and have always worked. Like others I paid a percentage of my income to support those who were on pensions at the time, and a percentage to help those who were sick and needed care at the time. Fortunately for us we are now living much longer, and there are more treatments available to help us live longer, but the downside of that is that those working today would have to pay a much greater percentage of their income to support us in pensions and healthcare – that wouldn’t be fair either.
IMO it is perfectly fair that any bills assigned to society as a whole, are paid by those with sufficient income to contribute to the public purse. They, in turn, should expect help also. I'd claim health issues, which are not optional, should be treated with society funding the cost, and that includes age related issues, both physical and mental. Anything else discourages folk from working and saving, which would be detrimental to society.
The Tories are resorting to dubious methods to stop people looking at their care fee plans !!!
http:// www.ind ependen t.co.uk /life-s tyle/ga dgets-a nd-tech /news/d ementia -tax-go ogle-ad verts-c onserva tives-s top-rea ding-po licy-co ntrover sy-elec tion-20 17-mani festo-a 7748646 .html
They are paying £ thousands for their own Google ads that will come up as the first items when people search for ' Conservative care home fees'
http://
They are paying £ thousands for their own Google ads that will come up as the first items when people search for ' Conservative care home fees'
Eddie, Why is it dubious? As I read it, people searching for information on a ‘dementia tax’ are being redirected to the Conservative website containing the information on the proposed care plan. I note the Independent has adopted Labour’s phrase ‘dementia tax’ too. Would you rather people be misinformed by websites containing dubious information? Oh, yes. Silly me. Of course you would.
-- answer removed --
No wonder they need 'damage limitation' from tonight's Evening Standard!! >
http:// www.sta ndard.c o.uk/ne ws/poli tics/uk -genera l-elect ion-pol ls-and- odds-la bour-ha lve-tor y-lead- since-p arties- manifes tos-unv eiled-a 3544851 .html
http://
//Why should we deny our sprogs what weve worked for & paid taxes on? I will employ a carer when necessary.//
Because too many of us are needing money and there isn't enough in the pot. The stark choice is to pay some ourselves or ask the younger generation (our sprogs) to pay an awful lot more than we ever had to in taxes.
Because too many of us are needing money and there isn't enough in the pot. The stark choice is to pay some ourselves or ask the younger generation (our sprogs) to pay an awful lot more than we ever had to in taxes.