Fair Deal changes might actually happen but...

Ray, Ray, Ray. there is no need to be so triggered. My suggestion was merely a suggestion that the FD scheme be reworked so that the lien was a smaller percentage but that there be an additional component calculated on the market value of the rent, with the additional feature that the additional 80% clawback be removed entirely. Thereby adding an incentive that the house be used rather than being left vacant, potentially for years with all the associated issues such as invalidating insurance and damp etc.

Everyone would win if they wanted to. It would not be compulsory and the owner or their representative could instead decide to leave the property and eat the additional calculated amount.

No need to be getting yourself so worked up

Anyone who thinks this is not an emotive subjective has obviously had no experience of it. Not that wasn't obvious from all the factually wrong comments.

Your simplistic proposals do not fix the problems. Because you don't understand them. Even when they've been explained to you. You just keep repeating the same dogma.

What in the name of jaysus are you talking about ?

of course when someone is incapable it is up to the courts to make decisions for them unless Enduring Power of Attorney has been arranged ... I've never said that it should be any other way.

what I am and what people are explaining to you is that your proposals and understanding of the issues and subject matter is next to nothing .. you obviously did a bit of furious googling yesterday to try back up some of your posts.

and putting 'no offence' at the start of a nonsense post does not excuse it being offensive.

you and you alone brought up the notion of children looking to spend incapacitated parents money on BMWs ... you are the one trying to advocate for forcing incapacitated people in to renting out their assets even if they are paying for their own nursing home care.

you haven't a clue

You are the one who could do with some googling. The only time I did a google was to pull up a link for someone to educate them on something which I said but they disputed. Nothing I have posted was factually incorrect. It is human nature for people to stick their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah nah I can't hear you" when being told something which they don't like, but I can't help them on that.

People are not paying for their own care costs. Giving a contribution towards it is not the same as paying for it. I already said that I think it is a good system. But saying you are paying towards it is somewhat analagous to the extreme case of a person in a council house, who puts has to give 10 Euro "rent" a week, saying that they pay for their own housing. I am only using an extreme case to illustrate the concept.

You were apparently complaining about it not being "your choice" to make decisions for a family member if they were made a ward of court. I was merely pointing out that there was no reason why it would automatically fall to any specific relative unless the person had made provision for it. It was a simple concept.

The fact reminds these houses will remain in legal limbo a long time. They will not be available to rent.

The state will not be able to clear out a house in legal limbo and refurbish it to their required standards and rent it. There's a massive amount of obstacles to that. It's not viable.

Even the changes to Fair Deal only enable people to sell. It does nothing to help the rental supply.

yet again - you fail to even understand the very basics of Ward of Court - when this is awarded you do not have control - the courts do. So any decision which is made is made by the court - you can petition but you do not have a choice. So again - you are talking pure nonsense.

As for 'making a contribution' ... .my mother is making more than a contribution - I've outlined the actual figures - you choose to ignore these type of posts.

Also - where is the equity - someone who doesn't work a day in their life, living on social welfare and in a social house will have the state contribute 100% to their nursing home care. But when someone pays for their own you want the state to be able to also milk their assets which have been paid for.

Your argument is nonsense and at this stage you are just trolling

Please clarify who this "you" is when you refer to Ward of court.

Are you referring to the incapacitated person or the "relative"?

If it is the former, they are incapacitated. So I presume you mean the latter. If it is the latter then it is legally nothing to do with them

The sick persons assets can provide for their care. That is what they are for. Expectant beneficiaries may prefer that they only took 20% or 10% rather than the 22.5% for example, but that is irrelevant. They are the property of the sick person and theirs alone.

You need to significantly de-personalise your posts.