Can anyone explain why, when someone dies, most of what he (or she – Ed) has saved up over a lifetime should be turned over to politicians, rather than to his (or her – Ed) heirs?
Many stories have emerged in the media detailing how people who have behaved financially, ie been prudent, have ‘lost’ their ‘assets’ (be that savings or ‘property value’, when they have needed ‘care’ in their final years (ie care homes).
I hold Power of Attorney for a lady, currently 103 years of age, whose savings were just over the border line whereby she could receive ‘free care’. This lady, who lost her ‘one and only love’ during World War II and never married, worked all her life for one employer and by means of ‘due diligence’ accumulated what, to some, would be considered a small fortune.
When I assumed control of her affairs I ensured that she was entitled to every state benefit for which she was eligible, on the principle she had contributed into the ‘system’ all her working life, one which immigrants now enjoy for which they have paid no contributions. I am no accountant, nor tax expert, but through careful research I have manged to ‘lose’ the ‘excess money’ so that she is now able to receive those state benefits to which she is entitled.
Also, recently, I was able to advise someone whose home was held 50/50 as ‘tenants in common’ with her child to transfer 100% ownership of their home to her child. This means that the state cannot claim on her home to pay for any later-life care she may need. I also arranged for her savings (which amounted to nearly six figures) to be placed ‘in trust’ for the benefit of her child – which means the state can’t grab that either. As in the centurion above, this person had worked all her life teaching and had paid into the ‘system’ and, in my opinion, is entitled to every state benefit available.
In both instances, where the preceding paragraph is concerned, the ‘seven-year-rule’ applies. Allowing for this some councils are more ‘understanding’ than others, of which mine is one and my solicitor is of the firm opinion that should this lady die within the now 6 years remaining that there will not be a problem.
Why do we allow the state to ‘grab’ our hard- earned money and savings we have accrued without our approval? In this regard I must refer to ‘Referism’ – an idea first proposed by Richard AE North and which has been incorporated into The Harrogate Agenda (point 5).
Is it not time we took control of our personal money and decided how it is to be spent rather than, as at present, it being forcibly taken from us under pain of imprisonment if we disagree?