Not a fair deal

But they don't have to use the fair deal scheme. They can keep all their assets and just pay for their own care if they think "the state" is trying to "asset strip" them. Or their kids can look after their care.

What you're talking about is wanting taxpayers to pay for the elderly person's care but not touch their assets solely so they can be inherited.

Why the hell should I pay for your parent's care just so you can get a nice inheritance?

"Why the hell should I pay for your parent's care just so you can get a nice inheritance?"

Why the hell should you pay for your neighbours parents care, who never saved a penny or bought any assets?

It's a question of fairness, that all elderly people are treated the same as regards cost of nursing home care, if needed.

As it is, you have one group subsidising the others.

Sounds fair, as long as everyone agrees to do it.

Yes absolutely

I can't tell if you're being purposefully obtuse here, but they've stated on this thread many times that they've used the fair deal for their mother's care. They went into clear and specific detail. Are you not reading any of the posts?

You must not be or you'd see that they are not the one crying about their taxes going towards the undeserving, they're pointing out that the fair deal is optional and doesn't punish those who have assets, rather it asks them to contribute towards paying for their own care if they can.

I mean it's hilarious, a page ago someone was saying TooTired was obviously one of the lower socio-economic classes who benefited from the Fair deal as they had no assets, now hear you are saying they're obviously a wealthy yuppie. you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Seriously go back and read the actual thread because you're posting incoherent rubbish and really don't seem to know anything.

Fair deal can work for some but make no mistake, it is the less well off middle that are getting hit with this with the poor escaping payment but also the well off negotiating their way around it.

For many many years, the state basically took peoples pension if staying in Public home which was obviously very fair.

Now, for the unfortunate people who have not planned suitably, the costs can be hefty considering the weekly costs being quoted.

There is no reason for people coming on here all high and mighty complaining about not caring for relatives. The facts are that the care is the same whether one pays with cash, or via fair deal or for someone with no assets so the care is not at issue. Financial planning in this regard is no different to proper tax planning. Perfectly legal and acceptable.

If fact, arguably a relative who isn't having to come up with 22.5 percent of the value of their inherited home on the death of a parent is mote likely to be able to provide for all the extra services required in a home so there is more than one angle to this.

It's all OK saying a son or daughter inherited a house so they should pay. In many many cases, that person has given up career to look after parent fpr many years and eventually had to get professional care. That person will then depend on the family home for their residence and a bill for 22.5 percent is just not manageable at all for most of those people.

In the situation where someone sells their home prior to needing care, the entire value of the property would be taken by the home in a few years. That is an asset built.up over a life time wiped out at a rate of 100k per year based on the cost of some public homes. Criminal really.