Is it right some must sell their homes to pay care home costs?

[Phil]

Your scenario raises a valid point Peterpensioner.  We do seem to behave very oddly re houses altogether.  I have said it before but it is just a capital asset and I do not understand why (well I do, it would lose votes initially) they are not treated the same as any other asset and subject to capital gains.

We do seem to behave very oddly re assets in general. If two people earn the same amounts during their working lives but one saves / buys a house & the other doesn´t because they spend everything before them, why should the feckless be rewarded & the prudent punished?

[sarahbilly 1]

i don't understand why people who make their own choices should be labeled " feckless"  phill.

[Phil]

i don't understand why people who make their own choices should be labeled " feckless"  phill.

No, you probably don't !

[ronyork]

Feckless Layabouts Scroungers. all the same to me

[sarahbilly 1]

millions of people rent in our country, a large majority by choice, not all in social housing.     work is so unpredictable now more are deciding to rent rather than buy, i think when we bought our houses there was more employment security, how many can say they are secure in the jobs/careers now.  another way to look at it could be;  if everybody saved and no-one spent anything then maybe eventually we would have even less employment and less home owners.  but at the end of the day, it comes down to peoples choices.  thank god we don't live in north korea.

[Phil]

millions of people rent in our country, a large majority by choice, not all in social housing.     work is so unpredictable now more are deciding to rent rather than buy, i think when we bought our houses there was more employment security, how many can say they are secure in the jobs/careers now.  another way to look at it could be;  if everybody saved and no-one spent anything then maybe eventually we would have even less employment and less home owners.  but at the end of the day, it comes down to peoples choices.  thank god we don't live in north korea.

It is indeed about choices but what would happen if everyone chose to make no personal financial provision & to live off the State?

You talk about choice but I've yet to see you talk about responsibility!

[Granny49]

I think you are right SB.  On the continent people, even those with high salaries have had a culture of renting.  Those who can afford to often buy holiday homes or "a place in the country".  Mobility is going to be evermore important as society changes and it will be those who can be flexible who win out in the job stakes.

In Australia I notice that they will not take on the debt we do in order to buy homes so they buy much later and pay their mortgages off much quicker but we are talking about a very fiscally conservative country where debt is a bit of a no-no.

The one thing I thing I think we need to look at is our tenancy law so that people can have longer stays and do more to make the home their own as they do on the France and Germany - and I believe in Sweden and Norway.

It will be a big societal change and those who think house purchase is the only way to go - it has actually only been a short period when so many owned their own homes - will take time to adapt but I do think it is the way we are going.

[sarahbilly 1]

phil, my main point is, why do  you identify everybody who chooses to not to buy their own property as feckless scroungers as dos'e ronyork, lots of these people may well save and indeed have substantial wealth to pay for healthcare if needed, it just saddens me when we generalise and assume the masses choose a different life style to ourselves simply to scrounge off the state .  if we are happy with the choices we  make ourselves,why not let others be happy with theirs?  a friend of mine rented all his adult life, he earned up to 3 times more than i did,  he also paid i assume 3 times more tax and insurance,  i don't begrudge his right to social care, although he probably will be wealthy enough to pay for care. [if needed]

[Phil]

phil, my main point is, why do  you identify everybody who chooses to not to buy their own property as feckless scroungers as dos'e ronyork, lots of these people may well save and indeed have substantial wealth to pay for healthcare if needed, it just saddens me when we generalise and assume the masses choose a different life style to orseves simply to scrounge off the state .  if we are happy with the choices we  make ourselves,why not let others be happy with theirs?  a friend of mine rented all his adult life, he earned up to 3 times more than i did,  he also paid i assume 3 times more tax and insurance,  i don't begrudge his right to social care, although he probably will be wealthy enough to pay for care. [if needed]

Buying property is just a red herring. the point is that it's everyone's responsibility to look after themselves finacially &  I find it wrong that those who do should subsidise those who don't.


There will always be those who can't make their own financial provision but a fairer system would be to check everyone's lifetime earnings & to those who could have made financial provision but didn't then tough, the State will not bale you out.

I see you still haven't used the word responsibility yet.

[Citizen68]

It also occurs to me, as an allied point, that in the excitement about freeing up pension funds to be more flexible, no-one is making it very clear that if it all goes wrong, and the money disappears too soon, the state will not be topping up the income of future pensioners who go for the option of emptying their pension pots - and I'm as sure as I can be, that this is exactly what is going to be the case. In fact, aren't I right in thinking this has happened in other countries where pension pots are more fluid already?

[sarahbilly 1]

so will you take the " responsibility" to turn these people away, and let them die an inglorious, hopeless, painful death, phil, [ i don't believe you would] 

[Phil]

so will you take the " responsibility" to turn these people away, and let them die an inglorious, hopeless, painful death, phil, [ i don't believe you would]

Their choice, their responsibility, not my responsibility.

"I'm not my brother's keeper".

[Granny49]

Their choice, their responsibility, not my responsibility.

"I'm not my brother's keeper".

That is a mist-quote Phil.  It is actually "Am I my brother's keeper?" and, in the bible, where it comes from, the basic answer is yes.

[David G]

"  Granny 49. It's not for me to answer for Phil but I think you'll find it isn't a mis-quote, it's Phils response to that well known quote.
 sarahbilly 1 says, "I don't understand why people who make their own choices should be labelled feckless".
  I don't understand why people who make their own choices / decisions shouldn't take the consequences of them and have to live with them, don't expect me to pay the price, that's what freedom of choice is all about
 Am I my brothers keeper? well for a start they're not my brothers they're other peoples brothers, but in the context of the quote unfortunately yes, but I don't have any "freedom of choice" in the matter as it's imposed on me via taxation. 


 

[sparky]

AS you say Phil, its their choice, why should we pay for their booze, fags , foreign holidays, we should only happily  contribute to the genuine disadvantaged or disabled, not those that have ponced, off the taxpayer all their lives.