Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[HazardO]

You gonna be moving when you need home care? Move to Timbuktu or something

We were talking about the family members left behind..

 

[dalehitchy1]

What happens if you want to move, or remortgage?

I doubt you'd get a remortgage at that age. Most banks wouldn't agree to it.

Then again someone could have a really really young wife 50 years younger lol.

 

[Trusty]

We were talking about the family members left behind..

I'm sure they would jot it down on a piece of paper somewhere

 

[Hagar]

What happens if you want to move, or remortgage?

The amount payable for care after your death may be something you would need to tell a prospective mortgage provider about.

However I suspect the bank or building society has first dibs on the money owed and the care provider (council) has whats left above 100k or the full amount if there is enough money in the estate.

 

[jimjamuk]

Glad they have changed their minds on this - bit of an own goal to be honest

 

[VincentHanna]

I doubt you'd get a remortgage at that age. Most banks wouldn't agree to it.

Then again someone could have a really really young wife 50 years younger lol.

I meant in the specific example that we were talking about:

Scenario: Husband, wife, 2 kids (say 2 year old and 4 year old) living in house wholey owned (no mortgage). Husband or wife gets degenerative illness and needs 10 years of expensive care and then dies, leaving the other and a 12 and 14 year old. Do the care costs then come out of the deceased's equity share in the house?

With kids that you you are unlikely to be old. Then my question was what if the living partner then needs to move?

 

[Uther]

Glad they have changed their minds on this - bit of an own goal to be honest

They haven't changes their minds, the 100k cap is still there.

 

[dowie]

Also the amount of people receiving care either at home or in nursing home is 1m atm and set to rise to 3m over the next fews years. If they only needed this care for a short time before dying like dowie claims then I would have thought more people would be dying per annum?

the costs quoted before referred to residential care homes and the previously mentioned guardian article

yes you can also get various levels of care at home - such as someone coming round to help with baths through to three visits a day providing meals etc.. (which is getting to the point where people would otherwise be in residential care homes), there are also nursing homes which cost rather more than residential care... remember at the moment if you're admitted to a nursing home or residential care home right now and you have a long stay there isn't any cap and the floor is only 23k... this policy raises that floor to 100k and they're going to introduce a cap too.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33895/1/dp2769.pdf

The survey found that 72% of new admissions had died after 42 months. The median length of stay was 19.6 months for all admissions. Median length of stay for people admitted to nursing beds was 11.9 months and for residential beds it was 26.8 months.

 

[jimjamuk]

I meant in the specific example that we were talking about:



With kids that you you are unlikely to be old. Then my question was what if the living partner then needs to move?

Why are people speculating about the specifics of a policy based on a few lines - I expect it will be wildly different in practice if it ever came about.
Actually answering my own question - this is GD where we can argue about something that doesn't exist yet like its fact

 

[Uther]

I meant in the specific example that we were talking about:



With kids that you you are unlikely to be old. Then my question was what if the living partner then needs to move?

It's an interesting one, maybe the council will have some sort of claim when you sell? Or the bill will be carried forward to the new property The policy probably seemed like a good idea when written on a napkin during a drunken night on the prosecco, but I don't think they've thought it through.

 

[jimjamuk]

They haven't changes their minds, the 100k cap is still there.

uhh - really - (sorry busy working today for a change) I caught a couple of headlines and the words U Turn - so if its still there which bit of it is a U turn?

 

[Fishbait]

Not the first time something like this "dementia tax" has been done, won't be the last

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/10/dementia-tax-alzheimers-society-elderly-care

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/10/dementia-cancer-nhs-care

 

[dowie]

The amount payable for care after your death may be something you would need to tell a prospective mortgage provider about.

However I suspect the bank or building society has first dibs on the money owed and the care provider (council) has whats left above 100k or the full amount if there is enough money in the estate.

of course they would - just because your home is worth £X doesn't mean you've got £X in assets if there is a mortgage involved too - this proposal is based on your assets not simply the value of the house you live in

 

[Uther]

They are targeting old people who have paid off their mortgages and have a nice juicy house ripe for the picking.

 

[Hagar]

They are targeting old people who have paid off their mortgages and have a nice juicy house ripe for the picking.

If there is more than one inheritor, the house will be sold anyway.

The alternative is general taxation of the working age population.

 

[dowie]

Not the first time something like this "dementia tax" has been done, won't be the last

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/10/dementia-tax-alzheimers-society-elderly-care

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/10/dementia-cancer-nhs-care

I think that is the point people are missing about this - currently people in residential care can be charged down to their last 23k including their home - this proposal raises that floor to 100k

the key difference at the moment is that for non-residential care which is currently assessed on 23k of liquid assets as we don't currently take the home into consideration as no one wants to force people to sell their home - which means essentially some people are better off/protected simply because they've invested more into their property than into savings/investments. Instead if people are allowed to stay in their homes then they can raise the floor to 100k and the system is fairer as everyone is treated in the same way re: their assets regardless of whether they've rented or downsized their house etc..

They are targeting old people who have paid off their mortgages and have a nice juicy house ripe for the picking.

as opposed to currently targeting people right down to the last 23k in residential care

or targeting people who've downsized or are renting but have savings/investments when it comes to non-residential care

 

[HazardO]

remember at the moment if you're admitted to a nursing home or residential care home right now and you have a long stay there isn't any cap and the floor is only 23k... this policy raises that floor to 100k and they're going to introduce a cap too.

Currently you get to keep £23K and your house don't you (Unless I've misunderstood)? And the average house price is a bit more than 77K.

The other thing that bothers me here is the "£100K is a enough for an inheritance". Not too bad if you're a single child, not so much if you have 9 siblings..

 

[Greebo]

You gonna be moving when you need home care? Move to Timbuktu or something

Your partner has died after receiving care. Thats when you still might want to move or are people prisoners in their homes for 10 or 20 years if their partner receives care?

 

[Tunney]

how was your comment relevant to this election then?

The point I'm making is that a job paying £150,000 a year in 2017 probably only paid £62,500 (adjusted for inflation) in 1980.

So, those in high-paying jobs are still better off today - even after an extra 5-10% tax - than they've been historically.

If you want to add the disclaimer that this is true for most industrial nations, go ahead.

 

[Greebo]

They haven't changes their minds, the 100k cap is still there.

Thats a floor not a cap. Eg if your care cost £300k they will take as much of that as they can until you are left with £100k. A cap, which is what they are looking at doing a U turn on, means the maximum deduction allowed might be say £100k in which case in my example they would only take a maximum of £100k even though you might still have £300k equity left in the house.

I think that is the point people are missing about this - currently people in residential care can be charged down to their last 23k including their home - this proposal raises that floor to 100k

the key difference at the moment is that for non-residential care which is currently assessed on 23k of liquid assets as we don't currently take the home into consideration as no one wants to force people to sell their home - which means essentially some people are better off/protected simply because they've invested more into their property than into savings/investments. Instead if people are allowed to stay in their homes then they can raise the floor to 100k and the system is fairer as everyone is treated in the same way re: their assets regardless of whether they've rented or downsized their house etc..

Debatable. Those people who didnt put their money into a home now get to keep £100k instead of £23k which for most people without a house probably means they now pay nothing for care (The Tories budgeted this will cost £1billion). Those people who bought a house, chances are with house values, will have all their care to pay for whether its in a care home or not (which the Tories have budgeted that this will bring in £3 billion - net gain £2 billion).

So in the long run, its better to just rent and make sure you have less than £100k savings whereas anybody buying a house can now lose all of it apart from £100k.