Is It morally Right for a government to take possession of sick peoples homes?

Question

In some parts of Great Britian, it is common practice for the government to take possession of the house of someone who is taken into care because they are unable to cope alone.
This property is often something the person has worked and paid tax for all his or her life yet the Government can legally snatch it from them and spend the proceeds any way it likes.

I think this practice is disgusting and should be voted out immediatly. what do you think?

I suggest you go and get your facts right "Bloomin Eck" Perhaps then we'll know who's talking nonsense

Logicalawyer has implied lack of knowledge On my part. BloominEck accuses me of talking nonsense. Butter it up any way you please, it dosn't take away from the fact that this is just another example of a tax by stelth. I know of a case whereby an old lady was taken into a care home, her property was signed over to pay for her care. She died whithin one week but the remaining money was not returned to her family. The GOVERNMENT IS SAVING MILLIONS on this dispicable crime and so spending the proceeds on whatever it likes. If I'm hystrical about it WHO IN HELLS NAME CAN BLAME ME!!!

Answer 1

Hey Bill

I agree with you! As a nurse i have seen too many families facing up to long term care of a loved one that resulted in losing the family home. It was bad enough watching someone they loved leave home for a care home but also having to empty the house of all their possession, and be left with no other option but to sell it.

Where the government is concerned ... It;s only mortar and bricks when in fact ... it's people's lives! Their memories, happy/sad, the place where they felt safe, secure and loved. It also aggravates their feelings of guilt/sorrow as they do not only lose one person but also their past history, while making it also harder on the person who most times ... Spent their lives working, paying tax, social security stamp etc.

I find this practise so ghastly wrong, totally unacceptable as well.

Answer 2

I just wanted to comment on the process here. Bloomin Eck is right that the sick person is forced to sell their home and that the government does not snatch it away. Having said that though where the patient is not mentally fit to control his own assets they must grant power of attorney for someone else to do it. I just wanted to add that it is often the elderly who suffer from this as they are the ones most likely to need care. Does it really make any difference who sells the house, the end result is still the same - He has no home.

Does Bloomin Eck really think it is right that a person who has scrimped and saved to buy their own home and pay taxes to support those who just want it easy all their life should be forced to sell their children's inheritance while the dole bludger he has supported through his taxes gets the same care paid by the state? I can't beleive there are people as cold as you out there, and in fact I am pretty sure your response was simply designed to provoke a reaction!!

I am sorry if that sounds harsh but I tottally agree in that this is unacceptable practice and should be eradicated immediately.

Answer 3

The lack of knowledge is quite evident here;

they don't take possession, they take a statutory charge, which means they have the power to sell the property on the persons death and apportion the reasonable costs which are incurred while there are alive in care.

Equity will not allow unjust enrichment, which is not happening here.

Sadly as most people don't last that long when this happens the power of sale, only recovers reasonable costs so after they are paid, the proceed could go to family under a will or intestacy.

Increasingly it is because these infirm people have no family, that the property is sold via escheat goes back to the crown.That is the system its always been.
As the lawyers amongst you know, no one really owns land, you have a tenure, only the crown owns all the land in the uk.

Answer 4

This particular governement is extremely grasping. We have already been taxed to death for no particular benefit: no noticeable improvement in the Health service, no better results in schools, a war which nobody wanted. They are particularly brilliant at justifying the measures they take and at ignoring the people's wishes (1 million people demonstrated against the war in the streets of London passed them by...)
So we should not be surprised that they can take someone's house with impunity.
That's not all. Just watch out for the new law that John Prescott (surely an example of high moral standards to the rest of us!) is trying to pass which will allow a council to take possession and rent out any property which has been lying empty for six months. If that's not the actions of a totalitarian regime, I don't know what is.
It's hightime to boot them out as they have got too big for their boots.

Answer 5

Going against the grain on this one... If a person is no longer able to look after themselves in their own home, the government has a 'duty of care' to ensure that their basic needs are met. Unfortunately, this costs a lot of money. I think it is right that if a person has assets that can be disposed of to pay for that care, then that's what should happen.

By opposing this, you are in effect volunteering to pay for the protection of other people's inheritance. I do have sympathy for people in this situation as they have worked hard to provide security for their families but I am also acutely aware that we will not be able to support an ageing population that is unwilling to pay for itself, despite being able to do so in some cases.

From a moral perspective, the greater good is better served by people that can pay being legally obliged to. In this way, the less fortunate in society will be more likely to avoid abject poverty and premature death as public money won't be spent on the protection of private wealth.

Answer 6

Of course it's not right. But, being the devils advocate the government will be spending a lot of money on someone who is ill. BTW, the same thing goes on here in the good ol' USA. Best thing to do is put any valuables (house, car etc)into another relatives name. I know people here who have done it and it seems to work out just fine. OH! Morally? Since when do governments do the morally right thing? Look at all the diseases that aspartame causes and then tell me our gov't is moral.

Answer 7

I think it is wrong and utterly despicable. The house (and the persons possessions) have been bought and paid for through that persons hard work. We are taxed on our earnings and pay NI, and this practice adds insult to injury. The sick person probably wants that money to go to family when they die or to be saved in case an operation is needed urgently and the only way to get it is privately. In this country though you are penalised for working hard and saving through tax yet if you scrounge off the state all your life everything is provided for you! Also many of todays elderly people fought for us in the war and this is how the government repays them! I'm behind you 100% on this one!

Answer 8

Of course its right!!! However else do you expect this poor government to be able to pay for their treatment - look at all the bills they have... "Assylum" seekers wanting new homes & money to look after their many wives and children, government buildings that exceed budgets, gp's that work sooo hard they have to get paid £250k, well the list is endless.... ;(

This country is a joke!!! We used to be "Great Britain" and have an "Empire" - look at what these politicians have done to it... Screwed the last little bit of money out of us for their gain - take houses off us after we've paid taxes all our lives, waste public money on crap!

Why dont the British people take their heads out of the sand and look around themselves... If we have people living on the streets, then how on earth can we allow assylum seekers to travel halfway round the world & land on our soil getting the red carpet treatment - a house you say ? - certainly sir - 5 beds or 6? would you also want a car with that?

Look at how many people are leaving this country... fewer working people = higher taxes....

get blair & his cronies out - get people like ukip or similar in... leave the EU (Costs us billions for no benefit) & tell America where to go... (I think we need to re-negotiate our "Friendship" with the states)

Answer 9

Why oh why can the Blairites do this? So you pay your taxes et cetera and then the government just takes your house? You should be able to claim back everything you have paid into the house from the government in return then!

Question: does the person taken into care have to pay for the care also? (doublewhammy?)

Answer 10

You're talking nonsense. The government can compel people who are receiving state care to sell their homes in order to fund that care, and the money is used specifically to pay for their care, but the government doesn't just get the cash to spend on what it likes. Once they have less than £32K in the bank ( I think, though it might be £16K), the state covers all the costs. Why should people with large assets, i.e. their houses, expect the rest of us to fund their care just so they can keep their assets and pass them on to their kids?
*********************************************************

Bill_M - Can you find me a link please showing that the government takes possession of sick people's homes and sells them, spending the money on what it sees fit? Whilst you're at it, you might want to read http://www.cover-mag.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=330990
which quite clearly states the true case, which is that people are forced to sell their homes (note, the owner sells the house, not snatched by the govt) to fund their personal care (note, not spent in any way the govt sees fit). Now you might think this is wrong too, but it's a completely different scenario from the hysterical and hopelessly inaccurate one you paint in your question.