What's this scheme called please

Fingers crossed the £85K cap on the 'care' costs does come into force in October 2023.

I favour a progressive tax system too. Unfortunately that's not where we are. But one day, let's hope. ??

Trying to apportion care depending on whether one thinks they have been a good citizen or not, is even more of a minefield that what we have now.

Oh, I agree. I would probably do very badly out of that arrangement if it came to pass . It is to remove the element of judging that I think we should all pay in and all take out. The lower paid who could not afford to save would pay less in, and the higher paid would pay more (and I would move resources from catching 'benefit scroungers' to catching tax evaders). I think that's as fair as we can get it without having a single pay scale for everyone, which IMO would be a bad idea for all sorts of reasons largely based on human nature.

My interpretation of that quote is that we should all contribute what we can when we are able.

Yes, I agree. And if I have a million pounds today and you have £20, I am clearly more able to contribute than you. I won't be jealous of you because you have had a lovely life and spent all your money - that's your choice. (I don't mean you specifically, you know what I mean) Trying to apportion care depending on whether one thinks they have been a good citizen or not, is even more of a minefield that what we have now.

It would be great if we can all be cared for effectively by the state when we are old and we need it. Roll on the day. But right now, that day is not here. So I'm not going to give up my necessary care and treatment so that somebody else's child can buy a house. I'm not that generous.

There are differences between Scotland and England. Don't know about Wales or N.Ireland but DSil unravelling the rules as his DF is going into care and house jointly owned by his father and mother. She still lives there. House will not be taken into account but his half of savings will. She will get half his work pension but all his actual pension is used and he will get £23 or so pounds a week for sundries. This is in Scotland.

kittylester

Kate1949

Thank everyone. Our house is in both names.

But as joint tenants or tenants in common Kate?

My understanding is that if it is as Tenants in Common you each own a specific share of the house and only your share can be used for care costs. The other oerson retains their share.

In the case of Joint tenants tou both own all the house and whole house can be used to pay the care costs of one of you. But the house cannot be sold and the debt paid until the second one dies or sells.

No. I don’t think so. Look it up on gov.uk. I’d do a link if I knew how.

If the spouse or civil partner is living in the house it cannot be taken into account when assessing care costs.

So if you each own half your partners half may be taken but if you own it jointly it wi t be taken into account until you move out.

I’m really pretty sure about this. If you live there it won’t be racking up a debt for when you die.

Please check it out at the official source.

On topics like this we are bound to have a variety of opinions. What is frustrating is if some of these are not based on a correct understanding of the law or regulations. Some comments have been misleading. No wonder people get confused.
For facts, it is best to check with Gov.uk, Age UK, Citizens Advice or one of the many other reliable sources information. Armed with facts we can then make up our minds according to our own circumstances.

Not to me it wasn't. I'm a simple soul. Or a bit thick!

It was obvious that it was going to be a contentious issue Kate.

Why do so many threads end up in arguments these days? I asked if anyone knew what the scheme (probably a poor choice of word) was. I didn't ask you to comment on my morals. Thanks for taking the time to post anyway.

Some of the fees charged by care homes are ridiculous. Some care in care homes is questionable. We should all pay more taxes throughout our lives to fund care homes run by the NHS which would mean everyone gets equally good care from cradle to grave. But that’s another topic entirely. As it is, the whole system is a minefield.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. No mention of what the kids might be expecting to inherit.

No, and no mention of any other forms of spending what your ability (or luck) has brought you, either . I don't care if people spend their own money on wine women and song (good luck to them!) or live on gruel so they can give the rest to charity. My interpretation of that quote is that we should all contribute what we can when we are able, and be cared for when we need to be, which we would be able to do with a fairer tax system, whilst still allowing people to do as they choose with their own money.

Thank you kitty.

Kate1949

Thank everyone. Our house is in both names.

But as joint tenants or tenants in common Kate?

My understanding is that if it is as Tenants in Common you each own a specific share of the house and only your share can be used for care costs. The other oerson retains their share.

In the case of Joint tenants tou both own all the house and whole house can be used to pay the care costs of one of you. But the house cannot be sold and the debt paid until the second one dies or sells.

Sorry Barmey but I too have always worked very hard, paid my taxes and NI and claimed no benefits other than child allowance (one child as opposed to your five) and State pension. My house is probably worth rather more than yours. Does that mean that if you and I both go into care homes I should subsidise you just so you can leave money to your five children, and to hell with my one?

Barmeyoldbat

don’t really care if some of you think this is morally wrong.

Do you think its morally wrong that my DF should have substandard care, and the State be expected to pay your expenses, so your go (?) can buy a house earlier than they might otherwise have done?

We will certainly have to disagree on that one.

I doubt there is much chance of us ever agreeing, but I don't think either view is morally superior to the other.

It doesn't matter how either of us got to the monetary situation we find ourselves in. Maybe you have £20 in the bank because you spent it on wine, women and song (well you know what I mean ) Or maybe you have £20 in the bank because your life has been incredibly hard and you've done your best, but this is where you've ended up.

Maybe I have a million pounds because I have been completely frugal my whole life, or maybe I invested in Apple 40 years ago and made my fortune.

Either way, I have more money than you today and so if I need to purchase something necessary, not by choice, then I need to spend it and not expect my (non-existent ) children to get it.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. No mention of what the kids might be expecting to inherit.

Financial planning for the future is difficult when we don’t know how long we are going to live!

I agree, and even more so when other people can decide on whether your choice of how to spend your money is 'moral' or otherwise.

Kate, all you were asking was about 'not losing your home'. I presumed you meant that the partner left in it would not be evicted - and you have been re-assured & given information on that point.

Just as in other means-testing situations, there is no easy way to be fair to those who have, over the course of their lives, been frugal and saved, compared to those who '*!%%£$ it up a wall'.

You didn't ask this, but I always recommend looking very carefully at your home, and if you have savings, spending them on 'future proofing', so that you can stay in it for as long as possible. Doesn't always work, but can help.

I have looked into this very thoroughly with the help of a solicitor and a financial advisor and have not found any way of legally preventing my house being part of my estate for inheritance tax or care fees. I am divorced so have a single person allowance for IT of £350,000 plus £175,000 housing allowance. My bungalow alone is above that limit so my children are going to get hit with a high rate of IT unless I use up all my savings then downsize my home and spend the proceeds!

I do have most of my savings in a pension fund which I have not yet touched intending to do drawdown as I need it. This pension fund does not count as part of my estate for IT purposes on my death, it pays out directly to my heirs. So I will leave that untouched as long as possible! But it will still count for care home fees.

I’m actually planning to downsize at some point to a retirement type apartment and use the proceeds from the sale of my house to pay the high annual charges and pay for care at home if necessary.

I view my money as a buffer to pay for my increasing needs as I get older rather than as an inheritance for my children. I would rather help them out now while they are young as and when I have surplus funds.

Financial planning for the future is difficult when we don’t know how long we are going to live!

My property is a very most one and I am determined that on our death my go, five of them, will get to inherit enough money to use towards buying a house and I don’t really care if some of you think this is morally wrong. Heat I I think is morally wrong is people being homeless through high rents for even just a very modest bedsit and the low wages paid to people doing essential rial work. I have paid taxes all my life, the only benefit I ever had was child allowance, I looked after my adult disabled daughter for goodness knows how many years with very little or no help from the state, I did even get attendance allowance as I worked part time. I consider I have saved the state thousands and now I am going to help my go. So I suggest you think before you take the moral highgrounc.

Germanshepherdsmum

Unfortunately the tax you have paid at source won’t fund your care though, will it? Care home fees are at least £1k a week. I doubt anyone on GN has ever paid that level of income tax. Therefore the care of the person with £20 in the bank will be paid for by volver with her hypothetical £1m, and current tax payers.
LOUISA, a trust set up at the age of 81 is done for only one reason - otherwise it would be dealt with in a will.

But if I am in the care home with my £20, I will be being paid for by taxpayers anyway.

If volver and I have both had £1m through our hands, why is it ok for one of us to spend it on children's school fees or exotic holidays and have £20 left, but not for the other to leave it to them in our will? Both of us will have disposed of our assets - I just don't understand why one way of doing it is 'moral' and the other not.

One thing that’s hardly ever mentioned, is that if you’re self funded, at least you can choose the time and place for a care home, instead of being at the mercy of invariably cash-strapped local authorities. Social workers who have to make the decision, will often (understandably) wait until family members doing their best to care are absolutely on their knees with stress and exhaustion.

When I was a frequent user of a forum for carers of people with dementia I read of several truly desperately exhausted carers, including one who told the SW that if she didn’t do something NOW, she was going to take her relative (with dementia) to A&E and leave him/her there. And she meant it. Only then did the SW act.

Unfortunately the tax you have paid at source won’t fund your care though, will it? Care home fees are at least £1k a week. I doubt anyone on GN has ever paid that level of income tax. Therefore the care of the person with £20 in the bank will be paid for by volver with her hypothetical £1m, and current tax payers.
LOUISA, a trust set up at the age of 81 is done for only one reason - otherwise it would be dealt with in a will.

This old chestnut....my mums done a family trust....she did it at 81, 5 years ago when she was fit and well....at 86 she's still fit and well .....my dad died at 61 from cancer...he never got his state pension ...he had worked from when he was 15....its swings and roundabouts to me....but there will always be those for and those against