so what's yr take on having to sell yr house when old to fund yr care home?

[herjazz]

so in light of this what dyou reckon?

Whilst I think care for the elderly is pretty shoddy and needs looking into, I'm not against folk with reasonable assets paying towards it. Why do they need to own a house they are not living in? Why should inheritance be seen as an automatic right?

I could be due to inherit loads off my folks - but if they end up having to cash in their assets to pay for more appropriate housing and care requirements then surely that's just them using THEIR money as they should? I shouldn't be moaning their assets stay intact and untouched so I can cream off them once they are dead?

Kathy, the tax system is a mess. There are too many additional taxes and then rebates bolted on to what should be a simple system.

Larger homes do have a higher rateable value, so pay more council tax.

Families with children get child benefit per child.

There is no reason to increase council tax and then reduce it again for the number of children living there (and why only children - shouldn't adults count?). Just set a fair council tax and a fair level of child benefit.

Why on earth not, Riven? If people work hard and contribute a great deal, they earn more money which they can spend any way they please - and that might be a large house.

They won't live there forever, Riven.

The only certainties in life are death and taxes.

Totally subjective opinion riven.

To the couple struggling to make ends meet and pay childcare for one child, it probably doesn't seem fair that some couples can afford two or three or even the luxury of a SAHP.

You can't run society on the basis of what just 'doesn't seem right' to individuals.

I agree with you about complexity Wicked. It's not something I think should happen now, just that at this hypothetical point in the future where we have to do 'something' because of rising population it would be a better road to go down than passing laws about the size of house you're entitled to.
The reason I was thinking rebate for children not adults was because generally adults can share the cost of the tax but children can't. However maybe if the whole point of doing it is because the population is too big you wouldn't do that....

I think the lives of millions of elderly people would be greatly improved if they could just agree to share housing with each other. And it would greatly reduce the amount of residential care required. But sadly the people of my parents' and grandparents' generation have never got their heads round the idea of communal living. One of my friends and I have pledged to pool our resources when we get to 80 (if we are both still alive and single), start going to the bingo and resume smoking and drinking whiskey.

An SAHP is a luxury for those who could easily afford the replacement workers (nannies, cleaners etc) that a household with a second WOHP requires; a SAHP is the no-choice option for those who cannot meet the costs of the cheapest childcare.

riven - SAHP is a luxury that many families can't afford.

You're illustrating precisely why you can't run society on the basis of subjective views, riven. If you can only just afford to scrape by on one income, then giving up work probably feels like you've got it tough. If you can't afford to even consider living on one wage, because you couldn't afford to eat or keep the roof over your head, then one parent giving up work feels like a luxury.

It's all relative.

An SAHP is a luxury !!!!!!!!!!!
ffs since when

bibbitybobbityCAT - very good point. Think of all the wasted space, wasted energy, extra maintainence costs of livng in houses that are not suitable or too large for older people. Complete waste of resources.

Communal livng is much more eficient if peope are ging to depend on the state. As others have said, those older people that live in well designed secure accomodation can live independently much longer with a little extra help.

Read above post 2shoes.
It's a luxury a lot of people cannot afford, having one parent not working.

Why should old people have to live communally? How horribly degrading for them!

Older people need to be encouraged to make sensible choices so that they can live independently in their own homes (which might not be the homes they lived in when younger) for as long as possible.

you used the word luxury not me
I am a sahp, if i didn't who would look after dd?? can't imaging ss or the lea would pay for residential. hardly a luxury

I said that for many parents, the concept of having one parent staying at home is a luxury which they cannot afford.
That's a fact.
Didn't say it applied to everybody. But it applies to many.

Well, I think it's a shame that living comunally is seen as degrading!

My mother has asked us to put her in an institution when she is old, as she consideres her self to be institutionalised, having boarded since she was 11, then spent her working life as a teacher.

Greedy is wanting things you don't work for and expecting others to fund them!

Exactly riven - one person's luxury is not necessarily the same as anothers.

My SIL only has one child, doubt they'll ever have more because they can't afford to live on one income and can't afford a bigger house anyway. I'm sure the concept of a larger family and living on one income would feel like sheer luxury to her.

Hear hear bonsoiranna!

But Riven, society being able to take care of its vulnerable members is a massive luxury that we cannot afford to extend to all and sundry.

Well run one sare nice, Riven, but extremly expensive.
My DM knows she can fund her own care, should it be neccessary for many years, I don't think I'll be able to so the same, even if I do sell my house.....that would probably only fund 4 years of care in a home, by my rough calculations.