Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Not a fair deal

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    headtheball14
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭headtheball14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180031#Comment_121180031

    stays in a nursing home average about 2 years, at average cost of 1500 a week that's over 150 000.

    Fair deal was brought in about twenty years ago , prior to that you had the situation of people having to sell not only the persons home but also remortgage their own homes to pay for quality care.

    Our social system has always provided for those with no means to pay for themselves.

    Fair deal was an attempt to also provide care for everyone. it is already increasing costs at a likely unsustainable pace but I'm sure that magic money tree can be shaken so that noone has to contribute anything for their lives again.

    Waters free too right?



  • Options
    #63
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,826 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    In fair deal, nothing is stolen from the person. They are looked after, and after they die, a contribution is taken from their estate. A dead person cannot own something legally or in reality.


    I would hazard a guess that a portion of the population would be much quicker to steer elderly parents and relatives prematurely into nursing homes if there was zero impact to their expected inheritance



  • Options
    #64
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,826 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121179784#Comment_121179784


    The person she will leave the house to can either help her or pay for that help. If she is leaving it to multiple people then it will be sold anyway so the story does not make any logical sense



  • Options
    #65
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    What would happen in the following situation:

    An elderly person- a widower, with just the full contributory pension and no savings- gets so fragile that he needs to go into a nursing home. Suppose his son- his only child- is living with him in the family home as well. The son is disabled and on DA. Does the son have to fork out any money as well or pay out of his inheritance- which will be the family home? How is the son supposed to pay if he has no income other than DA? Is he supposed to sell the house after the death of his father and join the homeless people crowd? Where is the fair deal in that one?



  • Options
    #66
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180174#Comment_121180174

    In that case the son will not have to pay anything on the occasion of the death of his father. The debt will carry over until he himself dies. His beneficiary will then incur the debt.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180142#Comment_121180142

    What you have on this thread is an assortment of folk who have had their eye on their inheritance for a long time and are totally thwarted when they’ve realised that some of it is going to be used to pay for their elderly relatives care.

    I’ve come across situations recently where relatives, on looking into the fair deal, have persuaded the old person to stay at home instead of going into a safe place, on the promise that they will take care of them.

    They terrorise them with tales of all their possessions having to be sold and all kinds of bullshit hardship.

    Just to preserve their own entitlement.



  • Options
    #68
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180425#Comment_121180425

    You mean that the son is having to carry the debt along for the rest of his life? What about the psychological implications for the son about this? The son could very well live for another 30. I would be very upset if I would know that I owe the state a large amount of money- regardless if I have to pay or not. I am sure a depressive person would not handle such a situation very well. Death is obviously not the end of things if you are a pauper!



  • Options
    #69
    pawrick
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭pawrick


    One thing to consider is the additional costs outside of the fair deal scheme which can be substantial esp. when you dont live near a hospital so make sure you are aware of these. Weekly activities (bingo etc), prescriptions, travel costs for hospital appointments, general charges, hairdressing, nails etc. All these together actully add up to a tidy sum per month on top of other fees and arent considered when doing the calculations.

    Post edited by pawrick on


  • Options
    #70
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,826 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180474#Comment_121180474


    What are you on about "debt". It isn't a debt. He'll never have to pay it.

    The State has equity in the house where he lives and it allows him to use that for free.



  • Options
    #71
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180474#Comment_121180474

    He doesn’t owe the state anything. The debt has been lifted off him. He can then leave the house he inherited to anyone he likes, but that person will have to allow the original debt to go out of the estate before he or she benefits from it. Why would anyone worry about something that’s going to happen after they’re dead?!? Dead people don’t own anything.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180523#Comment_121180523

    It is still money the son of the house owes the state. No talk can change that. A depressive person would have difficulties to cope with that. A normal person would be able to see the difference and live with it.



  • Options
    #73
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180527#Comment_121180527

    Depressive people have a different view of the world. Your point is rationally correct- but those folks are not rational.



  • Options
    #74
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,826 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180533#Comment_121180533


    Well what if that depressive persons parent has sizeable savings. And yet they won't die and keep spending them on frivolous things like food and heating?

    Why doesn't the State step in and pay for all of the parent's needs so that he depressive person can inherit 100% of those savings? It's so unfair!



  • Options
    #75
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180486#Comment_121180486

    My mother enjoys all of these things and the only bill she’s had to pay so far is €25 each time she has the chiropodist. We’ve actually made a few voluntary donations to the home to be passed on to the groups who come to entertain, apparently out of the goodness of their hearts.

    When you’re scoping out a home with/for your parent don’t be afraid to ask them what the fair deal does and doesn’t cover. If they’re going to be charging extra for entertainment and laundry and toiletries then have a discussion about that before you decide.



  • Options
    #76
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180545#Comment_121180545

    Well it can’t be helped. The fact of the matter is that the debt has been taken away from him or her and skipped on to their beneficiary.



  • Options
    #77
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180546#Comment_121180546

    “But it’s not fair” is the cri de couer of the believer in the Magic Money Tree.



  • Options
    #78
    893bet
    Registered Users Posts: 8,993 ✭✭✭893bet


    What’s stands out here really is people trying to use spurious what if cases to prove a point.


    e.g the disabled son example or the relatives terrorising an elder relative to try keep them at home, what if the roof needs repair and you divested all assets etc


    hard cases cases make bad laws.



  • Options
    #79
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180557#Comment_121180557

    There should be a limit of what the state can take. Take the JA or non contributory pension. Every means test DISREGARDS the family home. There is sizable amount of the population who think there should be no property tax on the family home. Why is this thing different? The situation of the family members are not properly taken care of. This Fair Deal is deeply flawed in that way.



  • Options
    #80
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180546#Comment_121180546

    As I said- depressive people think or feel different. Your point is valid from a purely rational view. However, it completely ignores the specific situation of the surviving son. It is all about money, isn't it?



  • Options
    #81
    headtheball14
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭headtheball14


    There is limit on what the state takes, that's the whole point of fair deal, it's a percentage of the value of the assets of the claimant. other benefits like ja disregard the family home as they need somewhere to live.

    Fair deal is for people who by definition no longer live in the family home.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180594#Comment_121180594

    But what part of the sons “situation” are you concerned about specifically? He gets to live in his home as he ever did. Nothing has changed. He can make his will and when he dies the debt will be sorted out. What’s the problem? You’re being very vague? It’s you who’s making it all about the money, btw.

    The taxpayer (the state) had to be made whole at some stage after stepping in to cover the costs of an old persons end of days care.

    You’re suggesting that even if someone who should have been responsible for paying for the care (this depressed son) is excused paying for the care, for his entire life, that the debt should never have to be paid, even after he’s died, just because he has mental health issues?!? Why??



  • Options
    #83
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180610#Comment_121180610

    That makes very little sense. If we use the same criteria on JA as on FD, folks on JA can still live in their houses. They only accumulate some debt- which they can repay when they are back in a job. Was the talk here not about paying our dues to society? Not getting everything "for free"?



  • Options
    #84
    doc22
    Registered Users Posts: 886 ✭✭✭doc22


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121178490#Comment_121178490

    No it sounds like the the state paid 1400 a week and under the fair deal she had to make a contribution of 400 be that pension/SW, (land, house 7.5%) and rather than wait till death the family paid.

    Prior to Fair deal the state would have took everything for nursing care with no caps etc so when people are criticizing fair deal I hope they know what the alternative was.(familys tended to take more active role in provisions in past less home helps too)



  • Options
    #85
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180633#Comment_121180633

    I think you don't understand how the mind of depressive people works. In his mind the son will worry about the debt for the rest of his life.He will keep thinking that people can come and throw him out of the house because of the unpaid debt. It does not matter what you tell him. But it does matter what he thinks or feels himself. And he might do very stupid things normal people would not do. I still think that the very specific situation of the family members should be taken into proper consideration. A one for all rule is not fair.



  • Options
    #86
    doc22
    Registered Users Posts: 886 ✭✭✭doc22


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180701#Comment_121180701

    So when the fair deal bill comes due move into parents house, say you're depressed and happy days debt is forgiven....



  • Options
    #87
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180745#Comment_121180745

    I am not talking about avoiding payments where people clearly have no issues to stop them from paying. I am talking about a son who lives in the family home together with the father. It is HIS home as well. He is not living anywhere else.



  • Options
    #88
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180701#Comment_121180701

    But if he’s suffering from depression then his totally irrational unfounded concern about the house is one of the many symptoms and consequences of a terrible disease.

    If we were to suggest that suffering from a disease, illness accident etc cancels every single debt we’ve incurred, even the ones that have skipped us totally, then how would could our society cope?

    I assume that you agree then that because he’s possibly worried about his electricity supplier disconnecting him if he can’t pay his bill, that he should no longer have to pay his bill? Likewise he may be worried that his bins won’t be collected if he’s short of money so he shouldn’t get a waste bill etc etc

    Basically what you’re saying is that people shouldn’t have to pay for anything if the thought of having to pay for it upsets them. Well, I guess that’s pretty much the position of the left now for many years. But as proven yet again in this thread, none of you are ever able to explain where the money will come from. Are you?



  • Options
    #89
    Albert Gifted Shoplifter
    Posts: 0 ✭ Albert Gifted Shoplifter


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121178619#Comment_121178619

    I don’t think that is what was meant here… such people are not imprudent, idol etc, carers are very hard working and deserve to be cared for well when they need it.



  • Options
    #90
    hawthorne
    Registered Users Posts: 611 ✭✭✭hawthorne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180798#Comment_121180798

    You have some good points there. You and I might not have any irrational fears- but some other folks clearly have. We will never understand them because we don't have - thankfully- those irrational problems. But that does not eliminate those problems for those who have them. And it does not mean that we should ignore their needs if we can do something to help those folks.

    Explain to me again why houses owned by folks on DA,JA or NC Pension are excempt from a means test. Those folks can still live in their houses- but can pay off their dues at a later stage. And if they cannot- the folks who inherit their places- will have to. What about a fair deal in this matter? You mentioned the money tree- can you explain why the money does not come from those folks?

    Direct question to you: You are- as far as I know- on DA. I do not know if you own your place. But if you do, would you consider living by what you preach and accept a fair deal in regards to your payment ? Means: The DoSP will own a certain percentage of your place after a while!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180875#Comment_121180875

    I’m a civil servant.

    I’ve no idea why you think I’m on DA.

    People on working age SW payments don’t include their homes in the means test because they need somewhere to live. People in nursing homes have found somewhere else to live and if they decide to return home they can, no problem and their contract with fair deal is paused until they’ve died.

    Your theory as to how people on means tested payments should be entered into a fair deal type program wherein the state should recoup whatever they were paid in their lifetime after their death falls at the first hurdle.

    The basic premise of SW allowances is that claimants are means tested and found to be so poor that they need a weekly payment in order to be kept alive.

    In the vast majority of cases they are in state funded housing or otherwise not living in a house they own. They will have less than €20000 savings and pretty much no income at all. They are disabled, sick or injured, they are parenting alone they are caring full time for someone and they are unemployable. So what exactly are you hoping to recoup from their estate after they die?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement