4 ms·

> But as another post has mentioned, objections include "think of the old people who are worth $1m+ in property but would have to move out because they have low

> But as another post has mentioned, objections include "think of the old people who are worth $1m+ in property but would have to move out because they have low income"....boohoo... Cruel. There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home.

Blackstone4 7y ago
I guess it depends on your perspective. It may mean pain for some and relief for others with a view to moving towards a more optimal solution for society as a whole. How can we use our housing stock more effectively? As things stand, people defend the status quo when young people and those on lower incomes are struggling with high rents and property prices. Some have kids and have to share rooms and live in small properties. Others may end up debt slaves for the rest of their lives. >There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home. If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals.
- gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
  > If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals. Except that you are. There are plenty of old people in London and the South East with very modest pensions that live in homes that have exploded in value through no fault of their own. They are not wealthy they just happen to live in a home that has become expensive. I don't know if you have seen how confused a someone with dementia becomes when you move them to a new environment but it can be pretty horrible. And cheerfully saying that now this formerly independent person has to now pay for care because you took a policy decision is cruel. The solution to a problem with society is not to hurt other people. This isn't a zero sum game where pain should be apportioned. We could actually come up with solutions that help everyone. Like simply building more homes...

Blackstone4 7y ago

I guess it depends on your perspective. It may mean pain for some and relief for others with a view to moving towards a more optimal solution for society as a whole. How can we use our housing stock more effectively? As things stand, people defend the status quo when young people and those on lower incomes are struggling with high rents and property prices. Some have kids and have to share rooms and live in small properties. Others may end up debt slaves for the rest of their lives. >There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home. If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals.

gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
> If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals. Except that you are. There are plenty of old people in London and the South East with very modest pensions that live in homes that have exploded in value through no fault of their own. They are not wealthy they just happen to live in a home that has become expensive. I don't know if you have seen how confused a someone with dementia becomes when you move them to a new environment but it can be pretty horrible. And cheerfully saying that now this formerly independent person has to now pay for care because you took a policy decision is cruel. The solution to a problem with society is not to hurt other people. This isn't a zero sum game where pain should be apportioned. We could actually come up with solutions that help everyone. Like simply building more homes...