Fair Deal changes might actually happen but...

I replied to your post which said:

You had mentioned WOC in relation to signing the FD scheme only. The court can extend powers far beyond that to signing up to FD scheme. Just letting you know as you apparently were not aware of this.....if you were, it begs the question why you would be trying to confront me over something that you actually know is correct!!!!

Yes, all I said is that that could be changed so that everyone benefits. And was attacked from it. Simple concept to get the idea across would be a 6% contribution for the 3 years plus 50% of the market value of the rent whether it is rented or not. But no additional HSE charge on actual rent received.

Then people can either choose to rent it, hand over 50% and have the other 50% subject to normal income (ringfenced for the benefit of the owner, not straight into the pocket of any impatient future beneficiaries) or they can leave it idle and allow the amount to be added up for the duration the property is vacant. If there would be a spouse still in the house then it doesn't count.

Well that is the point.

But a person can't pretend they are covering the entire cost of the care via their contributions if they aren't really.

For 1,000 Euro per week you'd need the property to be worth almost 700k. 1,500/w gets you up over 1m. And even at that, once you get past 3 years you'd be in "profit" so to speak. That is under FD calculations.

However if a person sold the property, they would have the money to pay for it. The otherwise beneficiaries would have to make do with whatever is left over at the end.

I'm not knocking the deal. I think it is a good one. I'm just being honest about it.

But that is the choice. If a family is unable to make the effort, then the State does. It is a lot of effort to do so and takes a lot of resources. Therefore it would not be unreasonable for something reasonable to be allowed in return.

There seems to be plenty of people who, due to their own individual circumstances, appear to be against the idea of renting out a property. It is impossible for them to do so. I wonder how many of them would suddenly find a way to make it happen if the government changed the scheme so that 100% of any rent received went tax free into the bank account of the owner

Are there not still council schemes etc no? You get a percentage of the market rent guaranteed and get the place back in a guaranteed condition?

If it's the ill/elderly person's property. They should be the only ones whose benefits are taken into account.

I meant benefit in the sense of the action being done to their benefit.

Only the owner of the house's circumstances should be taken into account and decisions should be based on what provides most benefit to them alone. If a decision doesn't disadvantage the owner, then the fact it might affect a future recipient of an inheritance is irrelevant.

Well for the point regarding the proceeds of the sale, they would belong to the owner and the 22.5% could be deposited with the court.

If a person has no capacity, they aren't wheeled into a court to give evidence on a stretcher.

What kind of a system would require an incapacitated person to be directly involved in the process to prove they were incapacitated 🤣