Re: Elderly parents (longish)


"Champ" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5b0lg21t44e0kj0o3lcseaifn3hknnljqh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:09:37 +0200, "WavyDavy" <dnk.haines@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Abso-fucking-lutely. Specially the part about saving during their
working
lives and having the audacity to have bought their own home.

To overcome "that" problem, me and my sister bought our parents house 20
years ago and let them "rent" it. Come the time, no-one could take it
off
them or force them to sell it.

I worked for 6 weeks in a dept of Nottingham City Council Social
Services[1]
where the recovery perople were such cunts they went through the previos 7
years of an elderly person's bank staements and financial records *hoping*
to find a transfer of funds that they could try to grasp back as a
"deliberate transfer to avoid payment". The cunts.

It is *so* wrong.

<takes contrary view>

So, you think that people who need support in later life should have
that provided by all taxpayers, while their money is cleverly
squirreled to their offspring, do you?

I think it's cuntish to punish the ones who were 'sensible' with their money
and take everything from thembar, at the time, £8k into account and force
them to pay for the care that the state had provided free of charge until
the 80s.

I think its doubly cuntish when they end up paying for identical care to
that which is provided totally free of charge to those people who, like me,
piss all their cash up the wall and have no savings.

The people in care homes (not all of them were elderly) were allowed to keep
about £7 a week to buy clothes, booze, fags, treats,get haircuts etc and
most of their money got pumped into the coffers of privately run for profit
'care provider' companies as most Local Authority homes were shut down.
It's not about cleverly squirrelling money to offspring, but about letting
them retain some dignity and do what they want with the money they had left
over after they'd already paid thier taxes which were supposed to be put
towards providing their health and social care.

I imagine the 7 year thing is tied in with the inheritance tax rules
(of which I know a little), by which all gifts 7 years prior to death
are to subject to a tapering rate.

Probably, it was in the legislation so I'd assume that they chose to keep it
all in synch...

Personally, I think inheritance tax should be 100%. We should all
start out with nothing.

That would probably lead to a massive reduction in personal savings and a
destabilisation of the economy..... Or something. But it *would* be fun to
see what'd happen to most of the Royals when Brenda pops her clogs....

Dave


.