Forcing old people to be landlords

Pkiernan

RayM wrote: »

Maybe you need to get over your obsession with "dole scroungers" (who make up a very small proportion of welfare expenditure, let alone overall expenditure) and think about all the other things that the state pays for.



What, apart from being born, have their children done to deserve a large windfall later in life, in addition to the head-start their parents' hard work already gave them?

What have multi generational dole scroungers done for their handouts?

RayM

Pkiernan wrote: »

So my family havent earned it, but somehow multigenerational dole scroungers and junkie filth have earned a right to my money after I die?

Are you Karl Marx?

Cop on to yourself.
Maybe when you've finished your Arts degree and you're working you'll figure it out.

God, the total lack of humanity from your post is bizarre. Maybe you're just angry (that someone has said something on the internet that you disagree with), and don't actually believe any of the bile you're spouting, but dismissing fellow human beings as "junkie filth" is just horrible. Walk away from the computer and take a few deep breaths.

Resist ZOG

RayM wrote: »

What, apart from being born, have their children done to deserve a large windfall later in life, in addition to the head-start their parents' hard work already gave them?

They don't need to do anything to earn it. Your money and property is yours, and if you choose to leave it to your children then that must be respected.

What you are proposing is communist rubbish and so unpopular that it would lead to an armed revolt. Why not abolish private property and make us live in workers communes while your at it?

Pkiernan

RayM wrote: »

God, the total lack of humanity from your post is bizarre. Maybe you're just angry (that someone has said something on the internet that you disagree with), and don't actually believe any of the bile you're spouting, but dismissing fellow human beings as "junkie filth" is just horrible. Walk away from the computer and take a few deep breaths.

Take one in to your home Mother Theresa..


The hypocrisy of the far left is sickening.

RayM

Pkiernan wrote: »

Take one in to your home Mother Theresa..


The hypocrisy of the far left is sickening.

Calm down, it's just someone on the internet with an opinion that differs from yours.

Uriel.

RayM wrote: »

What, apart from being born, have their children done to deserve a large windfall later in life, in addition to the head-start their parents' hard work already gave them?

One point you are missing is that the parents earned the money. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do with it what they want. Why should the State come after all that you have left? You're not just talking about kids "getting something for free", what you are actually saying is hey parent x, you've paid your way all your life, paid your taxes, decided not to do x, y, z but instead decided to keep some of your money assets to give your family, we don't like that so we'll take that from you as well. Bollox. As I said, if I was in that position coming towards end of life, my kids will get the money under the table long before or I will blow it all on other things.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

RayM wrote: »

Yes, the state should get it - or at least a larger chunk than it currently does, thus ensuring that wealth is distributed more evenly among the population, and not merely transferred from generation to generation among the already privileged.

So the 'wealth' somebody has accrued by hard work, saving, prudent living etc shouldn't be used to help their loved ones but should be redistributed among the general populace, some of whom blew every thing they earned themselves. Your suggestion is pure communist ideological nonsense that has been proven to be deficient thinking for a long time now.

brightspark

RayM wrote: »

Maybe you need to get over your obsession with "dole scroungers" (who make up a very small proportion of welfare expenditure.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56355698&postcount=4

Did you get to stay on the dole for the recession?

um7y1h83ge06nx

If some of the suggestions here came to fruition we could end up having another civil war, a lot of people wouldn't stand for it.

Indeed talk of land seizures and wealth redistribution was one of reasons why farmers and property owners in Spain supported the Falange and Franco, creating major political divides and eventually war.

tea and coffee

RayM wrote: »

It just seems like an unfair advantage to bestow upon people who've already had an unfair advantage in life (I'd include myself in that cohort), purely by accident of birth.


That incentive is still there - unless you're more bothered about what you're potentially going to leave behind, a few decades down the road, than by providing for yourself and your family in the present.

They're not mutually exclusive.
The State wants people to save for their retirement. If they (people) don't, then the Govt is screwed as the population of older people needing to be sustained will be too large, ergo too costly for the State.
If I blow all my money on coke and hookers for myself and my family, what "chunk" will the State get then? Nothing.
Your idea will actively encourage people to liquidate their assets and/or live off the State in retirement/ State paid Nursing home.
It's completely unaffordable.

Ronaldinho

RayM wrote: »

It just seems like an unfair advantage to bestow upon people who've already had an unfair advantage in life (I'd include myself in that cohort), purely by accident of birth.

Each to their own but I wouldn't apologise for being given a decent start in life.
Many, many people squander the chances given to them. Compared to most places in the world (by population) we have a very progressive set-up here in Ireland, especially wrt. access to education. What I think holds a lot of kids back is their upbringing - ie. getting dragged up.

I'm all for greater income equality but introducing more punitive taxes which would hit predominantly middle class, working families is not the way I would go about achieving it.

brightspark

Uriel. wrote: »

One point you are missing is that the parents earned the money. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do with it what they want. Why should the State come after all that you have left? You're not just talking about kids "getting something for free", what you are actually saying is hey parent x, you've paid your way all your life, paid your taxes, decided not to do x, y, z but instead decided to keep some of your money assets to give your family, we don't like that so we'll take that from you as well. Bollox. As I said, if I was in that position coming towards end of life, my kids will get the money under the table long before or I will blow it all on other things.

I'm starting to think that blowing it all is the right thing to do too.

I worked for almost 18 years before being made redundant at the start of the recession, got a fairly decent lump sum, but the government took a lot of it (I paid more in tax than I received in statutory redundancy). I was fortunate to secure a job immediately, if I hadn't, the JSB would have been unpaid for 9 weeks, further eroding the lump sum.

I didn't squander the money instead saved it, fast forward several years and I was out of work, JSB for just 9 months, after that because I hadn't spent all my money, I wouldn't have qualified for JSA.
Now seeing people who have worked hard having their assets taken away just because they were unfortunate to be dying from dementia instead of cancer, if they hadn't saved all their lives they would still be in the same nursing home.

Moral appears to be...spend/squander it all when you have it, let the state look after you when you haven't anything left.

So much for being raised to save for the rainy day.

blanch152

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'd rather liquidise every asset I own and use the money to have a bonfire to cremate my dead body with before dole scroungers and lazy bastards would benefit from my success in life over my own family

LexieOnRale wrote: »

My burning my assets would be something I'd rather do than have the social leeches attach themselves to it.

Would dole scroungers and lazy bastards be ok if they were your kids and grandkids?

Why is it that by an accident of birth, being born to you, that your kids should get the benefit of free inheritance, when others are not so fortunate? Yes, you worked for it, but maybe their parents died young, maybe their parents worked as hard but not as successfully.

Your family could just as much be dole scroungers as anyone else. Who knows the future?

Irish people have an insane attachment to land, property and inheritance. You would think we were landed gentry for the last 800 years.

Resist ZOG

blanch152 wrote: »

Would dole scroungers and lazy bastards be ok if they were your kids and grandkids?

Why is it that by an accident of birth, being born to you, that your kids should get the benefit of free inheritance, when others are not so fortunate? Yes, you worked for it, but maybe their parents died young, maybe their parents worked as hard but not as successfully.

Your family could just as much be dole scroungers as anyone else. Who knows the future?

Irish people have an insane attachment to land, property and inheritance. You would think we were landed gentry for the last 800 years.

If you feel so guilty then sell any inheritance you get and give the money away.

maudgonner

blanch152 wrote: »

Irish people have an insane attachment to land, property and inheritance. You would think we were landed gentry for the last 800 years.

If you had an understanding of history you'd know exactly why we have such an attachment to land, property and inheritance - precisely because it was denied to ordinary people for so long and put in the hands of the landed gentry. Your post is pretty ironic.

LirW

Irish people have an insane attachment to land, property and inheritance. You would think we were landed gentry for the last 800 years.

What does this have to do with attachment though? When you work for your own gaff and pay it off, it's yours and you alone decide what to do with it. Want to sell it and blow the money on a horse at Cheltenham? So be it. Want to gift it to a homeless family? There you go. Want to leave it behind for your kids? Get it going.
This has nothing to do with attachment.

To quote myself, someone of the Give it all to the state- faction seems to dismiss:

This principle will create generation after generation in debt.
They are supposed to take loans for their education, without third level education you won't get a job.
They are supposed then to start from scratch, throwing themselves into new debt for houses, because the equality of opportunity will not lower the demand for housing, therefore the prices aren't going to change too much. They work all their lives to clear off debt that are almost unavoidable to make to provide their children the best life possible. And when you die, all of it was quite pointless anyway because your loved ones don't get anything out of it that you worked hard for. Please enlighten me what's the point of it.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this, if someone would be so kind.

I have no problems paying taxes, with these taxes the state helps people in need. The state doesn't spend the tax money well? Nothing I can do about it beside voting for another party next time (which I personally can't because I can't vote). Why should my assets I worked for all my life go into possession of the state after they taxed the bejaysus out of it already?

flutered

this was implemented in co limerick back in the day, many married couples were working abroad because there was nothing here, they had to go or starve, then the couples had a choice, let the council take the house, or break the marriage up, this is not new radical thinking, its just lazyness by thought shy goverment

maudgonner

RayM wrote: »

What, apart from being born, have their children done to deserve a large windfall later in life, in addition to the head-start their parents' hard work already gave them?

You're looking at this entirely from the perspective of the person who inherits. What about the person who makes the bequest? Who has worked to earn the money, paid tax on it and instead of spending it on something frivolous has invested in their home or saved. What gives you the right to tell them they cannot do what they want with their money. You would be encouraging people not to think of the future, but to spend every penny now. You'd be punishing responsible behaviour.

Most people want to look after their family. If I won the lotto in the morning I would give a portion to charity (a very carefully chosen one) but my main priority would be making sure my family share the benefit of my good fortune. That's human nature and nothing to be ashamed of or discouraged.

RayM

Uriel. wrote: »

One point you are missing is that the parents earned the money. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do with it what they want. Why should the State come after all that you have left? You're not just talking about kids "getting something for free", what you are actually saying is hey parent x, you've paid your way all your life, paid your taxes, decided not to do x, y, z but instead decided to keep some of your money assets to give your family, we don't like that so we'll take that from you as well. Bollox. As I said, if I was in that position coming towards end of life, my kids will get the money under the table long before or I will blow it all on other things.

I can see your point, but if you were in that situation at the end of your life, and living in a country with excellent public services, and where tax money was well-spent (don't laugh, it's a hypothetical question), would you still want to give it under the table to your already-comfortable middle-aged sons and daughters, so they can build an extension or upgrade their car?

Rogelio Many Underbelly wrote:

So the 'wealth' somebody has accrued by hard work, saving, prudent living etc shouldn't be used to help their loved ones but should be redistributed among the general populace, some of whom blew every thing they earned themselves. Your suggestion is pure communist ideological nonsense that has been proven to be deficient thinking for a long time now.

Whether the wealth was accrued through hard work or a long line of inheritance is irrelevant. I'm not talking about literally redistributing every penny so that everybody has the same amount. I'm simply talking about providing better public services, including universal healthcare and end-of-life care. Hardly communism.

brightspark wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...98&postcount=4

Did you get to stay on the dole for the recession?

That was a joke post, in a lighthearted thread in 2008, back when After Hours used to be fun, and you could post freely without worrying that some obsessive weirdo would trawl through your posts in nine years time to find a bit of shit to fling at you.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

blanch152 wrote: »

Would dole scroungers and lazy bastards be ok if they were your kids and grandkids?

Why is it that by an accident of birth, being born to you, that your kids should get the benefit of free inheritance, when others are not so fortunate? Yes, you worked for it, but maybe their parents died young, maybe their parents worked as hard but not as successfully.

Your family could just as much be dole scroungers as anyone else. Who knows the future?

Irish people have an insane attachment to land, property and inheritance. You would think we were landed gentry for the last 800 years.

My parents died young. I had buried both parents a few weeks after my 25th birthday. My parents had their kids when they could afford them, they always worked and worked hard. My parents left what they owned and bought with money they paid tax on to their children, and I will do the same. My family is my responsibility, other people's family are their responsibility. If they can't afford children they should consider that before bringing children into the world.

Allinall

LirW wrote: »

What does this have to do with attachment though? When you work for your own gaff and pay it off, it's yours and you alone decide what to do with it. Want to sell it and blow the money on a horse at Cheltenham? So be it. Want to gift it to a homeless family? There you go. Want to leave it behind for your kids? Get it going.
This has nothing to do with attachment.

To quote myself, someone of the Give it all to the state- faction seems to dismiss



I'm still waiting for an answer to this, if someone would be so kind.

I have no problems paying taxes, with these taxes the state helps people in need. The state doesn't spend the tax money well? Nothing I can do about it beside voting for another party next time (which I personally can't because I can't vote). Why should my assets I worked for all my life go into possession of the state after they taxed the bejaysus out of it already?

It's because it is the person receiving the money or asset that is taxed, not the asset itself.

A very simple principle that is widely misunderstood .

LirW

But why should people pay with their own assets they worked for their entire lives hand over to the state when the state chooses to spend the tax money unwisely or decides not to tax the major multinationals properly?
I get your point of everything for everyone but the true problem is that it always with every change in taxes hits the people that have too much for being eligible for state help but too little to park their wealth in charities or put them aside in other dodgy ways. It is in the end always them paying for everything.
How about the state starts getting the money there and then we see if we still have so many problems that we need to claw into working peoples pockets again.

LirW

Allinall wrote: »

It's because it is the person receiving the money or asset that is taxed, not the asset itself.

A very simple principle that is widely misunderstood .

Which is another problem but between this tax, that btw can bring a good amount into the state's pocket again, and giving everything to the state once you die is a huge difference.

Jaylee Tight Pedestrian

Jaylee Tight Pedestrian wrote: »

If some of the suggestions here came to fruition we could end up having another civil war, a lot of people wouldn't stand for it.

Indeed talk of land seizures and wealth redistribution was one of reasons why farmers and property owners in Spain supported the Falange and Franco, creating major political divides and eventually war.

Most people generate wealth during their working life. This wealth is not just monetary but in assets. What is wrong with some of that wealth being used to make their final years more comfortable?
I don't get the bile directed at unknown people. No one is being forced into doing something they don't want to do. This is simply a proposal that should be considered. The fine details would have to be scrutinised carefully. I say wait until final details are known before knocking it.

brightspark

RayM wrote: »

That was a joke post, in a lighthearted thread in 2008, back when After Hours used to be fun, and you could post freely without worrying that some obsessive weirdo would trawl through your posts in nine years time to find a bit of shit to fling at you.

Yes I'm an obsessive weirdo :rolleyes:

I must be a weirdo to want to save money knowing it will probably be handed over to others to squander.

Perhaps it was a joke post but you didn't answer the question!

um7y1h83ge06nx

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Most people generate wealth during their working life. This wealth is not just monetary but in assets. What is wrong with some of that wealth being used to make their final years more comfortable?
I don't get the bile directed at unknown people. No one is being forced into doing something they don't want to do. This is simply a proposal that should be considered. The fine details would have to be scrutinised carefully. I say wait until final details are known before knocking it.

Being honest I doubt this will ever get off the ground so it's all theoretical really.

In some ways I like see things like this get floated, it gets people engaged in discussion and opens their eyes to the types of radical ideas the Dail would try and push if left unchecked. Being centre-right politically I have a fairly large mistrust of many of our politicians.

wakka12

enricoh wrote: »

You work all your life, through the economic depression in the 70's, paying tax at 60% in the 80's and crazy interest rates, pay off the mortgage and hope to leave a decent nest egg to the kids and grandkids.
Eh no, we require your house for the cant work, wont work brigade on the council waiting list whining on joe duffy, 50% of whom have only arrived to this country.
Yeah sounds reasonable!

They would be renting it out. The elderly landlord would receive rent money while theyre not living there, possibly contributing to nursing home costs. Its not being snatched out from under them.

I think he's on the right track, obviously nobody should be forced but incentives should be put in place to make vacant home owners want to rent out their home. We should be using property and land already within our cities, rather than building further and further out and increasing horrible commuting times for everyone.

Resist ZOG

RayM wrote: »

I can see your point, but if you were in that situation at the end of your life, and living in a country with excellent public services, and where tax money was well-spent (don't laugh, it's a hypothetical question), would you still want to give it under the table to your already-comfortable middle-aged sons and daughters, so they can build an extension or upgrade their car?

Yes.

Spanish Eyes

I think renting the empty houses of Fair Deal residents might work. But ONLY if the Council become proxy landlords, deal with all the usual landlord/tenant hassle, PRTB, legal stuff, evictions and so on. Deal with the Fair Deal computations and tax returns, and refurbish to standard where necessary.

And an exemption from USC for those who do so.

Otherwise it is going to be a no in many cases.

LirW

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think the empty houses of Fair Deal residents being rented would work, but ONLY if the Council become proxy landlords, deal with all the hassle and the Fair Deal computations and tax returns, and refurbish to standard where necessary.

Otherwise it is going to be a no in many cases.

I could get behind this IF the council takes proper action regarding overholding, misuse of property, anti-social behavior and anything that gets destroyed.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think the empty houses of Fair Deal residents being rented would work, but ONLY if the Council become proxy landlords, deal with all the hassle and the Fair Deal computations and tax returns, and refurbish to standard where necessary.

Otherwise it is going to be a no in many cases.

I'd say that's what they have planned, that the HSE/Department of Social Protection will become the landlord. No prizes for guessing who they'll put top of the housing list.

And good luck to beneficiaries getting the property back for occupation or sale upon the elderly person's death.

Spanish Eyes

LirW wrote: »

I could get behind this IF the council takes proper action regarding overholding, misuse of property, anti-social behavior and anything that gets destroyed.

Fair Deal owners of property could lease the house/flat to the council, and let them do all the legwork.

There is no need for Power of Attorney for the FD application, so the same could apply to leasing to the council. 2 years minimum and renewable, with USC exemption on the rent.

Rent payable to owner. Feck the council, they are getting a free property for their portfolio.

RayM

brightspark wrote: »

Yes I'm an obsessive weirdo :rolleyes:

So you think dredging up posts that people made almost a decade ago, in the hope of scoring some cheap shot, is totally normal behaviour then? Not just a tiny bit weird? Not even a slight overreaction to someone merely expressing an opinion that you disagree with?

brightspark wrote:

I must be a weirdo to want to save money knowing it will probably be handed over to others to squander.

If it puts your mind at rest, I'm just some guy on the internet who expressed an opinion. I am not - I repeat, not - the minister for finance. And if he increases inheritance tax to 100% in the forthcoming budget, I take no responsibility for that. So calm down.

LirW

But what happens with the property when the person dies? Will it go back to the family or will it be kept until the lease ends? What happens if the tenant overholds, should the HSE also pay for the eviction process?
If all of this is sorted in a water tight way, it's certainly an idea to give it a shot, maybe with annual leases.
An incentive like this is unsuitable for social housing purposes though.

Spanish Eyes

If a private property is going to be used for council/Hap tenants, then the council should be PAYING the owner for the privilege.

You know, bring it up to standard, insure it, sort out rental agreements, keep it in good order with regular inspections, sort out ASB within minutes (!), and file the tax returns and register with PRTB.

The death of the owner is the catalyst for eviction, all handled by the proxy landlord, just like it is if an owner wants to sell the property currently.

I don't see the problem. It would not cost anything like building a new social house, now would it.

LirW

Which is a brilliant idea, but how are the current social housing leases? Genuine question, I don't know it.
I mean people in urgent need of housing staying in hotels will be homeless again once the eviction notice flies in. What happens to them afterwards? Lots of people fight their eviction notices on the grounds of ties to the area, kids going to school there, having nowhere to go and so on. I know, personal responsibility but still, it needs to be sorted out so the bereaved family can move on with their actions asap and don't have to wait 18 months to evict a tenant that refuses to leave.

Spanish Eyes

LirW wrote: »

I could get behind this IF the council takes proper action regarding overholding, misuse of property, anti-social behavior and anything that gets destroyed.

Well they would be the quasi landlords, and it would be up to them.

They could be held responsible for overholding/non payment of rent, and they would have to pay the shortfall to the Nursing Home. That would soften their cough big time and get the ball rolling.

With a bit of imagination and incentives to owners it could work very well. But we shall see.

tea and coffee

It's a crap idea from so many perspectives. Person not capable of minding themselves as landlord or appointing landlord on their behalf. Very poor security of tenure for the tenant as the lease ends on death and who knows when that might be. 6 months. A year. Two. As previous mentioned in thread most ppl in NH don't stay there much over an average of 2 years.
-What about when on death the tenants overhold. Council won't have the capacity to get rid. Becomes the NOK headache.
-Could cause hassle for probate: one beneficiary wants to continue letting it. Another doesn't etx
-Potential for elder financial abuse with nok taking advantage if they are to be the LL
- Issues with property tax as house is occupied therefore liable. (Exempt if house is vacant due to NH residence)
- many houses not up to rental standard. Cost of this to be borne by ????
-more hassle for council if LL of houses they don't own.

Sounds a bad idea. Going after already vulnerable people is going to be deeply unpopular and not beneficial to anyone- tenants, owners, council.

Spanish Eyes

Probate/Administration in the case of a death takes a long time here, it was one of the issues raised WRT empty properties (not Fair Deal). Houses other than FD residents are often sitting there for a year or two while waiting for the family to get the paperwork together for the probate.

If probate was speeded up it could help a lot too.

Mrs Shuttleworth

A cat would see what is happening here.

Prod old people into letting their homes with the HSE as landlord, slap taxes and CPOs on other property holders regardless of circumstances - even if that imposes severe financial hardship and forces some property owners into bankruptcy - to free up accommodation to house more of the EU/George Soros's guests.

Social engineering on a mass scale and now they're going to thieve your property to accelerate it.

Cead Mile Failte. I hope they've seen The Field.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

...........

And good luck to beneficiaries getting the property back for occupation or sale upon the elderly person's death.

And that is what's behind hundreds of "delayed discharges" ( bed blockers ) in "ordinary" hospitals

Those patients who are declared fit to leave but whose families refuse to allow them leave because they want to inherit the house rather than use it to fund their care through the Fair Deal scheme

If the State went all out tomorrow on fixing up hospitals - (doubled number of beds, world class hospital food etc in every HSE hospital )

the number of "delayed discharges" would skyrocket

Mrs Shuttleworth

gctest50 wrote: »

And that is what's behind hundreds of "delayed discharges" ( bed blockers ) in "ordinary" hospitals

Those patients who are declared fit to leave but whose families refuse to allow them leave because they want to inherit the house rather than use it to fund their care through the Fair Deal scheme

If the State went all out tomorrow on fixing up hospitals - (doubled number of beds, world class hospital food etc in every HSE hospital )

the number of "delayed discharges" would skyrocket

You're talking nonsense and I know from experience. The families get billed and issued with solicitors letters. And the number of nursing home places available at any one time is minuscule. For another thread.

RayM

gctest50 wrote: »

And that is what's behind hundreds of "delayed discharges" ( bed blockers ) in "ordinary" hospitals

Those patients who are declared fit to leave but whose families refuse to allow them leave because they want to inherit the house rather than use it to fund their care through the Fair Deal scheme

If the State went all out tomorrow on fixing up hospitals - (doubled number of beds, world class hospital food etc in every HSE hospital )

the number of "delayed discharges" would skyrocket

In fairness, very, very few people would be so callous towards their own mother or father. If the discharge of an old person from hospital is delayed, it's usually because their subsequent care arrangements can take a bit of time to organise, and not because the family are biding their time until granny snuffs it.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You're talking nonsense and I know from experience. The families get billed and issued with solicitors letters. And the number of nursing home places available at any one time is minuscule. For another thread.

Taxpayers are paying about €500,000 every day for "delayed discharges"


About 600 beds maybe more

That's like building another hospital if you could fix that ( not possible in every case - we know before anyone starts )

P. Breathnach

I am one of the older people that many posters here profess to be concerned about.

I have a decent pension, easily sufficient for my current needs. But if I come to a point where I need residential care, my pension would fall far short of the costs.

Should the taxpayer be put on the hook for the difference so that I can keep a house empty that I am no longer capable of using, and then later pass most or all of its value on as somebody's inheritance?

Are we in favour of taxpayer-funded inheritance?

brightspark

RayM wrote: »

So you think dredging up posts that people made almost a decade ago, in the hope of scoring some cheap shot, is totally normal behaviour then? Not just a tiny bit weird? Not even a slight overreaction to someone merely expressing an opinion that you disagree with?



If it puts your mind at rest, I'm just some guy on the internet who expressed an opinion. I am not - I repeat, not - the minister for finance. And if he increases inheritance tax to 100% in the forthcoming budget, I take no responsibility for that. So calm down.

I didn't think you were the minister of finance!

And you still haven't answered the question!

If as you say, it was just a joke post, I imagine you have spent the last ten years in full employment paying taxes etc., however your reluctance to answer suggests otherwise.

(For the record I spent about six months unemployed before taking a position at approx half my previous salary)

brightspark

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am one of the older people that many posters here profess to be concerned about.

I have a decent pension, easily sufficient for my current needs. But if I come to a point where I need residential care, my pension would fall far short of the costs.

Should the taxpayer be put on the hook for the difference so that I can keep a house empty that I am no longer capable of using, and then later pass most or all of its value on as somebody's inheritance?

Are we in favour of taxpayer-funded inheritance?

If you get cancer or heart disease the taxpayer will pay for your treatment, if you get dementia only the Fair Deal is available. It's not an equal system.

gctest50

brightspark wrote: »

If you get cancer or heart disease the taxpayer will pay for your treatment, if you get dementia only the Fair Deal is available. It's not an equal system.

It's not really the same now is it ?

If you are unfortunate enough to get dementia so bad you need a care home, you won't be coming out of that care home ----> you won't be needing your house any more

or should it turn into a taxpayer funded inheritance

with the lovely added danger of the older person being abandoned and all the rest

RayM

brightspark wrote: »

I didn't think you were the minister of finance!

And you still haven't answered the question!

If as you say, it was just a joke post, I imagine you have spent the last ten years in full employment paying taxes etc., however your reluctance to answer suggests otherwise.

(For the record I spent about six months unemployed before taking a position at approx half my previous salary)

Not only was it a joke, it was a joke posted nine years ago. Pretty sure I've made posts about being unemployed in the past (no doubt you'll correct me if I haven't). It's not something I felt remotely ashamed of. Not in any way relevant to any view I have expressed on this thread though, so kindly give it a rest.

tea and coffee

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am one of the older people that many posters here profess to be concerned about.

I have a decent pension, easily sufficient for my current needs. But if I come to a point where I need residential care, my pension would fall far short of the costs.

Should the taxpayer be put on the hook for the difference so that I can keep a house empty that I am no longer capable of using, and then later pass most or all of its value on as somebody's inheritance?

Are we in favour of taxpayer-funded inheritance?

No. But in general we are in favour of public healthcare.
Also, if your neighbour had no pension at all (above SW pension) the State would fund ALL his care. At least you pay part share with your pension. Do you really want to relinquish everything /most of (what) you own to pay not only your care but your neighbour's too? Over and above tax you already paid on your property, salary, possibly your pension too?
Being realistic, given the aging population that are living longer and longer, we're fast hurtling towards that anyway.
Healthcare is creaking at the seams. No way in fresh hell can the State fund 900-1300 per week for everyone in need of NH care who hasn't the means to fund it themselves.
Minister Murphy's suggestion is likely only the tip of the iceberg. Sadly.