Are philosophical queries accepted at the FOAK?

[Turby]

If so, I'd like to ask...

As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?

Just curious.
--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS, ST1100 (in memorium)

[Pete]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:

>If so, I'd like to ask...
>
>As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>
>Just curious.

If they have been satisfied with how they have lived so far then why
change course at all?

--

Pete
Garage vacancy now filled, N+1 incremented accordingly
F800R

[Gyp]

On 10/11/2020 01:07, Turby wrote:
> If so, I'd like to ask...
>
> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>
> Just curious.

One of life's unanswerable questions.

Well, it's answerable, just hard to answer correctly.

A lot will depend on the financial stability of the heirs. If the heirs
are doing fine and will in all likelihood continue to do so then do more
bucket list. If the heirs are struggling then ease back on the bucket
list, unless of course the heirs are struggling because they pissed it
all away then fuck 'em.

Perhaps a nice mid-ground is to do some of the bucket list, but
concentrate on those things where the heirs can be involved so it
becomes a shared activity where memories will be made rather than dolo
activities that get taken to the grave

--
Gyp

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Pete Fisher]

On 10/11/2020 07:03, Gyp wrote:
> On 10/11/2020 01:07, Turby wrote:
>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>
>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the
>> heirs?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> One of life's unanswerable questions.
>
> Well, it's answerable, just hard to answer correctly.
>
> A lot will depend on the financial stability of the heirs. If the heirs
> are doing fine and will in all likelihood continue to do so then do more
> bucket list. If the heirs are struggling then ease back on the bucket
> list, unless of course the heirs are struggling because they pissed it
> all away then fuck 'em.
>
> Perhaps a nice mid-ground is to do some of the bucket list, but
> concentrate on those things where the heirs can be involved so it
> becomes a shared activity where memories will be made rather than dolo
> activities that get taken to the grave
>

Bank of Mum & Dad has been helping the lad out a bit recently. If his
new job goes well, there could be an end in sight to that - then with
the current situation, who knows what employment is secure?

I really miss our hill climb excursions together. Him moving to Her
Majesty's South was one factor in me 'retiring' from the hill climb circus.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375, Moto Morini 2C/350
Gilera GFR, Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

[Colin Irvine]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:

>If so, I'd like to ask...
>
>As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>
>Just curious.

We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs can
share that. We're hanging on to some cash, as bank of mum and dad, and
aiming to have exhausted the rest by the time we pop our clogs.


--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

[YTC#1]

On 10/11/2020 10:29, Colin Irvine wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>
>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs can

Unless you go into care and it will help pay for that instead.

> share that. We're hanging on to some cash, as bank of mum and dad, and

See above :-)

> aiming to have exhausted the rest by the time we pop our clogs.

Is the best option.

>
>



--
Bruce Porter
XJR1300SP, XJ900F, Pegaso 650 Trail (x2) one red one grey
POTM#1(KoTL), WUSS#1 , YTC#1(bar), OSOS#2(KoTL) , DS#3 , IbW#18 ,Apostle#8
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://blog.maui.co.uk/index.php/ytc/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

[The Older Gentleman]

Pete Fisher <pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Bank of Mum & Dad has been helping the lad out a bit recently.

Same here, with ours.

--
Kawasaki Ninja H2; Ducati ST2; Yamaha 660 Ténéré; Guzzi Le
Mans II, V50; Honda CB125T2 CD200, CB400F, Yamaha 125 NMax
More secure garages needed....
neil underscore murray at fastmail dot fm

[The Older Gentleman]

Colin Irvine <lo...@colinandpat.co.uk> wrote:

> We've decided a bit of both.

So've we. House wil go to the kids. We've been indulging in some nice
(costly) travel in the last few years, but have been careful at the same
time to increase our cash holdings and investment size.

After the house, I suspect the biggest single asset (not counting ISAs,
bank accounts etc) will be the motorcycle collection which (at present
values) is about £40,000.

Plan here, with The Doctor's blessing, and if I pop my clogs first, is
to refer to the specified list of 'bike beneficiaries' in my will, and
they can, in a specified order, choose a bike from the collection
(whatever it happens to be at the time).

If there are more than three, then there's another round of choosing,
and so on until all are accounted for.

The 400 Four is exempt, on the grounds that The Doctor simply wants to
keep it no matter what. After she's gone, I have no idea as it won't be
my decision.

A number of decent bequests to various friends as well. And some
personal bequests of various items (keepsakes, furniture, objets d'art,
some valuables, etc).

[Colin Irvine]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:51:26 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2020 10:29, Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>>
>>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>>>
>>> Just curious.
>>
>> We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs can
>
>Unless you go into care and it will help pay for that instead.

The house ownership was transferred to a trust a few years ago, so
can't be touched - although that might ultimately prove to be an
unnecessary precaution.

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

[Mark Olson]

Gyp <a@b.c> wrote:
> On 10/11/2020 01:07, Turby wrote:
>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>
>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?

> Perhaps a nice mid-ground is to do some of the bucket list, but
> concentrate on those things where the heirs can be involved so it
> becomes a shared activity where memories will be made rather than dolo
> activities that get taken to the grave

+1

I'm already thinking about this myself, not that I expect to have
anything left once I die.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, Vespa Ciao

[Mark Olson]

YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/11/2020 10:29, Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>>
>>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>>>
>>> Just curious.
>>
>> We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs can
>
> Unless you go into care and it will help pay for that instead.

My ~ 100 year old mother is currently facing this prospect. In a care
home, unlikely to ever leave it.

In _my_ opinion, she would have been better to have sold it off years
ago, moved into an apartment and used the money to enjoy life, but
tending to her yard and garden & all the resident wildlife was a big
part of that.

[boots]

On 10/11/2020 09:07 Turby penned these words:

> If so, I'd like to ask...
>
> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>
> Just curious.
>

I'd say spend what you can on yourself having fun etc. There's always be eg
the house for the heirs to sell on. Have to keep nagging L, who still behaves
as if we're a generation ago with all those years ahead and the kids needing
support rather than in the final 1/4.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

[Paul Carmichael]

On 10/11/2020 02:07, Turby wrote:
> If so, I'd like to ask...
>
> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash course in bucket list
> stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>
> Just curious.

I've seen the aftermath of so many deaths. Families fighting, solicitors getting really
wealthy etc. I always told my folks not to leave anything. All us kids have done our own
thing and have houses etc.

I've also told ours to expect nothing. We are all scattered around the planet anyway. It
would be more of a burden than a gift. Our youngest recently spent more on a house that
we've accumulated in a lifetime.

Not a big fan of inheritance. I recently inherited about 12K and it was gone before I even
noticed it.

Yes, I'm a bad person. And life is very short.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Mike Fleming]

In article <1oznicb.mvx88vn4rdavN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk>,

totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) writes:

> Pete Fisher <pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Bank of Mum & Dad has been helping the lad out a bit recently.
>
> Same here, with ours.

Ditto, although it's more not asking him for rent than giving him
money. He was unfortunate as he started a new job just before the
first lockdown and was one of the many that couldn't get furlough from
the new employer as it was too recent, the ones that Rishi Sunak said
should ask their previous employers. Now at least he gets furlough in
lockdown 2.

--
Mike Fleming Coitum volantum non dono
Quantum ille canis est in fenestra? - molesworth

[Stephen Packer]

On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:07:56 UTC, Turby wrote:
> If so, I'd like to ask...
>
> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>
> Just curious.

My (personal) view:

Depends on the money they're spending and the financial situation the prospective heirs are in.

If it's money the person earned in their lifetime then it's up to them what they spend it on really.

If it's money that they inherited then I'd look at how the prospective heirs are doing; if struggling I'd question whether it's an appropriate use of 'family money' to enrich someone's life that's already been enriched by the time they were born and the economic booms they lived through.

YMMV.

[Gyp]

On 10/11/2020 12:50, Stephen Packer wrote:

> My (personal) view:
>
> Depends on the money they're spending and the financial situation the prospective heirs are in.
>
> If it's money the person earned in their lifetime then it's up to them what they spend it on really.

Spaff it on motorbikes.

> If it's money that they inherited then I'd look at how the prospective heirs are doing; if struggling I'd question whether it's an appropriate use of 'family money' to enrich someone's life that's already been enriched by the time they were born and the economic booms they lived through.

Or spaff it on motorbikes.

Got it.

This decision making lark is easier than I thought!

[YTC#1]

Can we have a discussion now about how that is irresponsible and means
you think others should be paying for your care ?

Or will we fall out?

[wessie]

Gyp <a@b.c> wrote in news:roe3qh$9qh$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 10/11/2020 12:50, Stephen Packer wrote:
>
>> My (personal) view:
>>
>> Depends on the money they're spending and the financial situation the
>> prospective heirs are in.
>>
>> If it's money the person earned in their lifetime then it's up to
>> them what they spend it on really.
>
> Spaff it on motorbikes.
>
>> If it's money that they inherited then I'd look at how the
>> prospective heirs are doing; if struggling I'd question whether it's
>> an appropriate use of 'family money' to enrich someone's life that's
>> already been enriched by the time they were born and the economic
>> booms they lived through.
>
> Or spaff it on motorbikes.
>
> Got it.
>
> This decision making lark is easier than I thought!
>

even easier if you have an offspring who thought he could beat the bookies

he's got his mother's council house so he doesn't need to inherit mine to
spaff on some dogs and nags.

[wessie]

YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote in news:roe9nc$kls$4...@dont-email.me:

> On 10/11/2020 12:05, Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:51:26 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2020 10:29, Colin Irvine wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>>>>
>>>>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a
>>>>> crash course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous
>>>>> to the heirs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just curious.
>>>>
>>>> We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs
>>>> can
>>>
>>> Unless you go into care and it will help pay for that instead.
>>
>> The house ownership was transferred to a trust a few years ago, so
>> can't be touched - although that might ultimately prove to be an
>> unnecessary precaution.
>>
>
> Can we have a discussion now about how that is irresponsible and means
> you think others should be paying for your care ?
>
> Or will we fall out?
>
>

this is from the Islington school of socialism

[Colin Irvine]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:56:44 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>

wrote:

>On 10/11/2020 12:05, Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:51:26 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2020 10:29, Colin Irvine wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>>>>
>>>>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>>>>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just curious.
>>>>
>>>> We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs can
>>>
>>> Unless you go into care and it will help pay for that instead.
>>
>> The house ownership was transferred to a trust a few years ago, so
>> can't be touched - although that might ultimately prove to be an
>> unnecessary precaution.
>>
>Can we have a discussion now about how that is irresponsible and means
>you think others should be paying for your care ?

It's not my fault that we don't have a properly-funded all-embracing
welfare state, to which I would have happily contributed my share. And
no, I'm not prepared to discuss it - at least not with someone as
intellectually exhausting as your goodself!

>Or will we fall out?

Up to you.

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

[ogden]

On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:07:56 UTC, Turby wrote:

> If so, I'd like to ask...
>
> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?

Why should the heirs expect anything? I don't, other than fairness.

Spunk what you can on whatever you want, donate the rest to worthy causes.

[Gyp]

On 10/11/2020 15:04, wessie wrote:

>
> even easier if you have an offspring who thought he could beat the bookies
>
> he's got his mother's council house so he doesn't need to inherit mine to
> spaff on some dogs and nags.

I blame the parents

[YTC#1]

On 10/11/2020 16:06, Colin Irvine wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:56:44 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2020 12:05, Colin Irvine wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:51:26 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2020 10:29, Colin Irvine wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:07:54 -0800, Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>>>>>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just curious.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs can
>>>>
>>>> Unless you go into care and it will help pay for that instead.
>>>
>>> The house ownership was transferred to a trust a few years ago, so
>>> can't be touched - although that might ultimately prove to be an
>>> unnecessary precaution.
>>>
>> Can we have a discussion now about how that is irresponsible and means
>> you think others should be paying for your care ?
>
> It's not my fault that we don't have a properly-funded all-embracing
> welfare state, to which I would have happily contributed my share. And

But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
clever to bypass the funding.

> no, I'm not prepared to discuss it - at least not with someone as
> intellectually exhausting as your goodself!

Fair enough

>
>> Or will we fall out?
>
> Up to you.
>

Well, I'd rather not

[ogden]

On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:42:47 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
> On 10/11/2020 16:06, Colin Irvine wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:56:44 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/11/2020 12:05, Colin Irvine wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:51:26 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/11/2020 10:29, Colin Irvine wrote:
> >>>>> We've decided a bit of both. Our house is paid for, so our heirs can
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless you go into care and it will help pay for that instead.
> >>>
> >>> The house ownership was transferred to a trust a few years ago, so
> >>> can't be touched - although that might ultimately prove to be an
> >>> unnecessary precaution.
> >>>
> >> Can we have a discussion now about how that is irresponsible and means
> >> you think others should be paying for your care ?
> >
> > It's not my fault that we don't have a properly-funded all-embracing
> > welfare state, to which I would have happily contributed my share. And
> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
> clever to bypass the funding.

Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund? Did you ever draw a dividend from your firm instead of paying yourself a salary when you were contracting?

[The Older Gentleman]

Paul Carmichael <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've seen the aftermath of so many deaths. Families fighting, solicitors
> getting really wealthy etc. I always told my folks not to leave anything.

"Where there's a will, there's a relative."

[Turby]

On 11/10/2020 9:54 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Paul Carmichael <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've seen the aftermath of so many deaths. Families fighting, solicitors
>> getting really wealthy etc. I always told my folks not to leave anything.
>
> "Where there's a will, there's a relative."
>

Akshewly, not always. I don't have any relatives, (that I know of,) but
I do have friends, and I'd just as soon my estate not go to the state.

[Champ]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:31:37 +0100, Paul Carmichael
<wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Not a big fan of inheritance. I recently inherited about 12K and it was gone before I even
>noticed it.

I'm no fan of inheritance either. When I'm feeling argumentative, I
sometimes say that inheritance tax should be 100% - everyone should
start with nothing.

>Yes, I'm a bad person. And life is very short.

You're not bad, and life can be sweet too
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

[Champ]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ogden <eld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You continue to happily fulfil the role of the the [new] Voice of
Reason

[wessie]

Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote in news:roepbn$g6i$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 11/10/2020 9:54 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> Paul Carmichael <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen the aftermath of so many deaths. Families fighting,
>>> solicitors getting really wealthy etc. I always told my folks not to
>>> leave anything.
>>
>> "Where there's a will, there's a relative."
>>
> Akshewly, not always. I don't have any relatives, (that I know of,)
> but I do have friends, and I'd just as soon my estate not go to the
> state.
>
>

you can be my Uncle Tom

[Mike Fleming]

In article <0eelqfdf6bul4tnut...@4ax.com>, Colin Irvine

I noticed there were an above-average number of postings today and my
first thought was that someone had got into a "debate" with YTC#1.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <roepbn$g6i$1...@dont-email.me>, Turby <xs...@xmail.com>
writes:

> On 11/10/2020 9:54 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > Paul Carmichael <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've seen the aftermath of so many deaths. Families fighting, solicitors
> >> getting really wealthy etc. I always told my folks not to leave anything.
> >
> > "Where there's a will, there's a relative."
> >
> Akshewly, not always. I don't have any relatives, (that I know of,) but
> I do have friends, and I'd just as soon my estate not go to the state.

I have no offspring but one step-son, one estranged step-daughter, and
six nephews and nieces. The stepson gets 52%, the nephews and nieces
48% (6% each, arithmetic is simpler), and estranged step-daughter gets
a painting. I'm hoping that'll be quite a long way in the future.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <XnsAC71D087D...@95.216.243.224>, wessie

"I wish there was something else you could call him except 'Uncle
Tom,' " Aunt Dahlia said a little testily. "Every time you do it, I
expect to see him turn black and start playing the banjo."
- P G Wodehouse

[Mike Fleming]

In article <dislqf5div82pdsho...@4ax.com>, Champ

<ne...@champ.org.uk> writes:

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:31:37 +0100, Paul Carmichael
> <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Not a big fan of inheritance. I recently inherited about 12K and it was gone before I even
> >noticed it.
>
> I'm no fan of inheritance either. When I'm feeling argumentative, I
> sometimes say that inheritance tax should be 100% - everyone should
> start with nothing.

What really got up my nose was when the Duke of Westminster pegged it
and his son became the Duke of Westminster and inherited all £4bn of
estate with no inheritance tax.

[ogden]

On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 21:42:39 UTC, Mike Fleming wrote:
> I have no offspring but one step-son, one estranged step-daughter, and
> six nephews and nieces. The stepson gets 52%, the nephews and nieces
> 48% (6% each, arithmetic is simpler)

Not simple enough, apparently.

[Bruce Horrocks]

I was wondering what the painting might be of.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[Mike Fleming]

In article <dcc41c29-f0e6-4d72...@googlegroups.com>,

I've had a long day.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <4de82b2d-bf8e-bf30...@scorecrow.com>, Bruce

Horrocks <07....@scorecrow.com> writes:

> On 10/11/2020 22:01, ogden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 21:42:39 UTC, Mike Fleming wrote:
> >> I have no offspring but one step-son, one estranged step-daughter, and
> >> six nephews and nieces. The stepson gets 52%, the nephews and nieces
> >> 48% (6% each, arithmetic is simpler)
> >
> > Not simple enough, apparently.
>
> I was wondering what the painting might be of.

The sea. If you leave a son or daughter nowt (she's not mine but she
is SWMBO's), that gives them an opportunity to contest the will.

[Turby]

On 11/10/2020 12:07 PM, Champ wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:31:37 +0100, Paul Carmichael
> <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not a big fan of inheritance. I recently inherited about 12K and it was gone before I even
>> noticed it.
>
> I'm no fan of inheritance either. When I'm feeling argumentative, I
> sometimes say that inheritance tax should be 100% - everyone should
> start with nothing.
>

Nothing. IKWYM, but still... People should have a roof over their heads,
a decent diet, and someone to set a good example. I had 2.5 out of the
3, plus a good education. Far too many don't get any.

[boots]

On 11/11/2020 05:56 Mike Fleming penned these words:

> What really got up my nose was when the Duke of Westminster pegged it
> and his son became the Duke of Westminster and inherited all £4bn of
> estate with no inheritance tax.

"Only the little people pay taxes"

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

[boots]

On 11/11/2020 00:42 YTC#1 penned these words:

>> It's not my fault that we don't have a properly-funded all-embracing
>> welfare state, to which I would have happily contributed my share. And
> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
> clever to bypass the funding.
>

At the risk of playing chess with pigeons, it is for the state to provide.
They have the mechanism in the tax system to do so, that they're more
interested in giving billions in relief to their mates is the problem.

[boots]

On 11/11/2020 00:12 ogden penned these words:

There is this. I rattled on and on at my parents to spend some of their hoard
on themselves. Turns out when Dad died he'd be buy £200 or so a month of
premium bonds for ages. It all disappeared at £5k a month paying for his care
in his last months.

[Colin Irvine]

<g>

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

[YTC#1]

This is the sort of response I should have expected from those who think
wealth should be hoarded and others should pay. People on the right are
always quick to accuse those with social leanings in an attempt to hide
or validate their position.

I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.

And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.

[YTC#1]

On 11/11/2020 01:44, boots wrote:
> On 11/11/2020 00:12 ogden penned these words:
>> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:07:56 UTC, Turby wrote:
>>> If so, I'd like to ask...
>>>
>>> As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
>>> course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
>>
>> Why should the heirs expect anything? I don't, other than fairness.
>>
>> Spunk what you can on whatever you want, donate the rest to worthy causes.
>>
>
> There is this. I rattled on and on at my parents to spend some of their hoard
> on themselves. Turns out when Dad died he'd be buy £200 or so a month of
> premium bonds for ages. It all disappeared at £5k a month paying for his care
> in his last months.
>

As it should be. It was his money, and it was used for his care.
Think of it as saving you from paying a touch more tax.

Now you can see how much care costs per month, maybe you understand why
the money has to be found ?

[Salad Dodger]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:09:05 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2020 17:44, ogden wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:42:47 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:

>>> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
>>> clever to bypass the funding.
>>
>> Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund?
>

>This is the sort of response I should have expected from those who think
>wealth should be hoarded and others should pay. People on the right are
>always quick to accuse those with social leanings in an attempt to hide
>or validate their position.

ogden, the well-known wealth-hoarding right-winger.

>
>I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.
>
>And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.

ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
--
Salad Dodger
1690 FLHTK;GL1800D
Previously ...
CB1300SA8;GL1800A6;GL1500SEV;CBR1100XXX;
CBR1000FL;CBX1000Z;GPz750R;Z750E1;Z650C2;
KH500A8;KH250B3;TS250c;TS185c.

[Stephen Packer]

On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 11:12:36 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:

> Now you can see how much care costs per month, maybe you understand why
> the money has to be found ?

Care costs 5k a month because, frankly, it's a privatised racket; unless, of course, this
included significant medical attention.

It costs 5k because the private companies know they're preying on people's life time
savings and that they can gulp this down before the state has to step in and fund once
the vast bulk of the estate has been taken. I'm fairly certain the state pays a much
lower rate.

[wessie]

Stephen Packer <stephen...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:266beb59-bf03-4191...@googlegroups.com:

yes

it is well documented that private residents of a care home are effectively
subsidising those paid by local authorities or the few funded by NHS
continuing health care.

Going back to 2010 when my mother went into residential care, her fees as a
self funder were £660 a week. The local authority base rate was £440 a
week.

I imagine the former is probably over a grand by now whilst the LA rate
will not be much over £500.

It really is a fucked up system that is far too complex which, as you say,
can be exploited by private companies.

[Paul Carmichael]

On 11/11/2020 16:28, wessie wrote:

> it is well documented that private residents of a care home are effectively
> subsidising those paid by local authorities or the few funded by NHS
> continuing health care.
>
> Going back to 2010 when my mother went into residential care, her fees as a
> self funder were £660 a week. The local authority base rate was £440 a
> week.
>
> I imagine the former is probably over a grand by now whilst the LA rate
> will not be much over £500.
>
> It really is a fucked up system that is far too complex which, as you say,
> can be exploited by private companies.
>

Over here, the beastie has uncovered a huge retirement home racket. Half of the inmates
have died.

Saved loads of money in pensions.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Chris N Deuchar]

In article <266beb59-bf03-4191...@googlegroups.com>,
stephen...@gmail.com says...

Absolutely!

--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

[Chris N Deuchar]

In article <rofflk$smq$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, news@millhouse-
communications.co.uk says...

>
> On 11/11/2020 00:42 YTC#1 penned these words:
> >> It's not my fault that we don't have a properly-funded all-embracing
> >> welfare state, to which I would have happily contributed my share. And
> > But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
> > clever to bypass the funding.
> >
>
> At the risk of playing chess with pigeons, it is for the state to provide.
> They have the mechanism in the tax system to do so, that they're more
> interested in giving billions in relief to their mates is the problem.

Yes, this last bit is the problem, over and over again.
QED

--

[Chris N Deuchar]

In article <amdnqf91h303ddo1r...@4ax.com>,
lo...@colinandpat.co.uk says...

+1

[ogden]

On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 14:35:04 UTC, Salad Dodger wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:09:05 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On 10/11/2020 17:44, ogden wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:42:47 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>
> >>> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
> >>> clever to bypass the funding.
> >>
> >> Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund?
> >
> >This is the sort of response I should have expected from those who think
> >wealth should be hoarded and others should pay. People on the right are
> >always quick to accuse those with social leanings in an attempt to hide
> >or validate their position.

Bruce, you muppet, I was both agreeing with your point, and suggesting you might be a fucking hypocrite.

"He is a tax-dodging bastard. They are tax avoiders. I am financially prudent." One of those irregular nouns.

> ogden, the well-known wealth-hoarding right-winger.

I chuckled.

> >I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.
> >
> >And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.
> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.

There's a spectrum from ISAs to the kind of offshore loss-making ventures that Gary Barlow would give his seal of approval, but I completely agree. I have money in ISAs, and a pension giving me higher-rate relief, because it's legal, I'm allowed to, and I'd be a mug if I didn't. I'm not going to deny myself the benefit that's open to me along with everyone else, but I also don't believe they, or vehicles like them, should really exist in the first place.

[Bruce Horrocks]

On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.

ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.

I'm sure the Treasury would have weighed up the loss of tax revenue
against the benefits of increased national savings before going ahead
with them.

[The Older Gentleman]

boots <ne...@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote:

> when Dad died he'd buy £200 or so a month of
> premium bonds for ages.

By rapping out Morse Code on the coffin lid?


--
Kawasaki Ninja H2; Ducati ST2; Yamaha 660 Ténéré; Guzzi Le
Mans II, V50; Honda CB125T2 CD200, CB400F, Yamaha 125 NMax
More secure garages needed....
neil underscore murray at fastmail dot fm

[Turby]

On 11/10/2020 1:44 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
> In article <XnsAC71D087D...@95.216.243.224>, wessie
> <willn...@tesco.net> writes:
>
>> Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote in news:roepbn$g6i$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 11/10/2020 9:54 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>>> Paul Carmichael <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen the aftermath of so many deaths. Families fighting,
>>>>> solicitors getting really wealthy etc. I always told my folks not to
>>>>> leave anything.
>>>>
>>>> "Where there's a will, there's a relative."
>>>>
>>> Akshewly, not always. I don't have any relatives, (that I know of,)
>>> but I do have friends, and I'd just as soon my estate not go to the
>>> state.
>>
>> you can be my Uncle Tom

With pleasure. We can dicker on which part(s) you get.

>
> "I wish there was something else you could call him except 'Uncle
> Tom,' " Aunt Dahlia said a little testily. "Every time you do it, I
> expect to see him turn black and start playing the banjo."
> - P G Wodehouse

> Turn black? Hah, if only. I turned grey a while ago. And my banjo
playing days are over. Fun times, though.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/turbster/31164629994/in/album-72157676664329092/

[wessie]

Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote in news:rohcm4$9ev$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 11/10/2020 1:44 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> In article <XnsAC71D087D...@95.216.243.224>, wessie
>> <willn...@tesco.net> writes:
>>
>>> Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote in news:roepbn$g6i$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 11/10/2020 9:54 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>>>> Paul Carmichael <wibble...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen the aftermath of so many deaths. Families fighting,
>>>>>> solicitors getting really wealthy etc. I always told my folks not
>>>>>> to leave anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Where there's a will, there's a relative."
>>>>>
>>>> Akshewly, not always. I don't have any relatives, (that I know of,)
>>>> but I do have friends, and I'd just as soon my estate not go to the
>>>> state.
>>>
>>> you can be my Uncle Tom
>
> With pleasure. We can dicker on which part(s) you get.
>

Dicker?

dicker
/'d?k?/
Learn to pronounce
verbNORTH AMERICAN
1.
engage in petty argument or bargaining.
"Sam advised him not to dicker over the extra fee"
2.
toy or fiddle with.


I'll take #1 please

[benb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 2:01:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
> > ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>
> ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.

Well it has its place, but spending is better for the economy. Why? Because one person's spending is another person's income. That's why interest rates go down in a recession - because fearful people save, but if everyone saves - some people lose their income.

Saving is good because of the time value of money, and because lots of old and poor people are a drain on the system.

[Salad Dodger]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:23:24 -0800 (PST), benb...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 2:01:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>> On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
>> > ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>>
>> ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.

How many folk have Ł20k *a year* to tuck away in an ISA?

Which'll pay, what 1.5%, so you'll save Ł60 a year in tax if you
invest the whole Ł20k. As incentives go, it's a bit shit.

CGT savings have the potential to be greater, but only the potential.

>
>Well it has its place, but spending is better for the economy.

Private virtue, public vice.

>Why? Because one person's spending is another person's income.
>That's why interest rates go down in a recession - because fearful people
>save, but if everyone saves - some people lose their income.

Also why Govts should spendtheir way out recession, not introduce
"austerity".

[benb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 8:36:59 PM UTC-5, Salad Dodger wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:23:24 -0800 (PST), benb...@gmail.com wrote:

> >Why? Because one person's spending is another person's income.
> >That's why interest rates go down in a recession - because fearful people
> >save, but if everyone saves - some people lose their income.
>
> Also why Govts should spendtheir way out recession, not introduce
> "austerity".

*ding*

And no serious economist thinks otherwise.

What I find amazing is that in the 2009 recession, the reaction of the government of the United States (the most obviously capitalist country in the world) was to spend. And the recession was relatively short. The UK implemented austerity, and - one could argue - the effects of 2009 are still being felt.

What I also find interesting about the difference between the two is that people in the UK think of their personal "wealth" largely with reference to their property value. Massive obsession with being "on the ladder", and how much house prices have gained. But over here, I find that people are much more focussed on stock market investments (which, over the long run, do indeed have higher returns). I suppose part of the difference is that you can't get a mortgage for a stock position.

[boots]

On 11/11/2020 23:20 Stephen Packer penned these words:

There was a level of nursing care, frankly I've no idea how they justify the
charges it certainly does not go towards staff wages.

[boots]

On 12/11/2020 03:01 The Older Gentleman penned these words:

> boots <ne...@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> when Dad died he'd buy £200 or so a month of
>> premium bonds for ages.
>
> By rapping out Morse Code on the coffin lid?

Ha.

[boots]

On 11/11/2020 19:12 YTC#1 penned these words:

> On 11/11/2020 01:44, boots wrote:
>>
>> There is this. I rattled on and on at my parents to spend some of their hoard
>> on themselves. Turns out when Dad died he'd be buy £200 or so a month of
>> premium bonds for ages. It all disappeared at £5k a month paying for his care
>> in his last months.
>>
>
> As it should be. It was his money, and it was used for his care.
> Think of it as saving you from paying a touch more tax.
>
> Now you can see how much care costs per month, maybe you understand why
> the money has to be found ?

As usual you miss the point. It should be found from general taxation, if that
is inadequate then more needs to be found either by cutting vanity projects
like nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers et al or by taxing sufficiently which
means making the avoiders and evaders pay their share. probably both.

[Gyp]

On 12/11/2020 01:36, Salad Dodger wrote:

> Which'll pay, what 1.5%, so you'll save £60 a year in tax if you
> invest the whole £20k. As incentives go, it's a bit shit.

I think mine's closer to 0.1%

Still, at least it's doing a lot better than the P2P lending that I set
up whereby I've lost capital because of loan defaults and had to pay tax
on the payments where the loans haven't defaulted.

--
Gyp

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[YTC#1]

On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:09:05 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2020 17:44, ogden wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:42:47 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>
>>>> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
>>>> clever to bypass the funding.
>>>
>>> Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund?
>>
>> This is the sort of response I should have expected from those who think
>> wealth should be hoarded and others should pay. People on the right are
>> always quick to accuse those with social leanings in an attempt to hide
>> or validate their position.
>
> ogden, the well-known wealth-hoarding right-winger.
>>
>> I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.
>>
>> And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.
>
> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>

Even you have confused tax avoiding with "protecting" assets so as to
not pay for your own end of life care.

[YTC#1]

On 11/11/2020 18:07, ogden wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 14:35:04 UTC, Salad Dodger wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:09:05 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2020 17:44, ogden wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:42:47 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>
>>>>> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
>>>>> clever to bypass the funding.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund?
>>>
>>> This is the sort of response I should have expected from those who think
>>> wealth should be hoarded and others should pay. People on the right are
>>> always quick to accuse those with social leanings in an attempt to hide
>>> or validate their position.
>
> Bruce, you muppet, I was both agreeing with your point, and suggesting you might be a fucking hypocrite.

But tax avoidance was not the subject, it was "protecting" assets to
avoid end of life care costs, therefor putting the costs on others.

>
> "He is a tax-dodging bastard. They are tax avoiders. I am financially prudent." One of those irregular nouns.
>
>
>> ogden, the well-known wealth-hoarding right-winger.
>
> I chuckled.
>
>
>>> I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.
>>>
>>> And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.
>> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>
> There's a spectrum from ISAs to the kind of offshore loss-making ventures that Gary Barlow would give his seal of approval, but I completely agree. I have money in ISAs, and a pension giving me higher-rate relief, because it's legal, I'm allowed to, and I'd be a mug if I didn't. I'm not going to deny myself the benefit that's open to me along with everyone else, but I also don't believe they, or vehicles like them, should really exist in the first place.
>

[YTC#1]

While I won't disagree there is a privatisation element to the fees,
this stuff still costs money.

Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
staff cost more.

[YTC#1]

On 11/11/2020 15:28, wessie wrote:
> Stephen Packer <stephen...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:266beb59-bf03-4191...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 11:12:36 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>
>>> Now you can see how much care costs per month, maybe you understand
>>> why the money has to be found ?
>>
>> Care costs 5k a month because, frankly, it's a privatised racket;
>> unless, of course, this included significant medical attention.
>>
>> It costs 5k because the private companies know they're preying on
>> people's life time savings and that they can gulp this down before the
>> state has to step in and fund once the vast bulk of the estate has
>> been taken. I'm fairly certain the state pays a much lower rate.
>>
>
> yes
>
> it is well documented that private residents of a care home are effectively
> subsidising those paid by local authorities or the few funded by NHS
> continuing health care.

I see no problem with that.

>
> Going back to 2010 when my mother went into residential care, her fees as a
> self funder were £660 a week. The local authority base rate was £440 a
> week.
>

> I imagine the former is probably over a grand by now whilst the LA rate
> will not be much over £500.
>
> It really is a fucked up system that is far too complex which, as you say,
> can be exploited by private companies.
>

Capitalism rocks !

[YTC#1]

On 12/11/2020 01:58, boots wrote:
> On 11/11/2020 23:20 Stephen Packer penned these words:
>> On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 11:12:36 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>
>>> Now you can see how much care costs per month, maybe you understand why
>>> the money has to be found ?
>>
>> Care costs 5k a month because, frankly, it's a privatised racket; unless, of course, this
>> included significant medical attention.
>>
>> It costs 5k because the private companies know they're preying on people's life time
>> savings and that they can gulp this down before the state has to step in and fund once
>> the vast bulk of the estate has been taken. I'm fairly certain the state pays a much
>> lower rate.
>
>
> There was a level of nursing care, frankly I've no idea how they justify the
> charges it certainly does not go towards staff wages.
>

The best example I can give is, think of what a decent hotel costs per
night. And that is without nursing/care staff and other health
facilities/obligations.

[YTC#1]

On 12/11/2020 02:02, boots wrote:
> On 11/11/2020 19:12 YTC#1 penned these words:
>> On 11/11/2020 01:44, boots wrote:
>>>
>>> There is this. I rattled on and on at my parents to spend some of their hoard
>>> on themselves. Turns out when Dad died he'd be buy £200 or so a month of
>>> premium bonds for ages. It all disappeared at £5k a month paying for his care
>>> in his last months.
>>>
>>
>> As it should be. It was his money, and it was used for his care.
>> Think of it as saving you from paying a touch more tax.
>>
>> Now you can see how much care costs per month, maybe you understand why
>> the money has to be found ?
>
> As usual you miss the point. It should be found from general taxation, if that

I have not missed the point. As that is slightly separate.

However others seem to think that their assets (house) should not be
used towards their own care.

> is inadequate then more needs to be found either by cutting vanity projects
> like nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers et al or by taxing sufficiently which
> means making the avoiders and evaders pay their share. probably both.

I can't disagree with that.

[Champ]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:01:47 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
>> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>
>ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.

Really? I'm not sure that's actually true
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

[Champ]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
>staff cost more.

Most carers in a nursing home are
a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
b) on minimum wage, or just above it

[The Older Gentleman]

YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote:

> The best example I can give is, think of what a decent hotel costs per
> night. And that is without nursing/care staff and other health
> facilities/obligations.

That's pretty much how I look at it.

[Sqirrel99]

ogden wrote:
>I have money in ISAs, and a pension giving me higher-rate relief, because it's legal,
>I'm allowed to, and I'd be a mug if I didn't. I'm not going to deny
myself the benefit
>that's open to me along with everyone else, but I also don't believe
they, or vehicles
>like them, should really exist in the first place.

Small scale tax avoidance schemes (pension relief, ISAs etc.) for the
'little people' are interesting though. They use selfishness as bait to
lure people into financial prudence, thereby preventing them from
becoming a larger burden further down the line.

[Salad Dodger]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:22:48 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>

wrote:

>On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:09:05 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2020 17:44, ogden wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:42:47 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>
>>>>> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
>>>>> clever to bypass the funding.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund?
>>>
>>> This is the sort of response I should have expected from those who think
>>> wealth should be hoarded and others should pay. People on the right are
>>> always quick to accuse those with social leanings in an attempt to hide
>>> or validate their position.
>>
>> ogden, the well-known wealth-hoarding right-winger.
>>>
>>> I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.
>>>
>>> And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.
>>
>> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>>
>
>Even you have confused tax avoiding with "protecting" assets so as to
>not pay for your own end of life care.

You were the one who dragged taxes into the conversation, in your
reply to ogden. Can't really complain when someone comments on it.

Well, you can, but it won't be a good look.

In what way is tax avoidance anything other than doing "something
clever to bypass funding", albeit on a smaller scale?

[Salad Dodger]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:52:19 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
>>staff cost more.
>
>Most carers in a nursing home are
>a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
>b) on minimum wage, or just above it

C) probably less than that
d) being invited to "fuck off back where they came from"

[ogden]

On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 19:01:51 UTC, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
> > ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
> ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.

An ISA paying out 0.1% on cash isn't really encouraging much saving and, as others have said, money sitting festering in an account doesn't drive much economic activity. The shop or restaurant about to go bust round the corner, and the people who work there, won't benefit a great deal from my rainy-day fund unless I'm drawing down on it. Japan was known as a 'nation of savers' for decades, and became one of the leading examples of economic stagnation. Now I ain't saying correlation implies causation, but it totally does.

Credit, otoh, credit is fucking great for the economy. In the short term. All that made-up money going round and round and round, generating wealth for everyone it touches, right up to the point it lands back in some cunt's ISA.

> I'm sure the Treasury would have weighed up the loss of tax revenue
> against the benefits of increased national savings before going ahead
> with them.

I'm sure the Treasury would have weighed up the optics of giving people tax cuts before going ahead with them.

[ogden]

Salad Dodger wrote:
> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote:
> >Salad Dodger wrote:
> >> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote:

> >>> ogden wrote:
> >>>> YTC#1 wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
> >>>>> clever to bypass the funding.
> >>>> Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund?

> >>> I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.

I noticed Bruce ignored the bit about using your company to shield yourself from tax as a contractor. "Do you pay taxes?" wasn't really the question.

> >>> And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.
> >>
> >> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
> >
> >Even you have confused tax avoiding with "protecting" assets so as to
> >not pay for your own end of life care.
> You were the one who dragged taxes into the conversation, in your
> reply to ogden. Can't really complain when someone comments on it.

To be fair, I did lead him into it.

> In what way is tax avoidance anything other than doing "something
> clever to bypass funding", albeit on a smaller scale?

Precisely. It's all "someone else should pay for the things we need" one way or another.

[Pete Fisher]

I have no issue with 'pooling' when it comes to things like end of life
care. I wouldn't have minded having to still pay NI contributions (out
of my superannuation and state pension) though retired. I'm sure a
suitable threshold income could be set. I wasn't one of those lobbying
for an increase in the IHT threshold, but a 100% rate with a very low
threshold would seem a step too far.

If going for the 'blow it all on coke and hookers (or motorcycles[1])'
option best make a start early to avoid falling foul of 'deprivation of
assets'.

"suddenly spending a lot of money in a way which is unusual for your
normal spending.
gambling the money away.
[1] using savings to buy possessions, such as jewellery or a car, which
would be excluded from the means test."

"The ant and the grasshopper, everyone knows how the story goes,..."







--
Moto Morini 2C/375, Moto Morini 2C/350
Gilera GFR, Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

[YTC#1]

On 12/11/2020 11:03, Salad Dodger wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:22:48 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:09:05 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2020 17:44, ogden wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:42:47 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But that is where the problem lies, whenever someone does something
>>>>>> clever to bypass the funding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have an ISA, Bruce? What about a pension fund?
>>>>
>>>> This is the sort of response I should have expected from those who think
>>>> wealth should be hoarded and others should pay. People on the right are
>>>> always quick to accuse those with social leanings in an attempt to hide
>>>> or validate their position.
>>>
>>> ogden, the well-known wealth-hoarding right-winger.
>>>>
>>>> I pay taxes, yes. My company pays taxes, yes.
>>>>
>>>> And funds (like ISAs) will be taken into account for care home fees.
>>>
>>> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>>>
>>
>> Even you have confused tax avoiding with "protecting" assets so as to
>> not pay for your own end of life care.
>
>
> You were the one who dragged taxes into the conversation, in your
> reply to ogden. Can't really complain when someone comments on it.
>

Obviously I disagree, as soon as he mentioned ISAs, Pensions and
dividends there was a tax implication in his statement.

[YTC#1]

On 12/11/2020 09:52, Champ wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
>> staff cost more.
>
> Most carers in a nursing home are
> a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
> b) on minimum wage, or just above it
>

And
a) They should be
b) They should be paid more.

[wessie]

Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in news:u41qqfth5uhq80us4s41llkoi6lmst2i8m@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:01:47 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
> <07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
>>> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>>
>>ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.
>
> Really? I'm not sure that's actually true

it's not doing Japan a lot of good - loads of older people with substantial
savings is, I believe, a contributory factor to their 30 years of
stagnation [1]

They started calling it the lost decade in 2000 but have extended it every
10 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)



[1] I typed this before ogden replied but got called back to do some <spit>
work before I finished and hit send

[Mike Fleming]

In article <roirob$c4h$5...@dont-email.me>, YTC#1

<b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> writes:

> On 12/11/2020 01:58, boots wrote:
> > On 11/11/2020 23:20 Stephen Packer penned these words:
> >> On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 11:12:36 UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Now you can see how much care costs per month, maybe you understand why
> >>> the money has to be found ?
> >>
> >> Care costs 5k a month because, frankly, it's a privatised racket; unless, of course, this
> >> included significant medical attention.
> >>
> >> It costs 5k because the private companies know they're preying on people's life time
> >> savings and that they can gulp this down before the state has to step in and fund once
> >> the vast bulk of the estate has been taken. I'm fairly certain the state pays a much
> >> lower rate.
> >
> >
> > There was a level of nursing care, frankly I've no idea how they justify the
> > charges it certainly does not go towards staff wages.
>
> The best example I can give is, think of what a decent hotel costs per
> night. And that is without nursing/care staff and other health
> facilities/obligations.

And another thing that hotels and private nursing homes have in common
is profits.

--
Mike Fleming Coitum volantum non dono
Quantum ille canis est in fenestra? - molesworth

[Champ]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:02:16 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 12/11/2020 09:52, Champ wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
>>> staff cost more.

>> Most carers in a nursing home are
>> a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
>> b) on minimum wage, or just above it

>And
>a) They should be
>b) They should be paid more.

So you're moaning about the cost of long term care, but you want to do
two things that will definitely make it more expensive. OK.

[Gyp]

On 12/11/2020 16:49, Champ wrote:

>>> Most carers in a nursing home are
>>> a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
>>> b) on minimum wage, or just above it
>
>> And
>> a) They should be
>> b) They should be paid more.
>
> So you're moaning about the cost of long term care, but you want to do
> two things that will definitely make it more expensive. OK.

I'd be interested in the relative cost of the buildings and the staff,
as I suspect a significant part of the cost of running the business is
in servicing the real estate costs.

[Stephen Packer]

On Thursday, 12 November 2020 at 16:49:02 UTC, Champ wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:02:16 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On 12/11/2020 09:52, Champ wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
> >>> staff cost more.
>
> >> Most carers in a nursing home are
> >> a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
> >> b) on minimum wage, or just above it
>
> >And
> >a) They should be
> >b) They should be paid more.
> So you're moaning about the cost of long term care, but you want to do
> two things that will definitely make it more expensive. OK.

I think it was me that was moaning about it.

YTC was justifying the cost of it.

[Turby]

On 11/11/2020 12:50 PM, wessie wrote:
> Turby <xs...@xmail.com> wrote in news:rohcm4$9ev$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 11/10/2020 1:44 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> In article <XnsAC71D087D...@95.216.243.224>, wessie
>>> <willn...@tesco.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> you can be my Uncle Tom
>>
>> With pleasure. We can dicker on which part(s) you get.
>>
>
> Dicker?
>
> dicker
> /'d?k?/
> Learn to pronounce
> verbNORTH AMERICAN
> 1.
> engage in petty argument or bargaining.
> "Sam advised him not to dicker over the extra fee"
> 2.
> toy or fiddle with.
>
>
> I'll take #1 please
>

HAH! for years I've been baffled by Brit colloquialisms on UKRM. Finally
I score a point.


--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS, ST1100 (in memorium)

[Hog]

On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 16:12:21 UTC, ogden wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:07:56 UTC, Turby wrote:
> > If so, I'd like to ask...
> >
> > As a person approaches the end of life, should he or she do a crash
> > course in bucket list stuff, or conserve to be more generous to the heirs?
> Why should the heirs expect anything? I don't, other than fairness.
>
> Spunk what you can on whatever you want, donate the rest to worthy causes.

VOR

[Hog]

I recall some of the horrific history of local authority care homes, for the elderly and the young.

My outlook on residential elderly care is straightforward, NFW. If I need it then it's time to check out, DNR

[Mike Fleming]

In article <rok4pc$om$1...@dont-email.me>, Gyp <a@b.c> writes:

> On 12/11/2020 16:49, Champ wrote:
>
> >>> Most carers in a nursing home are
> >>> a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
> >>> b) on minimum wage, or just above it
> >
> >> And
> >> a) They should be
> >> b) They should be paid more.
> >
> > So you're moaning about the cost of long term care, but you want to do
> > two things that will definitely make it more expensive. OK.
>
> I'd be interested in the relative cost of the buildings and the staff,
> as I suspect a significant part of the cost of running the business is
> in servicing the real estate costs.

It'll be one of those things where the buildings are owned by a
company in the BVI or Caymans, etc, and the company running the care
home pays the company owning the buildings rent, and possibly some
company in Luxembourg for intellectual property (see also: Starbucks,
who get their coffee beans from that well-known coffee-bean-producing
country, Switzerland). See also the Inland Revenue:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/sep/24/uk.economy

[Mark Olson]

Salad Dodger <salad....@idnet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:52:19 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
>>>staff cost more.
>>
>>Most carers in a nursing home are
>>a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
>>b) on minimum wage, or just above it
>
> C) probably less than that
> d) being invited to "fuck off back where they came from"

The staff at my mother's care home are almost universally nice ladies
(a few men sprinkled in here and ther) from east Africa, who are
apparently the only folks willing to do the physically demanding work
for the minimum wages offered.

If d) ever came to pass there'd be a huge crisis but most of the
selfish racist anti-immigrants don't think that far ahead.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, Vespa Ciao

[Bruce Horrocks]

On 12/11/2020 09:47, Champ wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:01:47 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
> <07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
>>> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>>
>> ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.
>
> Really? I'm not sure that's actually true
>

As with most economic theory there's never a one size fits all.

One effect of spending is that it increases employment or reduces
unemployment. This is Ben's "one person's spending is another's income"
point.

But it also affects the balance of payments, aka the current account.

The current account is defined as the value of savings minus investment.
But it is also defined as exports minus imports. The two things are linked.

So if savings go up then either imports have to go down or exports have
to go up - which are usually seen as good things.

There's an explanation at the URL below - it's not brilliant but I
couldn't find a clearer one. :-(

<https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6411/economics/current-account-savings-investment/>

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[Bruce Horrocks]

On 12/11/2020 11:11, ogden wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 at 19:01:51 UTC, Bruce Horrocks
> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2020 14:35, Salad Dodger wrote:
>>> ISAs are tax avoidance vehicles, pure and simple.
>> ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the
>> economy.
>
> An ISA paying out 0.1% on cash isn't really encouraging much saving
> and, as others have said, money sitting festering in an account
> doesn't drive much economic activity. The shop or restaurant about to

Your savings don't actually sit in the bank though. The bank lends them
out which drives economic activity.

> go bust round the corner, and the people who work there, won't
> benefit a great deal from my rainy-day fund unless I'm drawing down
> on it. Japan was known as a 'nation of savers' for decades, and
> became one of the leading examples of economic stagnation. Now I
> ain't saying correlation implies causation, but it totally does.

You can always have too much of a good thing - or put another way Japan
is the exception that proves the rule. Just as Zimbabwe issued 100
trillion dollar notes as a consequence of spending too much and not
saving enough.

> Credit, otoh, credit is fucking great for the economy. In the short
> term. All that made-up money going round and round and round,
> generating wealth for everyone it touches, right up to the point it
> lands back in some cunt's ISA.
>
>
>> I'm sure the Treasury would have weighed up the loss of tax
>> revenue against the benefits of increased national savings before
>> going ahead with them.
>
> I'm sure the Treasury would have weighed up the optics of giving
> people tax cuts before going ahead with them.

[boots]

On 13/11/2020 07:34 Mark Olson penned these words:

>> d) being invited to "fuck off back where they came from"

>...

>
> If d) ever came to pass there'd be a huge crisis but most of the
> selfish racist anti-immigrants don't think that far ahead.

To the gammon's the immigrant workers are like the house elves in the Potter
franchise.


--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

[boots]

On 12/11/2020 18:19 The Older Gentleman penned these words:

> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The best example I can give is, think of what a decent hotel costs per
>> night. And that is without nursing/care staff and other health
>> facilities/obligations.
>
> That's pretty much how I look at it.
>

Having seen the inside of more than one nursing home they are far cry from the
standard of a decent hotel, more a moth eaten Blackpool B&B.

[boots]

On 12/11/2020 18:48 Sqirrel99 penned these words:

With some exceptions e.g. lump sum the tax avoided going into a pension is
then paid when it is withdrawn. It is not so much avoidance as postponement.

[YTC#1]

On 13/11/2020 02:29, boots wrote:
> On 12/11/2020 18:19 The Older Gentleman penned these words:
>> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The best example I can give is, think of what a decent hotel costs per
>>> night. And that is without nursing/care staff and other health
>>> facilities/obligations.
>>
>> That's pretty much how I look at it.
>>
> Having seen the inside of more than one nursing home they are far cry from the
> standard of a decent hotel, more a moth eaten Blackpool B&B.
>

Ah, I was not talking about the standard as such. Just the cost to
provide. And I have stayed in some expensive shit hole hotels, so it can
go both ways.

However, there are some really nice care homes. (SO has done assignments
in some on behalf of the NHS).

The nice ones cost a packet for those that pay.
The NHS beds are paid for at a vastly reduced rate, which is still a
strain on the NHS.

[YTC#1]

On 12/11/2020 16:49, Champ wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:02:16 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2020 09:52, Champ wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
>>>> staff cost more.
>
>>> Most carers in a nursing home are
>>> a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
>>> b) on minimum wage, or just above it
>
>> And
>> a) They should be
>> b) They should be paid more.
>
> So you're moaning about the cost of long term care, but you want to do

No, I'm not.
Go back and re-read it.

> two things that will definitely make it more expensive. OK.
>

You get what you pay for. Unfortunately people don't want to pay, which
is what I complained about.

[Champ]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:26:33 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>>> ISAs encourage saving and saving is generally good for the economy.

>> Really? I'm not sure that's actually true

>As with most economic theory there's never a one size fits all.

"If you laid a 100 economists end to end, they still wouldn't reach a
conclusion"

>One effect of spending is that it increases employment or reduces
>unemployment. This is Ben's "one person's spending is another's income"
>point.
>
>But it also affects the balance of payments, aka the current account.
>
>The current account is defined as the value of savings minus investment.
>But it is also defined as exports minus imports. The two things are linked.
>
>So if savings go up then either imports have to go down or exports have
>to go up - which are usually seen as good things.

I at all agree with that. Seeing imports vs exports as a zero-sum
game is a very Trumpian view of economics - as if China is "winning"
by exporting more to the US than the US does to China.

[Champ]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:52:19 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:26:35 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Staff, like need a wage they can live on. And proper qualified nursing
>>staff cost more.

>Most carers in a nursing home are
>a) not "properly qualified nursing staff"
>b) on minimum wage, or just above it

And, right on cue:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/13/three-quarters-of-englands-care-workers-earn-below-real-living-wage

[Mike Fleming]

In article <78abd35a-b71d-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>,

Hog <yor...@gmail.com> writes:

> I recall some of the horrific history of local authority care homes, for the elderly and the young.
>
> My outlook on residential elderly care is straightforward, NFW. If I need it then it's time to check out, DNR

You wouldn't go into any care home that would have you as a resident?

Current mother-in-law is in a care home paid for by the council (they
got their house back though), which seems very good, and has been very
protective during the coronavirus issues. Former mother-in-law is
(AFAIK, ex-wife hasn't told me she is no longer extant) in sheltered
housing, which she and late ex-father-in-law moved to when he got MND.
I think I'd rather be looked after in a decent care home than dead,
excepting if I got Alzheimers.