FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Benefits, owning your home, paying for care
Benefits, owning your home, paying for care
Jump to: Newest in thread
 , I'm going to answer this question in a following post  .
Leading off from this question is another:
Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)?
And another -
Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 ).
Going back to the point of the question, ie should we sell our homes so we don't have to claim benefits? Well this really does depend on people's circumstances and I would guess for the most part it isn't practical in the long run. Most of the equity would be eaten up in rent, so it's simply delaying the point at which benefits are claimed. It will also add to the trauma the person (and family) are going through.
Bottom line... fuck the morals, the idea stinks  . | |||
 | |||
"I would rather they sell it and go and live with a family member ( where possible ), the money could be used to extend a house/adjoining flat Sadly in some cases the cocern comes from grasping family members who are worried about their inheritance. ** some **" I wish the system enabled people to stay at home if necessary, and care for their family. The government will pay hundreds of pounds of week, to keep someone in an institution, yet pay almost nothing for a family member to keep their loved one within a family unit. | |||
"I would rather they sell it and go and live with a family member ( where possible ), the money could be used to extend a house/adjoining flat Sadly in some cases the cocern comes from grasping family members who are worried about their inheritance. ** some ** I wish the system enabled people to stay at home if necessary, and care for their family. The government will pay hundreds of pounds of week, to keep someone in an institution, yet pay almost nothing for a family member to keep their loved one within a family unit."  | |||
"Leading off from this question is another: Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)? And another - Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free?" Knowing there is a huge range of standards amongst care homes and nursing homes, I would rather sell my house and pick my future place of residence. If my children don't get any inheritance, diddums. I'm working hard to pay my mortgage and if this means the difference between good or bog-standard care for my future then I have earned the right to choose. Selling my house will also mean I won't have to stay in my region because that's where the Social Services would be placing me. As for care in the home, sadly I see people refusing care because they have to pay, stating it will eat into their children's inheritance. I am also aware this is not necessarily the children's _iew. | |||
"I would rather they sell it and go and live with a family member ( where possible ), the money could be used to extend a house/adjoining flat Sadly in some cases the cocern comes from grasping family members who are worried about their inheritance. ** some ** I wish the system enabled people to stay at home if necessary, and care for their family. The government will pay hundreds of pounds of week, to keep someone in an institution, yet pay almost nothing for a family member to keep their loved one within a family unit." That's not strictly true. If the person has savings of x amount they will receive no help, if they have none they will receive full help. Anything in between is worked on a sliding scale. Google Direct Payments, people can directly access the help they require. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I am talking of family members who would like to give up work and care for their loved one. The 'benefits' usually don't make it viable." I gave up teaching 25 yrs ago to look after my father who developed dementure, I received £35 a week carers allowance, so had to work from home, when he was asleep to supplement this. I wouldn't change one day of this. | |||
"As I understand it the loop hole is to give your house away as a gift ten years before you need to go into a care home/die. Thus avoiding inheritance tax and the selling of the property/asset to fund the the care home. Although I think it stinks you have to sell up to fund your stay.least when you are funding it you get to choose which home you go in. "a room is a room is a room, why worry about which room. | |||
"I am talking of family members who would like to give up work and care for their loved one. The 'benefits' usually don't make it viable." I couldn't comment on a personal scenario. I do however commend the minority ethnic groups in our country who will take their family members into their homes and look after them, eg the Italians have a very strong family ethic. All the members of the family try to support the "main carer" of mum or Dad. I'm not saying the majority of home grown Brits (second, third, fourth etc generations) don't do this, but proportional to our population, I have yet to witness it . | |||
"As I understand it the loop hole is to give your house away as a gift ten years before you need to go into a care home/die. Thus avoiding inheritance tax and the selling of the property/asset to fund the the care home. Although I think it stinks you have to sell up to fund your stay.least when you are funding it you get to choose which home you go in.
a room is a room is a room, why worry about which room."The physical four walls may not matter but the standards of care do. | |||
"The Benefits threads have been emotive but has pretty much become the dog chasing its tail kind of thing. Let's take a slight divergence. In the original thread a question was posed by the OP but got overlooked. I certainly could not respond, being at work. Without quoting, I believe the question was asking: Is it moral to be claiming benefits if you own a house worth over a 100 grand? NOTE: THIS ISN'T MY QUESTION , I'm going to answer this question in a following post .
Leading off from this question is another:
Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)?
And another -
Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free?"OP this is a very good point, I see what you meant now. My _iew is if a person saves all there life its used fir them to have a comfortable life at the ending. Why should children atomic lyrics think they are entitled to it. Now I'm not saying they should not still get free care like others, because I have respect for the elderly. But my _iew is why should say my mum go into a state run home, just because I want to grab her house. Now I'm not saying state run homes are bad, but there in most cases not as good as private, and they certainly have a more comfortable life. So yes my mum, when the time comes in principle, her home will be sold to be spent on the final parts of her life, because she earnt that money all her life, so should be spent by her.  | |||
"I would rather they sell it and go and live with a family member ( where possible ), the money could be used to extend a house/adjoining flat Sadly in some cases the cocern comes from grasping family members who are worried about their inheritance. ** some **" | |||
"The Benefits threads have been emotive but has pretty much become the dog chasing its tail kind of thing. Let's take a slight divergence. In the original thread a question was posed by the OP but got overlooked. I certainly could not respond, being at work. Without quoting, I believe the question was asking: Is it moral to be claiming benefits if you own a house worth over a 100 grand? NOTE: THIS ISN'T MY QUESTION , I'm going to answer this question in a following post .
Leading off from this question is another:
Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)?
And another -
Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free?
OP this is a very good point, I see what you meant now.
My _iew is if a person saves all there life its used fir them to have a comfortable life at the ending.
Why should children atomic lyrics think they are entitled to it.
Now I'm not saying they should not still get free care like others, because I have respect for the elderly.
But my _iew is why should say my mum go into a state run home, just because I want to grab her house.
Now I'm not saying state run homes are bad, but there in most cases not as good as private, and they certainly have a more comfortable life.
So yes my mum, when the time comes in principle, her home will be sold to be spent on the final parts of her life, because she earnt that money all her life, so should be spent by her. "Your mother has worked hard, saved, gone without to enable her to buy and maintain her home at no cost to the govt, why should she be punished by selling her home and using it to fund her care, If a neighbour has been on benefits for years, not worked, not saved, spent what ever they have on fags, chips and bingo, and when they need care the govt funds it 100% tell your mum to sell her home, enjoy the money she has worked for and let the govt look after her! | |||
"Leading off from this question is another: Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)? And another - Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free? Knowing there is a huge range of standards amongst care homes and nursing homes, I would rather sell my house and pick my future place of residence. If my children don't get any inheritance, diddums. I'm working hard to pay my mortgage and if this means the difference between good or bog-standard care for my future then I have earned the right to choose. Selling my house will also mean I won't have to stay in my region because that's where the Social Services would be placing me. As for care in the home, sadly I see people refusing care because they have to pay, stating it will eat into their children's inheritance. I am also aware this is not necessarily the children's _iew." OP in my _iew you answered your own original question here, Why should the state pay for elderly care just so children get there mitts on mums money. Obviously not every case is strait forward, but on average this is my _iew. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The Benefits threads have been emotive but has pretty much become the dog chasing its tail kind of thing. Let's take a slight divergence. In the original thread a question was posed by the OP but got overlooked. I certainly could not respond, being at work. Without quoting, I believe the question was asking: Is it moral to be claiming benefits if you own a house worth over a 100 grand? NOTE: THIS ISN'T MY QUESTION , I'm going to answer this question in a following post .
Leading off from this question is another:
Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)?
And another -
Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free?
OP this is a very good point, I see what you meant now.
My _iew is if a person saves all there life its used fir them to have a comfortable life at the ending.
Why should children atomic lyrics think they are entitled to it.
Now I'm not saying they should not still get free care like others, because I have respect for the elderly.
But my _iew is why should say my mum go into a state run home, just because I want to grab her house.
Now I'm not saying state run homes are bad, but there in most cases not as good as private, and they certainly have a more comfortable life.
So yes my mum, when the time comes in principle, her home will be sold to be spent on the final parts of her life, because she earnt that money all her life, so should be spent by her.
Your mother has worked hard, saved, gone without to enable her to buy and maintain her home at no cost to the govt, why should she be punished by selling her home and using it to fund her care,
If a neighbour has been on benefits for years, not worked, not saved, spent what ever they have on fags, chips and bingo, and when they need care the govt funds it 100%
tell your mum to sell her home, enjoy the money she has worked for and let the govt look after her!"No i agree why should she, when Jo blogs next door has taking advantage of the system. The government will nit make her sell her home to fund care, i will. Her home should be d so she can enjoy her later life in a more comfortable private care home, with hopefully better standards, (but i do say hopefully) because I don't want her hard earned money, that she has earnt all her life. That what is the problem to many children, want to chuck there parents on state homes, because they think it's there right to have the inheritance. | |||
"The Benefits threads have been emotive but has pretty much become the dog chasing its tail kind of thing. Let's take a slight divergence. In the original thread a question was posed by the OP but got overlooked. I certainly could not respond, being at work. Without quoting, I believe the question was asking: Is it moral to be claiming benefits if you own a house worth over a 100 grand? NOTE: THIS ISN'T MY QUESTION , I'm going to answer this question in a following post .
Leading off from this question is another:
Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)?
And another -
Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free?
OP this is a very good point, I see what you meant now.
My _iew is if a person saves all there life its used fir them to have a comfortable life at the ending.
Why should children atomic lyrics think they are entitled to it.
Now I'm not saying they should not still get free care like others, because I have respect for the elderly.
But my _iew is why should say my mum go into a state run home, just because I want to grab her house.
Now I'm not saying state run homes are bad, but there in most cases not as good as private, and they certainly have a more comfortable life.
So yes my mum, when the time comes in principle, her home will be sold to be spent on the final parts of her life, because she earnt that money all her life, so should be spent by her. "I do not believe state funded care homes exist any longer, of course the funding exists by the local authority and this is paid to the care homes in the private sector. | |||
"Leading off from this question is another: Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)? And another - Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free? Knowing there is a huge range of standards amongst care homes and nursing homes, I would rather sell my house and pick my future place of residence. If my children don't get any inheritance, diddums. I'm working hard to pay my mortgage and if this means the difference between good or bog-standard care for my future then I have earned the right to choose. Selling my house will also mean I won't have to stay in my region because that's where the Social Services would be placing me. As for care in the home, sadly I see people refusing care because they have to pay, stating it will eat into their children's inheritance. I am also aware this is not necessarily the children's _iew. OP in my _iew you answered your own original question here, Why should the state pay for elderly care just so children get there mitts on mums money. Obviously not every case is strait forward, but on average this is my _iew. " Of course I have answered my own question but my question was to gauge others' responses :D. | |||
"The Benefits threads have been emotive but has pretty much become the dog chasing its tail kind of thing. Let's take a slight divergence. In the original thread a question was posed by the OP but got overlooked. I certainly could not respond, being at work. Without quoting, I believe the question was asking: Is it moral to be claiming benefits if you own a house worth over a 100 grand? NOTE: THIS ISN'T MY QUESTION , I'm going to answer this question in a following post .
Leading off from this question is another:
Should people have to sell their homes in order to pay for their RESIDENTIAL/NURSING care in old age/ill health (ie children losing their inheritance)?
And another -
Should people pay for the care they receive (in their own homes) if they have a pot of money in the bank when those with nothing get it free?
OP this is a very good point, I see what you meant now.
My _iew is if a person saves all there life its used fir them to have a comfortable life at the ending.
Why should children atomic lyrics think they are entitled to it.
Now I'm not saying they should not still get free care like others, because I have respect for the elderly.
But my _iew is why should say my mum go into a state run home, just because I want to grab her house.
Now I'm not saying state run homes are bad, but there in most cases not as good as private, and they certainly have a more comfortable life.
So yes my mum, when the time comes in principle, her home will be sold to be spent on the final parts of her life, because she earnt that money all her life, so should be spent by her.
I do not believe state funded care homes exist any longer, of course the funding exists by the local authority and this is paid to the care homes in the private sector."Sorry you got my drift though, just meant the less standard run homes for the state funded. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Your mother has worked hard, saved, gone without to enable her to buy and maintain her home at no cost to the govt, why should she be punished by selling her home and using it to fund her care, If a neighbour has been on benefits for years, not worked, not saved, spent what ever they have on fags, chips and bingo, and when they need care the govt funds it 100% tell your mum to sell her home, enjoy the money she has worked for and let the govt look after her!" Oh I love opposing _iews .
With your attitude, if the govt had to fund every single one of us in old age, guess what, we can start expecting to pay a huge increase in our taxes and NI contributions. There isn't a limitless pot! Demographically we have a top heavy population of ageing people and it is only going to get worse. I guess we will also see the age of retirement rise. | |||
" I do not believe state funded care homes exist any longer, of course the funding exists by the local authority and this is paid to the care homes in the private sector. Sorry you got my drift though, just meant the less standard run homes for the state funded." The Care Quality Commission is there to see that Homes adhere to set standards, unfortunately that doesn't mean all Homes are run at this standard 24/7. You'll find that standards are qualified around the time of announced visits by the CQC. If you ever have fears or proof of poor standards then blow the whistle to the CQC and they will perform unannounced visits (if they have time, sigh). | |||
"In response to the first question - Nationally 100 grand is a great deal less than the value of the average home, (my own semi has always been just under the National average). This is an important point because at the end of the day if you lose your home and have children, the govt has the responsibility to help you get rehoused, and housing values probably pay an important part in deciding how much housing benefit you'd be entitled to. In my area this means if you have no income (you are claiming benefits) the council will foot the bill of rent to a value of £650 a month. What has to be remembered if you have a mortgage then just because your house is valued at £XXXX amount, the only value to yourselves is the equity. So the original question itself holds no water... morals are irrelevant, let's be practical about this. Fortunately my mortgage is peanuts, just as well because I earn peanuts. But if I was to lose my home the rent paid by the council is more than double what it would be if the council were to help me with my mortgage. As an aside - my friend had to sell her home due to divorce and she asked the council what help (practical and financial) she was entitled to. Once the house was sold, a council worker asked her why she did not go down the route of council assisting a mortgage... NOT ONE PERSON GAVE HER THAT INFO. The poor lass had to jump through hoops to get any information! So this suggests there are cases where the council would help with mortgages but it is not common knowledge (even to them ).
Going back to the point of the question, ie should we sell our homes so we don't have to claim benefits? Well this really does depend on people's circumstances and I would guess for the most part it isn't practical in the long run. Most of the equity would be eaten up in rent, so it's simply delaying the point at which benefits are claimed. It will also add to the trauma the person (and family) are going through.
Bottom line... fuck the morals, the idea stinks ."I think that help is only available to people with a house valued at less than £250,000. Considering parking spaces in some parts of London go for £300,000... | |||
"In response to the first question - Nationally 100 grand is a great deal less than the value of the average home, (my own semi has always been just under the National average). This is an important point because at the end of the day if you lose your home and have children, the govt has the responsibility to help you get rehoused, and housing values probably pay an important part in deciding how much housing benefit you'd be entitled to. In my area this means if you have no income (you are claiming benefits) the council will foot the bill of rent to a value of £650 a month. What has to be remembered if you have a mortgage then just because your house is valued at £XXXX amount, the only value to yourselves is the equity. So the original question itself holds no water... morals are irrelevant, let's be practical about this. Fortunately my mortgage is peanuts, just as well because I earn peanuts. But if I was to lose my home the rent paid by the council is more than double what it would be if the council were to help me with my mortgage. As an aside - my friend had to sell her home due to divorce and she asked the council what help (practical and financial) she was entitled to. Once the house was sold, a council worker asked her why she did not go down the route of council assisting a mortgage... NOT ONE PERSON GAVE HER THAT INFO. The poor lass had to jump through hoops to get any information! So this suggests there are cases where the council would help with mortgages but it is not common knowledge (even to them ).
Going back to the point of the question, ie should we sell our homes so we don't have to claim benefits? Well this really does depend on people's circumstances and I would guess for the most part it isn't practical in the long run. Most of the equity would be eaten up in rent, so it's simply delaying the point at which benefits are claimed. It will also add to the trauma the person (and family) are going through.
Bottom line... fuck the morals, the idea stinks .
I think that help is only available to people with a house valued at less than £250,000. Considering parking spaces in some parts of London go for £300,000...
"That's interesting, but is the equity taken into account? My thoughts are that a person could not finance themselves if their house is worth that amount and they have zero equity? I guess I am asking if there is a different form of means testing taking equity into account... | |||
| |||
"In response to the first question - Nationally 100 grand is a great deal less than the value of the average home, (my own semi has always been just under the National average). This is an important point because at the end of the day if you lose your home and have children, the govt has the responsibility to help you get rehoused, and housing values probably pay an important part in deciding how much housing benefit you'd be entitled to. In my area this means if you have no income (you are claiming benefits) the council will foot the bill of rent to a value of £650 a month. What has to be remembered if you have a mortgage then just because your house is valued at £XXXX amount, the only value to yourselves is the equity. So the original question itself holds no water... morals are irrelevant, let's be practical about this. Fortunately my mortgage is peanuts, just as well because I earn peanuts. But if I was to lose my home the rent paid by the council is more than double what it would be if the council were to help me with my mortgage. As an aside - my friend had to sell her home due to divorce and she asked the council what help (practical and financial) she was entitled to. Once the house was sold, a council worker asked her why she did not go down the route of council assisting a mortgage... NOT ONE PERSON GAVE HER THAT INFO. The poor lass had to jump through hoops to get any information! So this suggests there are cases where the council would help with mortgages but it is not common knowledge (even to them ).
Going back to the point of the question, ie should we sell our homes so we don't have to claim benefits? Well this really does depend on people's circumstances and I would guess for the most part it isn't practical in the long run. Most of the equity would be eaten up in rent, so it's simply delaying the point at which benefits are claimed. It will also add to the trauma the person (and family) are going through.
Bottom line... fuck the morals, the idea stinks .
I think that help is only available to people with a house valued at less than £250,000. Considering parking spaces in some parts of London go for £300,000...
That's interesting, but is the equity taken into account? My thoughts are that a person could not finance themselves if their house is worth that amount and they have zero equity? I guess I am asking if there is a different form of means testing taking equity into account..."I don't know it's something my sister mentioned as she was struggling with her mortgage: no help as her house was valued over £250k. In the end she sold up and moved to Leeds. | |||
"We find ourselves in a strange position. If I work, never claim a penny, save my pennies and buy my home, I'll be no better off in my old age than someone who's never worked and live in social housing. Only difference, not only will I have to sell my home to pay for my care, I'll also be paying for theirs! My parents worked for over 30 years: never claimed a red cent. When my mum became I'll my dad was her carer: 79 to her 65. Once a month he'd come to London to visit family. He'd pay £250 a week (2000) to put her in care. They had more than £16,000 in the bank and owned their home outright. The council would probably have moved a carer into their home so not to disturb mum if they were on benefits (entitled to or not). How the system works." I won't say it doesn't happen but I will say it is extremely rare to have a carer move into a person's home. In nearly ten years I have witnessed it numbering on one hand and I do not know the financial history of those events. | |||
"We find ourselves in a strange position. If I work, never claim a penny, save my pennies and buy my home, I'll be no better off in my old age than someone who's never worked and live in social housing. Only difference, not only will I have to sell my home to pay for my care, I'll also be paying for theirs! My parents worked for over 30 years: never claimed a red cent. When my mum became I'll my dad was her carer: 79 to her 65. Once a month he'd come to London to visit family. He'd pay £250 a week (2000) to put her in care. They had more than £16,000 in the bank and owned their home outright. The council would probably have moved a carer into their home so not to disturb mum if they were on benefits (entitled to or not). How the system works. I won't say it doesn't happen but I will say it is extremely rare to have a carer move into a person's home. In nearly ten years I have witnessed it numbering on one hand and I do not know the financial history of those events."  I was being facetious: didn't realise it happens! | |||
