disposing of assets to avoid paying for care has already been mentioned - it doesn't necessarily work and unlike IHT you don't get away with it after 7 years
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
disposing of assets to avoid paying for care has already been mentioned - it doesn't necessarily work and unlike IHT you don't get away with it after 7 years
The Mail headline is hilarious, but I bet the fools will still fall for it. Labour and the Lib Dems really need to go on the attack about this, it's a golden opportunity, but I'm not sure they have it in them.
I guess you haven't looked at the price of bungalows lately!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...isis-chronic-shortage-means-buyers-pay-up-to/
You are missing the point. lets say I sell my house when I retire this year (for example) at the age of 67. I need to spend £350k to leave £100k max of savings so actually I need to spend more than that as I have savings already.
I am expected to live until I am I am 81 (14 years). There is a good chance I will need social care for the last 3 years, some maybe home based, some in a care home.
Therefore, I need to pay rent for perhaps 14 years. £350k/14 = £25k per annum or just over £2k per month. I can rent a better house than the one I own for £2k per month. I still have my state pension and private pension coming in on top which would cover the rent anyway so I can live wildly now as no point if my assets are just going to be used for social care costs anyway after my death.
pfft... labour is targeting things like financial transactions and dreaming about how much they could raise as a result whereas May proposes and idea that ideologically Labour could have easily proposed as one of their own and doesn't rely on fantasy projections but is based on making use of real assets/wealth
Fair enough, I hadn't realised a pensioner could not take out a mortgage. I guess someone in their late 50s/ early 60s still could, however.
I don't think that's a disposal of an asset. You still have the family home, only it's now mortgaged. It seems quite common for this to happen.
Could they really insist that both the family home (mortgaged) and the child's home are *both* sold, to pay for social care?
I guess you haven't looked at the price of bungalows lately!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...isis-chronic-shortage-means-buyers-pay-up-to/
substitute small flat for bungalow and the point is still the same regardless of any nit picking...
nothing to do with the mortgage/house - cash is an asset - giving a six figure sum to a child when you're then left in a situation where you're no longer liable for paying care can quite clearly be viewed as disposing of an asset to avoid paying for care
I'm not really sure what the point you're making is... you're not able to predict when you might become ill/frail... no one is stopping you from doing the same now regardless of this policy... you might end up with 200k in the bank or maybe you'll not have any medical issues and burn through the whole lot then become reliant on the council for accommodation
if you want to spend all of your money in order to avoid having to spend say 50k of it then that is your choice - it seems like a rather odd one to make and isn't exactly the sort of thing most people would be keen to do
Seems ridiculous, that if you do it when you're 50 it's OK, but do the same thing when you're 70 and suddenly it's a problem.
Plenty of people are re-mortgaging their family homes to let their kids get on the housing market. Is this going to bite all those people on the ass? Or are we saying that this is totally legit, so long as you do it when you're 50 not 70.
Haven't they consistently said they are doing this now but have been told it's simply not true by a cross party committee?
All this is going to do is make people release the value in the houses by selling and renting/downsizing/mortgage whatever and spend it except for £100k before they need care.
So in fact, because people's behavior changes, the expected tax revenue in future years wont be as much as the Tories as basing it on. The same argument used against Labour's tax rises on the wealthy.
ANd doesnt get over the fact that because this money only comes back in later years, the Govt is borrowing this money today to pay for social care.
So in fact, because people's behavior changes, the expected tax revenue in future years wont be as much as the Tories as basing it on. The same argument used against Labour's tax rises on the wealthy.
ANd doesnt get over the fact that because this money only comes back in later years, the Govt is borrowing this money today to pay for social care.
not necessarily - then again if old people, with no kids living with them, in 500k homes, were to downsize then perhaps that would be a good thing...
Would rather spend £350k living than have it all go to the government to pay for my social care. Shrugs. Guess thats just me though.
Why is this the go to response?
You believe a career politician, who will do anything to be elected, can meet his wild promises. Delusional or what?
probably, since this has been the case for residential care for a while and most people are not doing that...
yet you're still missing the point that social care isn't likely to cost 250k... but rather more like 50k up to 90k in a more expensive area
so, as pointed out before, if you're stupid enough to want to waste 350k to save spending 50k - 90k then you're free to do so... it isn't however a 'normal' thing to want to do
And that didnt cause a spike in people sorting out their affairs by gifting money to their children, raising a mortgage on their home and giving that to their children etc? That only affected 1 in 4 people needing care. Now that will affect 4 times as many people so more people are going to look at it and perhaps downsize, sell up and rent etc.
if retired people living in 4 bed homes or occupying prime real estate in say central London want to downsize and free up that sort of property for others who might well make better use of it then that is probably a good thing... however disposal of assets to avoid paying for care has been discussed already in here and councils certainly can get you for it
Like I said before - if this was a Labour or Lib Dem policy (which it quite easily could be) I reckon plenty of the people currently criticising it probably wouldn't be doing so. In fact I'm still amused that certain people are trying to argue against wealthy people having to contribute for care...
at least I'm consistent in my views
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 368
Gosh what a throughly costed manifesto the tories just released, i dont think.
- Status