So you will now lose your home if you have an illness that is long term yet if you rent you will pay nothing, are the Conservatives really ahead in the polls?
Dementia Tax.
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 10,732
- Reaction score
- 10,669
Hasn't this been the case for years.
Sell you house to family when you hit 60 and rent from them. Give all you money away, happy days
Sell you house to family when you hit 60 and rent from them. Give all you money away, happy days
Surprisingly its all older people who are polling Conservatives
Younger people much more pro labour..
I am pretty surprised by the Tory manifesto.
Younger people much more pro labour..
I am pretty surprised by the Tory manifesto.
Oneflewover
Landlord.
Yep, has always been the case if you move into residential care, but the tories are proposing that if you stay at home and need care the value of your home will be taken into account when calculating the charge. Payment deferred until after death I believe.
I don't like it, but how do you tackle the rising costs of care? Tax everyone more? Your typical tory voter apparently doesn't like paying more tax.........
As Oneflewover says it's care in your home not payment for being in a nursing home.
Even though I am not on a good wage I wold happily pay a little extra in tax if it was guaranteed to go into social services, taking part or all of my kids inheritance off them if I am struck down by one of these terrible illnesses having paid tax and national insurance all my working life stinks.
Even though I am not on a good wage I wold happily pay a little extra in tax if it was guaranteed to go into social services, taking part or all of my kids inheritance off them if I am struck down by one of these terrible illnesses having paid tax and national insurance all my working life stinks.
Considering that the average value of a home in the UK is about ã250K then basically if you get Altheimers your kids will inherit far less than if you drink yourself to oblivion...
What gets me is that the Tories propose it as a way of `spreading the burden' onto older people, but it actually hits their kids.
What gets me is that the Tories propose it as a way of `spreading the burden' onto older people, but it actually hits their kids.
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
My understanding is...
When the authorities means tests for care in a care/nursing home all assets are valued including the home. It's been like that for years... and years. The manifesto proposes that the threshold below which you pay nothing towards your care is being raised from ã23K to ã100K. So there is a benefit. And the authorities will not pursue selling off the family home to pay for care until the care beneficiary dies, which they can do at present.
The down side is that if you are receiving care at home the means test will extends to the family home.
So there are benefits to some and losses to others.
When the authorities means tests for care in a care/nursing home all assets are valued including the home. It's been like that for years... and years. The manifesto proposes that the threshold below which you pay nothing towards your care is being raised from ã23K to ã100K. So there is a benefit. And the authorities will not pursue selling off the family home to pay for care until the care beneficiary dies, which they can do at present.
The down side is that if you are receiving care at home the means test will extends to the family home.
So there are benefits to some and losses to others.
shepp
Regular.
Don't worry, apparently mass immigration for the past 20 years is paying for our old age care?
geetee
Landlord.
The current system discounts the value of the home as an asset if you have a spouse that needs to live there also otherwise when the person with dementia dies their partner loses their home. Not sure if this will continue to be the case as Corbyn was just saying this morning that a husband may die and their partner will be forced to sell their house.If that is the case then that is a change to the current system that would be catastrophic.
The think that has always upset me is that you can be terminally ill with any other disease and the NHS will pick up all of the costs however if your illness is dementia or Alzheimers then the cost is too much for the country to bear. It is still an illness and yes it should fall under NHS remit and tax or NI adjusted accordingly.
We will still end up with a situation where the gamblers, drinkers and spendthrifts of the world will end up below the threshold and those who scrimp and save will lose everything, maybe not in their lifetime, so what is the point of amassing any wealth at all? The whole system works against anyone who has made provision for their old age or money to pass on to family as they actually pay more for provision in the same care home as someone else who is funded by the Council, a double kick in the teeth.
You may realise that I will not be voting Tory!
Vambrace
Junior Member
I've always been uneasy with wastrels getting away with things while prudent savers end up losing everything. But let's face facts; costs of providing care, both at home and in a residential environment, dwarf those that existed 20+ years ago. This has to be paid for somehow and other options include:
- broader tax increases (history shows that parties proposing this have a hard time getting elected)
- increase tax revenue through a stronger economy (most parties promise this!)
- spending cuts elsewhere (neither the scope nor the appetite within the population for this)
- insurance - something that could be explored in my opinion, although it would possibly be prohibitively expensive for most people
As has already been suggested, if you want your children to benefit after your ultimate demise, sell your property to them for �ã1.00 (there are legal reasons why this is better than giving it to them) and rent it back.
- broader tax increases (history shows that parties proposing this have a hard time getting elected)
- increase tax revenue through a stronger economy (most parties promise this!)
- spending cuts elsewhere (neither the scope nor the appetite within the population for this)
- insurance - something that could be explored in my opinion, although it would possibly be prohibitively expensive for most people
As has already been suggested, if you want your children to benefit after your ultimate demise, sell your property to them for �ã1.00 (there are legal reasons why this is better than giving it to them) and rent it back.
MickDundee
Landlord.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2016
- Messages
- 5,471
- Reaction score
- 4,033
Over 65s get free social care up here, but any earlier than that you are screwed. Former Dundee United and Man U player Frank Kopel's wife has been campaigning for free care for all who need it but even the SNP (who are supposed to be the most left wing of the parties) aren't interested.
http://frankslaw.org
http://frankslaw.org
So watch out all spouses of home owners who fall ill in later life, Jezzer's got you in his sights.
Norfolk79
Legendary Beer Drinker
To be fair the SNP are only interested in independence, they don't really care for the day to day running of the country.
The wee Krankie is obsessed with having another vote, she does not care about the day to day welfare of the scottish people , i visit scotland, regular my best mate for 50yrs lives in Dunbar, We talk on the phone 3-4 times a week, and he says a lot of the people are fed up with her continual whining about Independence and the EU.
chub1
Junior Member
I really wish there was some form of cap on what the homes charge. One on the news last night had a TV in the lounge which must have been from the stone age and the decor almost matched it.Obviously no idea of it's charges to residents but bet your life they were extortionate.
As a home owner i don't object to stumping up some dosh if it came to it to go into care,what i do object to is that i/we scrimmped and saved to get our house and have spent a lot of money on it's upkeep which we hope to pass onto our kids but this isn't going to happen if we have to have care later.
I now think that renting(as our kids are doing) is the way to go rather than buying.
As a home owner i don't object to stumping up some dosh if it came to it to go into care,what i do object to is that i/we scrimmped and saved to get our house and have spent a lot of money on it's upkeep which we hope to pass onto our kids but this isn't going to happen if we have to have care later.
I now think that renting(as our kids are doing) is the way to go rather than buying.
I've been a homeowner but now rent. Your assumption is correct, at least if you get a great landlord. The life of my family and myself is a thousand times better and without stress compared to when we had the house/ mortgage. And when one or both of us gets ill in old age the bloody state can pay for it cos we won't have a house for that. I've no guilt over that - I've worked all my life/paid taxes/never claimed benefits etc, so a little payback in my autumn years won't be amiss.
There are also a few legal issues with doing that,
Firstly atm you need to do it now and hope you aren't affected within the next 7 years (deprivation of assets i believe is the legal term) .
Secondly should your children marry or shack up with someone and then split there will be a whole legal argument arising regarding there spouse/partners claim to half there assets which would include that nice 3 bed semi you just left them, basically not only is it your siblings you need to trust but also who they live with and any children they have even from another previous marriage.
Thirdly there could well be issues arising from both inheritance and capital gains tax, CGT becomes payable on any property that is sold that is not the main residence, therefore further down the line if/when said children decide to sell the property they could see a huge CGT bill.
Going down that route requires a very good solicitor who is able to point you in the right direction, most likely putting property into trust though there where loopholes around that which i believe where recently tightened up by HMRC.
Good post :thumb:
I fully agree a visit to a good solicitors in the first place is the best advice anyone can have if they are considering this course of action.
HRMC the Tories instrument of money generation they would take the skin off your back if they could, the disabled are f****ed, now its the old peoples turn, how can any one believe these lying self serving B*******ds, promise every thing deliver FA how much housing did Camoron and Osbourn promise,, they deliverd less than 5% of quoted and that was sold off to private, not an ounce of social housing was created. They have a long record of being lying B*****ds nothing will change.
MyQul
Chairman of the Bored
I see T.May has now done a u-turn on this. What I'd like to know is where were all the squaking pensioners who realised that would they get hit in the pocket by this when other sections of society were getting done over by the Tories. Chickens coming home to roost I think.
