Thread: Care costs Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024611

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :
 
Is it a scandal that people should have to sell their possessions to pay for their care in old age?

Old age is no place for sissies. - Bette Davis

[ 11. February 2013, 19:21: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
yes

If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about. - Alfred P. Sloan

[ 11. February 2013, 19:23: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Depends on what "possessions" and "old age" mean, I think. It is hardly outrageous for a widow or widower late in life to use the equity in their home for their care instead of having the taxpayers pay for their upkeep so that they can leave their house to their heirs. But, if it means that same person is required to sell off their house and finish their life in an institution, that seems OTT.

--Tom Clune

Anything you cannot relinquish when it has outlived its usefulness possesses you, and in this materialistic age a great many of us are possessed by our possessions.
- 'Peace Pilgrim'


[ 11. February 2013, 19:27: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
If anyone is in any way infirm their care should be provided by the state. I don't rule out "private care homes" as we have at the moment, but all too often these exploit the employees, give minimal care and emphasize short-term profit. On the other hand, if people, not just the elderly, want others to wait on them hand and foot they should pay for it. If that means liquidating their assets and pissing off the kids, so be it.

That state provision needs funding somehow, so instead of inheritance tax, which is a blunt instrument and ineffective to boot, a general wealth tax would be preferable. It would for that matter be preferable to capital gains tax too, which is far too easily avoided.

One of the cruelest things you can do to another person is pretend you care about them more than you really do.
- Doug Coupland


[ 11. February 2013, 19:30: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone is in any way infirm their care should be provided by the state.

This really depends on your country, ISTM. In the US, we do not have a system where the state pays for this kind of thing. As a result, it is only the upper middle class that gets free care for the elderly. They game the system by transfering ownership of proerty in advance of dumping their elderly parents on the state, and then vote against the state taking care of the elderly if they can afford to pay for their care. It is a foul shell game of those of adequate means to extort money out of those with somewhat less means. I would be fine with the state taking over elderly care or leaving this to the individual if they can afford it. But I am outraged by the chiseling of the upper middle class on this. I know a fair number of people who believe that they are just being prudent by this kind of theft. BTW, this sort of chiseling is the province of the upper middle class when it comes to gaming the system for college funds, too. A pox on this parasite class!

--Tom Clune

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
- Thomas Jefferson


[ 11. February 2013, 19:32: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
tclune,

I appreciate the Pond Difference, but the better off pull the same stunt over here too! If you have "surplus prop.erty" it's much easier to do this kind of thing. That's the basis for a wealth tax, which used to exist, as "imputed rent" for prop.erty that wasn't let to tenants. It's unpopular but what's worse: 2% of wealth every year or 40% on death?

edit: to cater for H&A day edit for letter O, P and E in succession.

The only things certain in life are death and taxes. - Benjamin Franklin

[ 11. February 2013, 19:35: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0