People complaining about paying for their own care again = massive entitlement

[SexyGreyFox]

why should we now have to fork out for the oldies' care? What's wrong with them just getting a loan on their houses or selling them etc..? Gotta love these baby boomers overinflated sense of entitlement!

Just wait until your parents are older and you've been looking forward to the house and money they've left you in their wills but all of a sudden it's all being taken away from you for their care.
You'll soon change your mind.

 

[cheesyboy]

Just wait until your parents are older and you've been looking forward to the house and money they've left you in their wills but all of a sudden it's all being taken away from you for their care.
You'll soon change your mind.

Protecting inheritance is a TERRIBLE reason to defend taxing young people to pay for wealthy old people's care.

 

[GGizmo]

Does anyone know where the subject came from that OP is talking about? Does anyone have any links?

 

[cheesyboy]

Does anyone know where the subject came from that OP is talking about? Does anyone have any links?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...tect-elderly-46k-social-care-cap-say-MPs.html

 

[Dolph]

Protecting inheritance is a TERRIBLE reason to defend taxing young people to pay for wealthy old people's care.

Means tested charging is a great way to ensure people pass their assets on well in advance...

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Protecting inheritance is a TERRIBLE reason to defend taxing young people to pay for wealthy old people's care.

Personally I believe that after 50 years of working the least we can give our OAPs who have paid tax all their lives is to give them a decent pension and to look after them up until they die.

Means tested charging is a great way to ensure people pass their assets on well in advance...

We've just started this with our assets and it's going to cost around £1000 so we can pass everything to our daughters.
Hopefully they won't charge us rent.

 

[Rroff]

Personally I believe that after 50 years of working the least we can give our OAPs who have paid tax all their lives is to give them a decent pension and to look after them up until they die.

Not aimed at you but problem is so many people looking just to their personal circumstances - I don't begrudge the generations before me but the whole situation needs sorting for generations down the line and that isn't fixed just by knee jerk grasping at people who have done better for themselves as some of these people who are very vocal about how unfair inheritances are, etc. go on.

 

[Surveyor]

We've just started this with our assets and it's going to cost around £1000 so we can pass everything to our daughters.
Hopefully they won't charge us rent.

Presumably you're referring to your home. How are you avoiding the gift with reservation of benefit rules without paying a market rent?

 

[cheesyboy]

Means tested charging is a great way to ensure people pass their assets on well in advance...

That's possible, but to give up your assets means losing the benefit of having them. And if you treat such disposals in the same way as IHT (whereby any disposal in the past 7 years is brought in) then it will be tough to avoid entirely.

Means testing care provision (including 'notional assets' for recent disposals) has been happening for some time now, so it's pretty settled.

 

[cheesyboy]

Personally I believe that after 50 years of working the least we can give our OAPs who have paid tax all their lives is to give them a decent pension and to look after them up until they die.

Absolutely.

But that doesn't include insulating their assets to take to the grave. I don't see why that should be included in 'looking after' them.

 

[muon]

Means tested charging is a great way to ensure people pass their assets on well in advance...

Which is actually a good thing. Currently assets are passed on from older generations to older generations.

 

[muon]

Just wait until your parents are older and you've been looking forward to the house and money they've left you in their wills but all of a sudden it's all being taken away from you for their care.
You'll soon change your mind.

What a terrible argument.

This post exemplifies the entire problem.

Personally I believe that after 50 years of working the least we can give our OAPs who have paid tax all their lives is to give them a decent pension and to look after them up until they die.

That's the thing. Most people haven't paid enough tax to cover their pensions and care. We are dumping it on future generations through debt and blindly protecting these benefits. It is complete hypocrisy as we haven't spend so much money on a single generation in the history of the UK.

Everything should be means tested. Fortunately I would like to think I will be relatively well off in my old age. I would be ashamed to get free care and a generous index linked pension at the expense of cutting benefits for the poor and less well off working class whilst simultaneously having to keep public sector pay at awful levels in order to balance the books. Apart from children, most of the public sector exists to protect that older generation as well.

I'm not saying that the government shouldn't protect the vulnerable, but it should be means tested. They should focus their efforts on those who are unable to protect and care for themselves.

 

[Dolph]

What a terrible argument.

This post exemplifies the entire problem.



That's the thing. Most people haven't paid enough tax to cover their pensions and care. We are dumping it on future generations through debt and blindly protecting these benefits. It is complete hypocrisy as we haven't spend so much money on a single generation in the history of the UK.

Everything should be means tested. Fortunately I would like to think I will be relatively well off in my old age. I would be ashamed to get free care and a generous index linked pension at the expense of cutting benefits for the poor and less well off working class whilst simultaneously having to keep public sector pay at awful levels in order to balance the books. Apart from children, most of the public sector exists to protect that older generation as well.

I'm not saying that the government shouldn't protect the vulnerable, but it should be means tested. They should focus their efforts on those who are unable to protect and care for themselves.

Means testing is an all around terrible idea and should form no part of any credible benefits or state funding system.

It's expensive, complex, drives significant unintended consequences, acts as a trap, discourages personal responsibility and so on.

What should happen is that the standard payments should be offset against tax instead. Simpler, much more efficient and much less trapping effects.

 

[muon]

Means testing is an all around terrible idea and should form no part of any credible benefits or state funding system.

It's expensive, complex, drives significant unintended consequences, acts as a trap, discourages personal responsibility and so on.

What should happen is that the standard payments should be offset against tax instead. Simpler, much more efficient and much less trapping effects.

Nice convenient argument that screws over people not well off enough to pay tax.

The administration expenses also aren't that high as a proportion but allows for proper allocation to those in need.

I'm not against tax credits but using that as the only tool is absurd.

edit:

Also how does this work for retired people? Tax credits on what exactly?

 

[Dolph]

Nice convenient argument that screws over people not well off enough to pay tax.

It doesn't, at all.

https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/problem-means-testing

It's also worth remembering that even now, less than 50% of households are net contributors.

Edit: with regards to the pension question, you do realise pension income is subject to tax as normal?

Also, I'm not talking about tax credits, you simply pay the benefit and tax the other income (you remove the tax free amount). Simple to administer, simple to manage.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Presumably you're referring to your home. How are you avoiding the gift with reservation of benefit rules without paying a market rent?

Whooooooooooooosh over my head, that's what a Solicitor is for.

This post exemplifies the entire problem.

and back at you double fold.
I'm horrified you have no respect or empathy for our old folk.

 

[muon]

Whooooooooooooosh over my head, that's what a Solicitor is for.



and back at you double fold.
I'm horrified you have no respect or empathy for our old folk.

Stop appealing to emotion. How about base your arguments on facts and what is best for society as a whole.

Emotional arguments are always bad ones and leads to incorrect policy.

 

[Surveyor]

Whooooooooooooosh over my head, that's what a Solicitor is for.

You should ask your solicitor to explain what they're doing.

If you gift an asset, but still derive benefit from the asset, that's a gift with reservation. An example would be gifting your house but reserving a right to carry on living there. In such a situation the house will still form part of your estate at the date of your death. The only way I know around this is for you to pay a full commercial market rent (with rent reviews) backed by a contract with a legal obligation to pay. Income tax would have to be paid by those receiving the rental income and Capital Gains Tax also comes into play if the house is sold.

 

[Narj]

I'd rather they just legalised assisted dying, so that those of us who don't want to spend their last days with someone else wiping our bum can get a clean exit and leave the money to family instead.

 

[Puzzled]

You should ask your solicitor to explain what they're doing.

If you gift an asset, but still derive benefit from the asset, that's a gift with reservation. An example would be gifting your house but reserving a right to carry on living there. In such a situation the house will still form part of your estate at the date of your death. The only way I know around this is for you to pay a full commercial market rent (with rent reviews) backed by a contract with a legal obligation to pay. Income tax would have to be paid by those receiving the rental income and Capital Gains Tax also comes into play if the house is sold.

Read a few stories of parents gifting the house to their children but the council still saying it needs to be taken in to account as an asset towards care costs. I wonder what happens when you see elderly parents and their children put money in to one house. Like on grand designs or escape to the country where the elderly parents move into an annex and the children have the main house for their family. I'm assuming that if the need arises they either pay up for care costs or sell the house to free up the parents assets?