Trust wills and care home fees

It’s not for me to condone or condemn. I understand A wanting to protect her assets if the alternative is paying for the same care as B when B is getting hers free though - particularly if A has saved and B has spent from similar lifetime earnings.

If your local authority can prove that you put your assets, house etc, in trust, with the intention of avoiding paying care fees then they can take you to court and have the trust voided, in order for the money to be used for that purpose.

You also need to remember that your LA can put you in any care home they choose, including one, well away from friends and family and where care and conditions are poor because it is cheap.

Personally, I think anyone who tries to protect their estate from paying their necessary living costs, including care fees is - well the words I would use are best not written down -

If you own a house or have large cash assets, you are among the better off in Society and if you are happy for those poorer than them to subsidise their care through their taxes, so that the house owner can leave a large sum of money to their already privileged children -well, as I said, it would be better for me not to express any opinion of them.

I suspect your opinion is exactly the same as mine MOnica.

I try not to suggest that the words I would use to express my feelings about those whose opinion differs from mine are unprintable . It rather suggests paucity of vocabulary or an indefensible stance. I do, however, get irritated by assumptions made about others (whether on this topic or the many others on which this happens on GN).

The fact that someone has assets to pass on (usually the house they live in) does not necessarily mean that they are privileged, any more than the fact that someone does not own a house automatically means that they have lived a life of penury.

Further, believing that tax should be high enough to cover everyone's care is not a sign of a belief in unfairness or support for inequality - quite the reverse. It would mean that those who (unfairly) have not made ££££ just for sitting in their house are left with at least something to pass down, just as those who live in parts of the country where this is a given are able to do. It would give people real choices about how to spend the money they earn, without the threat of disadvantaging their children by saving for old age.

Yes, there are many people who struggle to live day to day, and are unable to save. Their plight is not addressed by making savers pay for care, though - but higher taxes could, with political will, make a difference to their lives.

I understand that those who have benefited from massive inflation in house prices (so are protected from the threat of being wiped out by care fees) are happy to let this unfairness continue, as it protects their status as among the better-off. Their point of view is valid, even though I disagree with them, and I don't feel the need to censor my thoughts about what I see as a rather smug 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

I fail to see what is 'smug' or 'I'm all right Jack' in saying that given the present care regime, it is wrong for those who can afford to pay for their care to give away their assets and rely on taxpayers who may be considerably less well off, or those who are paying full fees because they have not given away their assets, to fund them. To keep your assets to pay for your care is far from protecting any perceived status.

That's a point of view, and as I say, I respect it. It is not my POV, however, for the reasons I have outlined. It is one of those things where there is little room for compromise, as the viewpoints are based on different perceptions of what is fair.

My last post was not about that, as I have already outlined what I think and why, but was a response to the notion that my viewpoint is so far beyond the pale that an articulate poster is unable to find permissible words to express her disagreement.

Doodledog

Germanshepherdsmum

I don't quite understand what you say, Doodledog, in the context of this thread. The OP has something to leave behind - her house and possibly money. Are you suggesting that she should be able to give this to her daughter rather than using it to 'pay her way' if she needs care, leaving others in care who have not given away assets and the taxpayers of the day (who may have little or nothing in the way of assets through no fault of their own) to pay for her care?

Wills are totally irrelevant as they don't come into play until the testator has died.

I think that taxpayers should pay for everyone's care, and have their own care paid in their turn.

It would mean we all paid more tax, but would have less to pay out when (or if) we needed help.

I agree with Doodledog. However, we are in a world where the government pretends that running a county is the bookkeeping equivalent of running a household. Using the Treasury system we have been putting 'zero' in the column headed "free care for all".

Even if we decided to start today, we would not (under bookkeeping rules) receive free care. If a "free care tax" was introduced the government would exempt those who cannot pay enough before an age when they would need it. They would leave them (us) on the system we have now. It would become one of the many "legacy" systems (like the "old" state pension).

The extra tax would likely affect the capital and capital goods people could amass during a life time. So your ability to leave an inheritance minus the cost of care would still not exist. You may also be paying upfront for something you don't use. The positive would be that free care could then be universal and apply whatever your working income was.

We do pay tax which goes into the column "help for those with low incomes plus low savings/investments". This help is universally available for all who find themselves in these circumstances. People receiving it do lose the majority of their income - 'Care' is never "free".

If posters don't like the system they could try and change it ... for our grandchildren. It will not/cannot change for us under a bookkeeping Treasury system.

We are not talking about what should happen, we are talking about what is happening.

Anyone who owns a house is in a priveleged position because they have an asset with a large monetary value. In the majority of cases that will mean that their children will have had access to better state schools, better further education and better careers.

People should expect to fund their own lives from their own assets, while they have any. That means that if they need to pay care fees and have access to a large capital sum that should used to pay them first before looking to government support.

Government support comes from tax payers money. I think it outrageous that tax payers on lowish incomes and with no prospect of ever owning a property and even struggling to rent should be expected to subsidise the care home fees of those more than able to pay for themselves, just so that they can leave money to their children.

How anyone can accept such money, knowing they receive it at the expense of taxpayers who cannot even afford homes. It is close to blood money.

I agree that elderly care should be provided from central funding and taxation, the same way as education and health is. Yes, sometimes it will be 'unfair' ie if you pay those higher taxes and then do not need personal and social care when elderly, but; if we applied those same factors, it is unfair that those fortunate to enjoy good health effectively subsidise those in worse health. I am glad that I have not needed to have much call on the NHS, and I would be equally glad if I did not need elderly care provided by the state, even if I had paid for it through additional taxation.

Doodledog

Oh, and my will is not a trust one. Our solicitor advised it, but we decided that we valued choice in old age more than money.

All the same, I get sick of hearing from people who (I assume) have enough money to leave some behind deciding on behalf of those who don't that there is a moral imperative to 'pay their way'.

I agree Doodledog, and with your previous post too. It is certainly a far from level playing field with regard to care home fees. There is also a north/south differential to take into consideration. A lovely home in the south costs nearly twice that in the north. And believe me, when finding a care home for my mother, we saw some costing around £1000 a week that I wouldn’t have put a dog in. She now pays substantially more than that for a beautiful home, but her money will run out after about a year or so.

My savings won’t pay for very long in care, but maybe my children will top up the fees if necessary. Or not!
There is no system which is completely fair. I could fritter my savings away now or spend them on lavish holidays and leave nothing to fund my care costs, but I won’t. I don’t envisage needing care for maybe another 15 years or more,maybe, but if I did just spend the money by living more lavishly that is unlikely to be seen as deprivation of assets.

Doodledog My response would be the same whether our house was worth £90,000 or £9 million. I do not adjust my principles to match my income, whatever others may do.

Fair enough - me neither. I'm not suggesting that you do. In fact from what I've seen of you on here I would have been surprised if you had.

My comments are not about that, though, but about the inherent unfairness of the system, and about the rather extreme way in which you expressed your feelings towards those who disagree with you.

It happens to be an issue I feel very strongly about. I have no idea why. I think it is the injustice inflicted on the have-nots by the haves.

M0nica:
We are not talking about what should happen, we are talking about what is happening.

It was the OP who said, "I've worked hard paid my dues and this should be for her inheritance."

She has not "paid dues" that would cover free Care. I don't think it unreasonable to answer her with an explanation that includes how that could happen and how, if it did, it could not include her at this point in life.

Just for information, I do prefer not to be told how to answer people's comments - just so you know.

M0nica

It happens to be an issue I feel very strongly about. I have no idea why. I think it is the injustice inflicted on the have-nots by the haves.

I see it very differently - as a means of keeping working and lower-middle class people ‘in their place’ by preventing them from giving their offspring the leg up that the ‘haves’ take for granted.

I also feel very strongly about it, but I recognise that others may disagree and respect their right to do so.

I think it's a cop out to opt out of paying for something so important, just because you don't want to pay for it.
Trust will; aptly named.
Syphon away your money and trust that someone worse off will pick up the bill for you.

Which is precisely what happens if you spend your money as you go. A new car here, a foreign holiday there, nights out, nice clothes- should people be vilified for spending on things like that if the result is that someone else gets to pick up the tab when they’ve run out of funds in old age, or does the vilification only apply to those who have saved?

As I posted on a different thread, the demographics of Britain, along with most Western countries are skewed because there are such a large( and increasing) number of old people, and a shrinking percentage of young workers. Whatever your thoughts are, there is no chance, in economic terms, of this smaller group of taxpayers supporting a larger group of elderly , and potentially, needy and expensive people.
All of the rhetoric about how the state should/ could/ must do this will not replace the reality. We must look to fund ourselves, if we can, because there is no alternative.
And as to who will provide the workforce of carers we might need - that's a debate for another day, perhaps.

I wonder if you realise that what you are saying is a purely political view Chocolatelovinggran and that others do not all share it. Your particular view of how a country's economy works is also one that others will not agree with.

You could start with "who does a country's wealth belong to" and work from there and you would get different views from the one you put forward.

Whatever your thoughts are, there is no chance, in economic terms, of this smaller group of taxpayers supporting a larger group of elderly , and potentially, needy and expensive people.

Does this apply regardless of how the elderly have spent (or saved) their money in youth and middle age? If so, how do you plan to regulate their spending whilst keeping money circulating in the economy and simultaneously ensuring that they are self-supporting if they need care? Or would you encourage everyone to spend (and thus circulate the money), even though it would mean that 'the taxpayer' picks up the tab? What about people who have never paid income tax? Do they still get free care? Or does the hatred of 'freeloaders' extend to them, too?

Far easier to pick on those who have paid in for decades, maybe bought a house to live in and hoped to give their children a better start in life than they had (or more likely grandchildren, by the time the children are in with a chance of an inheritance). Make them think that they are 'privileged', and should be proud to get back in their place so that the next generations can start from scratch again - it makes them work harder. Meanwhile, those who started from an advantaged position (maybe simply by the accident of living in a house that is worth 20 times more than it cost) can afford to pay care home fees and pass on a comfortable remainder.

Levelling up? Given that for every person who gets a leg up, someone else becomes slightly less elite, that is never going to get the popular vote, is it?

GillT57

^I've worked hard paid my dues and this should be for her inheritance^

Effectively what you are saying is that my children as tax payers should pay your care fees so that your daughter can inherit.

100% agree. Absolutely disgusting ffoxglove. Enjoy your local authority care home where it’s falling apart with low staff numbers and not the best facilities. And please dont let your daughter come into the care home and complain about all this because it’s not up to the standards of a private care home. YOU cannot have it both ways. And yes I work in a local authority home and see what YOU are trying to do everyday. Rich people living cheek by jowl with the poor just so their children can inherit a pile. Should not be allowed.

I assume that you live in England.
Laws are different in Scotland. Always see a good solicitor.

We should have a tax funded National Care Service like the NHS - free at the point of delivery. Our present system, if we can call it that, is a terrible hotch potch which mainly benefits care home owners, some of which are large companies and which fails in various ways. Johnson's rise in National Insurance will do very little to help. We don't expect NHS patients to fund their own treatment so why do we expect it of people needing care?

My late DH and I set up a trust that would, on first death, leave that person’s half of the house to our AC. This was not done to avoid paying care home fees, but to avoid the whole estate paying for only one person’s care. I knew that if I predeceasd DH, he would have to go into care. I had no objection to his half of our house paying for his care, but if he’d inherited my share, that would have been used also, which doesn’t seem quite so fair. Now, I only own half of the house, and, should I require care, it will go towards the cost. Trust me, all his other assets went to pay for his care.