Bloody Disgusting!!

Thank you for that clarification. We have been debating on a comment by Lincoln 7 in an earlier post, which was clearly incorrect. Lesson 1. Check facts before replying!:o:)

Just a small point. Residing in a Care Home in Scotland is not free, unless you have no money or no house to sell. You house still gets sold to pay for your accommodation and daily living. There is a contribution from the Scottish Parliament to assist thse people who need Nursing Care.

Easily explained – the per capita amounts of grant are £1500 more for Scotland than for England.

But let’s hope they get the Independence some of them cherish and then will be able to sort out their fiscal problems independently. But even if they got most of the oil revenues, adding their share of the public debt to the balance sheet will be interesting as will which currency they decide to use.
The pound will give them no support unless they accept the Bank of England as lender of last resort. Then they will sacrifice fiscal independence at a stroke. If they chose the Euro, well, we do not need to rehearse the responsibilities, rules and requirements of that zone.

Apologies for thread drift – I’ll leave it there.

Explain this then.

someone has to pay and it is Scottish taxpayers but more to point, English taxpayers

Why “more to the point”. The fact that Scottish taxpayers pay their way is less “to the point” in your eyes? The block grant given to Scotland is allowed to be spent as the Scottish government sees fit. If they wish to fund free care for the elderly then good for them. You should be asking not why the Scots have free care for the elderly but why the English don’t have it.
As Ken Shabby says, maybe that sort of care is too “socialist” for the English

Despite your cavalier accusations I have in fact never read the Daily Mail. And the Westminster grant to Scotland is an inescapable fact, like it or not.

A helpful link. Joint ownership is of course an ideal way of reducing the liability and my wife and I have jointly owned our properties for the last 45 years.

So English tax payers pay for Scottish car homes do they? You really need to stop getting your “facts” from the Daily Mail.

Anyone thinking about their future should investigate “tenants in common” as it is a way of stopping your council taking your home from you to pay for care.
Tenants in Common

Free at the point of use, maybe, but someone has to pay and it is Scottish taxpayers but more to point, English taxpayers through the annual grant of £30 billion from Westminster to Holyrood.

Why can’t Care Homes be free, as they are in Scotland ?. Has there not been 6 Care workers arrested just the other day for the way they abused and ill treated their, elderly folks?.

Once you get over 65 + You would be surprised just how much ageism there is with many things.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

I agree. In fact the problem was that hospitals couldn’t cope with the specialist care required and didn’t want the old and dying.

If you went back 40 years most people now in care homes would have been in hospital wards, and receiving “proper” care.

I will resist the temptation to join in the general debate – which, I suspect, is fast qualifying itself up for a transfer to general discussion! I’ll limit myself to the point in the foregoing quote and deny that it has any general application. My grandmother ended her days in hospital – in the geriatric ward of Brighton General Hospital (which had been the Brighton workhouse, the infrastructure of which had, I suspect, changed little between the workhouse days and the sixties). She was given a bed, a roof over her head, sustinence but little else that would, today, be considered part of a care package. She had dementia. She was expected to die – sooner or later – and was accomodated in the hospital pending that outcome. Whatever shortcomings there may be in modern day care homes, rarely would any objective person consider the geriatric wards of forty years ago to be their superiors.

Having been involved in a similar situation where my F in L ended up being put into a care home after M in L died suddenly, I can see both sides of the argument.

My wife and her siblings had to make some hard choices, and although we all agreed that the care of F in L took precedence over any thought of “preserving our inheritances”, we did wonder how other families with smaller savings would cope.

F in L had worked all his life, paid his full NI all the way, but by hard work and scrimping and saving he had built up a reasonable savings pot, and was fortunate enough to have seen his one property rise in value during his lifetime. We could therefore sell the former family home to generate the cash needed to fund his care. As a result he had “funds” that meant he did not qualify for care funding from the state.

We therefore funded his care out of his “estate” as his condition required 24/7 nursing care, whilst we knew others who had made little or no effort to save during their working lives, and had built up no savings pot, would see their care funded out of our taxes (and out of any inheritance taxes due on M in L and F in L’s estates).

Its a tough decision for HMG – free lifelong care for all who may need it means anyone in work will have to pay more income tax. No access to state funded care for anyone means the less well off may be left high and dry.

Somewhere between the two lies the optimum?

I would advise everyone to plan ahead, including working out how/who will pick up any care costs you may incur if you need care at any stage. Costs are not insignificant!

I am sure many of us might hope to leave a “little something” to our family when we pop our clogs, whilst others might take the view that they are happy for some /much/all of their accrued “wealth” be used to fund their own care rather than expect the state to pick up the tab.

Whatever happens, forward planning (by all legal means such as “tax efficient” Wills, tax efficient gifts to loved ones etc), and open and honest discussion with the family as to what you and they want to happen if care has to be funded means that there is more chance you and yours will be better able to cope, and to preserve inheritances as far as is legally possible (if that is your wish).

As for special provision for ex-servicemen and women…. thats a toughie, as some have “volunteered” knowing the risk, others were conscripted…

As ever, there is no easy “one size fits all” answer 🙁

Can I just put ten pence worth in on this debate and clarify something.

All Hero’s from the second world war those who got medals for doing heroic things or not DID NOT VOLUNTEER. They where conscripted therefore the well they new what they where getting into argument I am sorry does not apply.

What they did is the reason that today we can live as we do and not live in a dictatorship or have the descendants of some very unpleasant individuals goosestepping down your local high street.

Fair enough after national service expired soldiers,sailors,and airmen had a choice but not before then they had to do and go where they where told,point their weapons at who they where told and pull the trigger when they where told.

I was responding to the previous posters remarks to me when he referred to current service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All Hero’s from the second world war those who got medals for doing heroic things or not DID NOT VOLUNTEER. They where conscripted therefore the well they new what they where getting into argument I am sorry does not apply.

I think to be accurate at the beginning of the War conscription wasn’t in force all the early people were volunteers,

Veterans did not volunteer !!!.

Can I just put ten pence worth in on this debate and clarify something.

All Hero’s from the second world war those who got medals for doing heroic things or not DID NOT VOLUNTEER. They where conscripted therefore the well they new what they where getting into argument I am sorry does not apply.

What they did is the reason that today we can live as we do and not live in a dictatorship or have the descendants of some very unpleasant individuals goosestepping down your local high street.

Fair enough after national service expired soldiers,sailors,and airmen had a choice but not before then they had to do and go where they where told,point their weapons at who they where told and pull the trigger when they where told.

Going by recent statistics you would also need to add to the special cases list the following. Seamen, Farm Workers, oilrig workers, Construction workers and lorry drivers. They are the jobs with the highest risk of death or injury.
I would never condone a special cases list for such things as care in old age; a land fit for heroes would have to be a fair one for all.

Although the emergency services do risk injury and death, they do operate a very strict safety policy in which their own safety comes first, even before that of any individuals that require help. I have seen this for myself in recent weeks with regard to the fire service.

I still have nightmares over my mothers predicament a few years back when she fell ill and had to go into a care home. Believe me losing any inheritance paled into insignificance compared to the rest of the problems we faced.
If you went back 40 years most people now in care homes would have been in hospital wards, and receiving “proper” care. I feel the care home set-up in England is not fit for purpose.

That is irrelevant. It is the rationale behind the decision which matters. And to my mind if you make a special rule which ultimately benefits the next of kin for a specific set of people you will find a deluge of objections from a host of others. And don’t forget that whether you be soldier, sailor, airman, policeman, ambulance driver etc you volunteered to take the risk. No one forced you to do so and the risk is accepted in the full knowledge of its implications.

I take your point, but you don’t see many of our Police cars or Fire appliances
in news reports from Iraq or Afghanistan for instance.

If you want to argue make servicemen a special case then you have to apply it the police, fire serrvice and others who are “prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice” in the service of their monarch. I.e risk being killed as a hazard of the job.

This is not about inheritance 😡

The point is a man who was once prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice for his Monarch, Government & Country if/when they needed him, is treated with less importance than a piece of litter dropped in the street, by a Government & Country who are only too quick to turn their back on him when he needs them.

Our service end ex-service personnel deserve better.

JMHO

Exactly and no doubt many of us have had the same experience. It is better not to expect an inheritance – that’s certainly my son’s attitude – and then you are not disappointed.